Datasets:

nkandpa2

/

regulations

like 0

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0169

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.737403

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0171

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.738159

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0172

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.738842

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0173

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.739604

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0174

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.740299

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0175

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.740985

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0176

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.741698

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0177

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.742455

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0178

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.743224

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0179

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.744031

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0180

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.744832

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0005-0001

Supporting & Related Material

Docket NO: OAR­ 2002­ 0005­ 0001 Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the Disposal Regulations; Alternative Provisions Background Information Document for Amendments to 40 CFR 194.8 (b) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Washington, DC 20460 July 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1 A. Current Provisions and Summary of Pertinent Elements ........................ 1 B. Waste Components and Waste Descriptions ................................. 2 B. 1 Radiological Waste Components ................................... 3 B. 2 Non­ Radiological Waste Components ............................... 5 B. 3 General Waste Descriptions ...................................... 5 C. Description of Waste Generators ......................................... 6 D. Current Inspection Process .............................................. 8 II. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNICAL ELEMENTS EXAMINED ........................ 12 DURING INSPECTIONS A. Acceptable Knowledge ................................................ 13 A. 1. Overview of Technical Elements ................................. 13 A. 2. Technical Description of System or Measurement Device( s) ............ 14 A. 3. Effect of Waste Matrix Type on Measurement ....................... 17 A. 4. Scope of Possible EPA Approvals for Acceptable Knowledge .......... 17 B. Nondestructive Assay (NDA) ........................................... 18 B. 1 Overview of Technical Elements .................................. 18 B. 2: Technical Description of System or Measurement Device( s) ............ 19 B. 2.1 General System Information ............................. 19 B. 2.2 Neutron Systems ....................................... 21 B. 2.3 Passive­ Active Neutron Counters ......................... 23 B. 2.4 Photon Emission and NDA ............................... 23 B. 2.5 Gamma Ray Spectrometry Systems ........................ 25 B. 2.6 Calorimetry Instruments ................................ 25 B. 3: Effect of Waste Matrix or Waste Type on Measurement ................ 25 B. 3.1 Neutron Counting Systems ............................... 26 B. 3.2 Photon Measuring Systems .............................. 27 B. 4 Scope of Possible EPA Approvals for Nondestructive Assay ............ 27 C. Visual Examination and Radiography ..................................... 28 C. 1 Overview of Technical Elements ................................. 29 C. 1.1 RTR Document Review .................................. 29 C. 1.2 Additional Verification­ RTR ............................. 31 C. 1.3 VE Document Review .................................. 33 C. 1.4 Additional Verification­ VE .............................. 35 C. 2 Technical Description of System or Measurement Device( s) ........... 37 C. 2.1 Radiography .......................................... 37 C. 2.2 Visual Examination .................................... 38 C. 3 Effect of Waste Matrix or Waste Type on Measurement ............... 39 C. 4 Scope of Possible EPA Approvals for Radiography and Visual Exam .... 39 D. WIPP Waste Information System and Data Validation ........................ 40 D. 1 Overview of Technical Elements ................................. 40 D. 1.1 Data Validation/ Verification and WWIS Inspection Components 41 D. 1.2 Demonstration of WWIS Implementation .................. 42 D. 1.3 Personnel Qualifications ............................... 42 D. 2 Technical Description of Measurement Device ...................... 43 D. 3 Effect of Waste Matrix or Waste Type on Measurement ................ 43 D. 4 Scope of EPA Approvals for Data Validation/ Verification and the WWIS .. 44 III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNED ........................... 45 A. Summary of Results ................................................... 45 B. Lessons Learned ...................................................... 50 IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON EPA INSPECTIONS .................... 52 V. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................... 56 REFERENCES ............................................................... 57 ACRONYM LIST A& PCT Active and Passive Computed Tomography AK Acceptable Knowledge Am Americium APNEA Active and Passive Neutron Examination and Assay ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers BID Background Information Document BIR Baseline Inventory Report CA Compliance Assessment CAO U. S. Department of Energy Carlsbad Area Office (now the Carlsbad Field Office) CAR Corrective Action Report CBFO U. S. Department of Energy Carlsbad Field Office CCA Compliance Certification Application CCD Charge Collection Device CCP Centralized Characterization Project Cf Californium CH­ TRU Contact­ Handled Transuranic Waste Cm Curium CPR cellulosics, plastics, rubber Cs Cesium CT Computed Tomography DOE U. S. Department of Energy DR Digital Radiography DTP Detailed Technical Procedure EEG Environmental Evaluation Group eV Electron Volt FRAM Fixed Energy Response Function Analysis with Multiple Efficiencies FY Fiscal Year GEA Gamma Energy Assay 2 H Deuterium 3 H Tritium HANDSS­ 55 Handling and Segregating System He Helium HENC High Efficiency Neutron Counter HPGe High Purity Germanium IDC Item Description Code INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory IPAN Imaging Passive Active Neutron Counter KV Kilovolt kVp kilovolts peak LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LDA Linear Diode Array LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory MCS Mobile Characterization Services msec Millisecond NCR Nonconformance Reports NDA Nondestructive Assay NDE Nondestructive Evaluation NMC Neutron Multiplicity Counters NMED New Mexico Environment Department Np Neptunium NQA Nuclear Quality Assurance NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTS Nevada Test Site OJT On­ The­ Job Training ORIA EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air PA Performance Assessment PADC Passive Active Drum Counter PAN Passive­ Active Neutron PCB polychlorinated biphenyls PDP Performance Demonstration Program Pu Plutonium QA Quality Assurance QAPjP Quality Assurance Project Plan QAPP Quality Assurance Program Plan QC Quality Control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 RFETS Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site RH­ TRU Remote­ Handled Transuranic Waste RTG Radioisotopic Thermal Generators RTR Real­ Time Radiography SGS Segmented Gamma Scanner SGSAS Segmented Gamma Scanner Assay System SOP Standard Operating Procedures Sr Strontium SRIC Southwest Research and Information Center SRS Savannah River Site SWEPP SGRS Stored Waste Examination Pilot Plant Gamma Ray Spectrometer SWEPP PAN Stored Waste Examination Pilot Plant Passive Active Neutron Counter TGS Tomographic Gamma Scanners TGS CAN Tomographic Gamma Can Scanners TMFA Transuranic and Mixed Waste Focus Area TRU Transuranic TRUCON Transuranic Package Transporter­ II Content Codes TSDF Treatment, Storage, Disposal, Recycling Facilities TWBIR Transuranic Waste Baseline Inventory Report U Uranium UCL90 Upper 90 Percent Confidence Limit V Volt VE Visual Examination VEE VE Expert WAC Waste Acceptance Criteria WAGS Waste Assay Gamma Spectrometer WAP Waste Analysis Plan WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant WMC Waste Matrix Code WMP Waste Material Parameters WWIS WIPP Waste Information System 1 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Background Information Document (BID) is to explain the Agency's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) transuranic (TRU) waste generator inspection process in support of alternative provisions for 40 CFR Part 194.8, "Approval Process for Waste Shipment from Waste Generator Sites for Disposal at the WIPP." Specifically, the Agency is proposing to revise section 194.8( b). This document presents: I. The current regulatory provisions and the basis for inspections, a summary of wastes that require inspection, and an overview of the current inspection approach. II. A summary discussion of the major technical elements examined during waste characterization inspections at generator sites, including acceptable knowledge (AK), nondestructive assay (NDA), radiography (such as real­ time radiography, or RTR), visual examination (VE), and data validation/ data transfer (via the WIPP Waste Information System, or WWIS). These discussions present what inspectors examined and how the results impact EPA's assessment of the waste characterization process. Technical descriptions of measurement and examination devices are included, as well as discussion of the impact of different waste matrices on the effectiveness of the measuring or examination device, and the range of waste types that the Agency may be able to approve in the course of an inspection. III. A summary of results and general conclusions reached by Agency inspectors from May 1998 through the present. This section identifies the number, scope, and results of technical inspections at the generator/ storage sites. IV. Examples of public comments on inspection notices and docketed materials. V. Conclusions. I. A Current Provisions and Summary of Pertinent Elements As specified in §194.24( b)( 2) of the Compliance Criteria, the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) was required to conduct an analysis to identify waste components important to performance assessment (PA). Section 194.24( c) deals with the identification of waste limits associated with these critical components, as well as how the limits are included in performance assessments (§ 194.32) and compliance assessments (§ 194.54). In addition, DOE must specify how waste components will be identified, quantified, tracked, and controlled. Important components are summarized in Section I. B of this BID. Waste characterization, as defined in §194.24( c), is necessary to ensure that waste emplaced in the repository is consistent with the parameters established in the performance 2 assessment (§ 194.32) and compliance assessment (§ 194.54), and that limitations (or constraints) on radionuclides and other waste components established by EPA's certification decisions are not exceeded. Waste characterization is also used to ensure that the actual waste inventory is consistent with the waste inventory estimates presented in DOE's Baseline Inventory Report (BIR), which was used in performance and compliance assessment (PA and CA) calculations. Waste characterization activities performed by DOE to demonstrate compliance with §194.24( c) include a "system of controls," involving characterization techniques as well as waste tracking and WIPP inventory identification and management. In the WIPP certification rulemaking, EPA evaluated waste characterization information provided by DOE in its Compliance Certification Application (CCA) and amended the Compliance Criteria by adding section 194.8. Section 194.8 specifies the waste characterization approval process for DOE waste generator sites. Condition 3 of the certification provides that DOE may not ship waste to the WIPP from any waste stream ­ other than wastes from specified waste streams ­ until EPA has approved processes for characterizing such waste streams in accordance with the section 194.8 approval process. Section 194.8( b) requires that, "[ f] or each waste stream or group of waste streams at a site proposed for disposal at WIPP," DOE must provide information on how process knowledge will be used for waste characterization of the waste stream( s), and must implement a system of controls at the site, in accordance with §194.24( c)( 4). Section 194.8( b) also states that EPA will conduct an ". . . an inspection of a Department audit for the purpose of evaluating the use of process knowledge and the implementation of a system of controls for each waste stream or group of waste streams at a waste generator site." Moreover, DOE must demonstrate that each site has procedures in place to communicate with DOE's WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS). The WWIS is an electronic database that contains information related to the characterization, certification, shipment, and emplacement of TRU waste at the WIPP. In accordance with section 194.8, EPA must announce scheduled inspections in the Federal Register, place relevant DOE documents in the docket, and solicit public comment on those documents for at least 30 days. EPA also must provide written audit or inspection decisions and place these decisions in the public dockets. Section 194.8 also provides that subsequent to any positive determination of compliance under this approval process, EPA intends to conduct inspections, in accordance with §194.21 and §194.24( h), to confirm the continued compliance of the programs approved. The results of such inspections are made available to the public through the Agency's public dockets, as described in §194.67. I. B Waste Components and Waste Descriptions As required by § 194.24( b)( 2) and § 194.24( c), DOE identified the waste components that were expected to have a significant effect on disposal system performance and the emplacement limits for these components in Chapter 4 (Table 4­ 10) of the Compliance Certification Application and in Appendices WCA and WCL (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item II­ G­ 1, Volume XIX). DOE must 3 determine the quantities of these components in TRU waste containers. Based on DOE's analysis, EPA regulates the waste components discussed below. I. B. 1 Radiological Waste Components As discussed in Section 24. A. 6 of CARD 24 (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item V­ B­ 2), EPA concluded that DOE appropriately identified ten isotopes most significant to the PA, which EPA listed as 241 Am, 244 Cm, 137 Cs, 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, 241 Pu, 90 Sr, 233 U, and 234 U (the cesium and strontium isotopes and 233 U are important to remote­ handled TRU waste). These ten isotopes significant to PA comprise about 99 percent of the EPA units anticipated within the WIPP waste inventory. CARD 31, Application of Release Limits, contains an explanation of EPA units for radioisotopes (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item V­ B­ 2). EPA determined that about 90 percent of the total anticipated inventory of 6.55 x 10 6 curies at closure is expected to be contributed by the following seven isotopes: 241 Am, 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, 241 Pu, 244 Cm, and 234 U (Figure 1). See also EPA's Technical Support Document for Section 194.24: Consolidated Technical Support Document – Compliance Certification Review of Waste Characterization Requirements (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item V­ B­ 15). DOE identified the following ten radionuclides in Appendix WCL (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item II­ G ,Volume XIX) as subject to identification and quantification: ° 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, and 242 Pu; ° 241 Am; ° 233 U, 234 U, and 238 U; ° 90 Sr; and ° 137 Cs. EPA examines tracking of the Appendix WCL list during inspections because the amount of 241 Pu and 244 Cm may be derived from measurements of isotopes on the WCL list. DOE must track these isotopes against the inventory estimates used in the performance assessment (the inventory estimates are listed in CARD 31, Table 3). As stated in Appendix WCL, "[ T] he performance assessment is sensitive to relative changes in inventory curie content as a function of radionuclide decay and ingrowth over time. The magnitude of change in the total curie content depends on the initial ratios of the total activities of the assayed radionuclides at the time of repository closure. Accordingly, the results of the performance assessment analysis are conditional on the ratios assumed. . .." Consequently, the inventory estimates upon which EPA's initial certification is based function as constraints on the amount of the key isotopes that may be disposed in the WIPP. Changes to the inventory estimates would necessitate further analysis by DOE of the effect( s) on the performance assessment, and perhaps, a modification of the certification. Figure 1. Percentage of Total Inventory Contributed by PA­ Significant Isotopes (Curies) 4 Pu­ 240 2.89% U­ 234 0.01% All Others 11.93% Cm­ 244 0.43% Am­ 241 6.02% Pu­ 239 10.69% Pu­ 241 32.94% Pu­ 238 35.09% Source: EPA T echnical S upport Document for Section 194.24 (Air Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item V­ B­ 15, Section 4.2.3) I. B. 2 Non­ Radiological Waste Components 5 In addition, DOE identified other waste components that were expected to have a significant effect on disposal system performance and which require limits (Appendix WCL, Table WCL­ 1). The non­ radiological waste components with limiting values are: ° Ferrous metals (iron): minimum of 2x10 7 kilograms; ° Cellulosics/ plastic/ rubber: maximum of 2x10 7 kilograms; ° Free water emplaced with waste: maximum of 1684 cubic meters; and ° Nonferrous metals (metals other than iron): minimum of 2x10 3 kilograms I. B. 3 General Waste Descriptions EPA examines general waste descriptions prepared by DOE sites to understand how radiological/ non­ radiological components are grouped and assessed. Wastes can be assigned waste material parameters that encompass those components with limiting values identified by DOE. The DOE identified (Appendix BIR of the CCA) the following 12 different waste material parameters and 3 different contents packaging materials which are tracked by sites and which allows quantification of non­ radionuclide waste components: Waste Material Parameters ° Iron­ base metal/ alloys ° Aluminum­ base metal/ alloys ° Other metal/ alloys ° Other inorganic materials ° Vitrified materials ° Cellulosics ° Rubber ° Plastics ° Solidified inorganic materials ° Solidified organic materials ° Cement (solidified) ° Soils Contents Packaging Materials ° Steel ° Plastic ° Lead (for RH­ TRU waste only) Waste generator sites typically group waste by "waste streams," which are defined as ". . . waste material generated from a single process or from an activity that is similar in material, physical form, and hazardous constituents" (Appendix WAP). Waste streams are not defined by 6 their radionuclide content, but instead are grouped by chemical, physical, and process similarities. The Transuranic Waste Baseline Inventory Report (TWBIR, Appendix BIR) identified 569 different waste streams that will be emplaced in the repository. These wastes are also be categorized into broader Summary Waste Category Groups, defined as S5000 (debris), S4000 (soil/ gravel), and S3000 (solidified) waste. Generator sites tend to group waste by Summary Waste Category Group for inspection purposes. I. C Description of Waste Generators The wastes to be emplaced in the WIPP originate from generator/ storage sites within the DOE Weapons Complex and National Laboratories. Waste must be defense­ related TRU waste, and the range of wastes at each generator/ storage site is dependent upon the site's past and current missions. The generator/ storage sites and the volumes of contact­ handled TRU (CH­ TRU) and RH­ TRU waste expected are identified in Table 1. Table 1 Anticipated Waste Volumes for Disposal at WIPP 7 Storage Generator Site Anticipated CH­ TRU Waste (cubic meters) Anticipated RH­ TRU Waste (cubic meters) Ames Laboratory 0.42 None Reported Argonne National Laboratory­ East 140 None Reported Argonne National Laboratory ­ West 750 1,300 Battelle Columbus Laboratories None Reported 580 Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory 120 6.7 Energy Technology Engineering Center 1.7 0.89 Hanford Site* 46,000 22,000 INEEL* 29,000 220 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory* 940 None Reported LANL* 18,000 190 Mound Plant 270 None Reported Nevada Test Site* 630 None Reported Oak Ridge National Laboratory* 1600 2,900 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1.9 None Reported Pantex Plant 0.62 None Reported RFETS* 5,100 None Reported Sandia National Laboratory 14 None Reported Savannah River Site* 9,600 None Reported Teledyne Brown Engineering 0.21 None Reported U. S. Army Material Command 2.5 None Reported University of Missouri Research Center 1.0 None Reported Totals 110,000 27,000 CH­ TRU = contact­ handled transuranics; INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratories; RFETS = Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site; RH­ TRU = remote­ handled transuranics (*) Major Sites Source: DOE CCA, Chapter 4. These totals do not include wastes excluded at the time of the Compliance Application (i. e., uncharacterized and classified wastes). There are additional wastes that could be added to the anticipated inventory in the event that the classified waste streams are declassified or the unclassified wastes are identified and characterized. Waste streams from three of the eight major sites (Savannah River, Rocky Flats, and Los Alamos National Laboratories [LANL]), are expected to contribute over 85 percent of the total activity for seven key isotopes. 1 The potential contents of a waste stream or group of waste streams determine which processes can be used to adequately characterize the waste. For example, if acceptable knowledge information suggests that the waste form is heterogeneous, the site should select a nondestructive assay technique appropriate for such waste in order for adequate measurements to be obtained. Radiography and visual examination help both to confirm and quantify waste components, such as cellulosics, rubbers, plastics, and metals. Once the nature of the waste has been confirmed, the assay techniques then quantify the radioactive isotopes in the waste. In the given example, a TRU waste site may be able to characterize either a wide range of heterogeneous waste streams or only a few. Under the current regulation, the scope of a particular inspection is determined by a site's stated limits on the applicability of proposed waste characterization processes. 2 Process knowledge refers to knowledge of waste characteristics derived from information on the materials or processes used to generate the waste. This information may include administrative, procurement, and quality control documentation associated with the generating process, or past sampling and analytic data. Usually, the major elements of process knowledge include information about the process used to generate the waste, material inputs to the process, and the time period during which the waste was generated. EPA has used the term "acceptable knowledge" synonymously with "process knowledge." Acceptable knowledge is discussed further in Section II. 8 I. D Current Inspection Process EPA evaluates the ability of each generator site's waste characterization program to adequately characterize TRU waste through the inspection process as established in §194.8( b). Inspections at generator/ storage sites are conducted to verify that characterization activities are performed in accordance with approved site procedures and that the characterization activities are adequate and appropriate to characterize and quantify waste from specific waste streams and waste containers so that the waste will not exceed the approved limits. By approving waste characterization systems and processes, EPA concludes the following: (1) the site personnel are capable of identifying and measuring the radioactive components (such as plutonium) in the TRU waste that must be tracked for compliance 1 ; and (2) the characterization program can demonstrate that the waste stream( s) examined meet Condition 3 of the Compliance Certification Criteria. The approval process described at 40 CFR 194.8( b) requires DOE to provide EPA with two types of information: (1) information on process knowledge 2 for waste streams proposed for disposal at WIPP, and (2) information on the system of controls in place at the generator site. The Agency solicits public comments on DOE site documentation and announces the date of the upcoming inspection. An EPA inspection/ surveillance team visits the site to verify that process knowledge and other elements of the system of controls are technically adequate and being implemented properly. Specifically, the EPA inspection/ surveillance team verifies compliance with 40 CFR 194.24( c)( 4), which states: Any compliance application shall: Provide information which demonstrates that 3 The introductory text of paragraph 40 CFR 194.24( c) states: "For each waste component identified and assessed pursuant to [40 CFR 194.24( b)], the Department shall specify the limiting value (expressed as an upper or lower limit of mass, volume, curies, concentration, etc.), and the associated uncertainty (i. e., margin of error) for each limiting value, of the total inventory of such waste proposed for disposal in the disposal system." 9 a system of controls has been and will continue to be implemented to confirm that the total amount of each waste component that will be emplaced in the disposal system will not exceed the upper limiting value or fall below the lower limiting value described in the introductory text of paragraph (c) of this section. 3 The system of controls shall include, but shall not be limited to: measurement; sampling; chain of custody records; record keeping systems; waste loading schemes used; and other documentation. As waste generator sites establish waste characterization programs for new waste streams (or groups of waste streams), the Agency assesses their compliance with the requirements of Sections 194.24( c)( 3) through (5). The Agency conducts inspections at each site to evaluate the use of process knowledge and the establishment of a system of characterization and controls for each waste stream or group of waste streams. The typical elements that are subject to inspection include NDA, VE and/ or Radiography, AK, and software controls to include operation and interface with the WWIS. Elements related to the control of characterization systems, such as training records and document control, are also subject to inspection. The scope of a specific inspection is dictated by the systems that are in use for a group of waste streams, how many of these systems have been previously inspected and approved by the Agency, and if the nature of the waste stream changes the performance of any elements of the characterization system. For EPA to confirm that a system of controls has been adequately executed, DOE must demonstrate that measurement techniques and other control methods can be implemented for waste streams that DOE plans to emplace in the WIPP. The number of waste streams or groupings of waste streams that can be approved is dependent upon how well the generator site systems perform for a variety of wastes. While EPA can and has approved relatively broad groupings that mirror the specific authorization being sought by sites, EPA has also restricted its approval to those waste streams it felt could be adequately characterized by the systems examined. The Agency's compliance decision is conveyed by a letter from EPA to DOE. A copy of the letter, as well as the results of the inspection( s), are placed in EPA's docket. To summarize, the approval process for site­ specific waste characterization controls is as follows (See Figure 2): a. One or more Federal Register notices for the inspection and placement of related documents in the docket; b. 30­ day public comment period on docketed information from the site to be inspected; 10 A fe d er a l r e g i s t e r n o t i c e f o r t h e i n s p e c t i o n o f a s i t e a n d pla c e m e nt of r e l a t e d s i t e p r o c e d u r e s a n d r e p o r t s i n t h e d o c k e t A g e n c y p r e p a r e s f o r s i t e i n s p e c t i o n /a u d i t b y c omple t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g t a s k s : ° Pr e p a r a t i o n o f d r a f t c h e c kl ists ° R e vie w of si te p r o c e d u r e s a n d r e p o r t s ° Mo di f i c a t i o n o f c h e c k l i s t s a s n e e d e d b a s e d u p o n si t e ­ s p e ci f ic pro c e d u r e s C o n d u ct Si t e I n s p e c t i o n /A u d i t Fig ur e 2 Si te A p pro v al Pro c e s s c. Performance of site inspection based on information provided by DOE: ° Review of site procedures and other information, and modification of EPA checklists, if necessary, to incorporate site­ specific information; ° On­ site verification of the technical adequacy or qualifications of personnel, procedures, and equipment by means of interviews, demonstrations, and completion of checklists; and d. Preparation of report documenting EPA's inspection( s) and written notice to DOE of EPA's compliance decision. Under 40 CFR 194.21 and 194.24( h), EPA is authorized to perform follow­ up inspections to verify that a TRU waste site is shipping waste that belongs only to those waste streams or groups of waste streams that have been characterized by the approved processes. In the event that the inspection finds that the generator/ storage site is not adequately meeting the waste characterization requirements of §§ 194.24( c)( 3) through (5), the agency will not certify the generator/ storage site until the inadequacies are resolved and the resolution verified usually through further inspection. 11 A federal register notice for the inspection of a site and placement of related site procedures and reports in the docket Agency prepares for site inspection/ audit by completing the following tasks: °Preparation of draft checklists °Review of site procedures and reports °Modification of checklists as needed based upon site­ specific procedures Has the Agency determined that the site should be certified based upon inspection results? (Y/ N) Agency grants approval for audited scope Conduct Site Inspection/ Audit Yes No Figure 2 Site Approval Process 12 II. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNICAL ELEMENTS EXAMINED DURING INSPECTIONS Specific waste characterization processes, techniques, and elements important to demonstrating 40 CFR 194.24( c) compliance are examined by EPA during inspections, including: ° Acceptable Knowledge (AK). AK is a program whereby historic process data and other data are assembled, assessed, and evaluated to calculate the radionuclide content, in terms of both overall quantity and the presence of specific isotopes. This information is typically compared to assay and other measured data to assess the viability of the AK results, but also often provides direct information used by NDA personnel in the form of a "check" for NDA, as a source of isotopic information, or as a direct replacement for NDA measurements when sites believe their AK information is preferable to that obtained through measurement. At present, sites are required to analyze all TRU waste containers to determine isotopic contents and confirm AK. ° Nondestructive Assay (NDA). NDA systems are used to detect radionuclide content, including the quantity and isotopic distribution. These systems typically involve: 1) neutron systems (e. g., Passive­ Active Neutron (PAN) system) for quantification of a plutonium isotope; and/ or 2) Segmented Gamma Scanner (SGS), or a comparable system, typically used to identify specific radioisotopes. Currently, all waste containers are assayed to quantify 10 WIPP­ tracked radionuclides. In certain properly justified cases, isotopic information was obtained from AK. ° Real­ time Radiography (RTR). RTR records continuous x­ ray of drum contents that is used to verify waste material parameters and the correctness of the waste matrix code identified by AK, as well as to quantify cellulosics, plastic, and rubbers. ° Visual Examination (VE). The process of opening a statistically determined number of waste drums and manually examining and recording their contents is called VE. VE is used as a quality control check of RTR. ° WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS). WWIS is a data tracking and validation system that includes data collection and entry at the site, and transmission to and receipt of data at the WIPP site. These techniques are discussed in more detail in the following subsections. EPA requirements and expectations for these techniques are derived both from 40 CFR 194.24 and DOE's own program requirements, as presented in the CCA and revised over time with EPA's review and approval. 13 II. A Acceptable Knowledge AK is generally defined as the use of process information or other waste generator data to determine waste content. AK is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) characterization process that has been adopted by DOE as a TRU waste characterization methodology applicable to the radioactive, as well as the hazardous, portion of the waste. To date, two guidance documents address AK (EPA 1994, EPA 1997), both of which address characterization of the hazardous, not radioactive, portion of the waste using AK. The concept has been extended by DOE to encompass the radioactive portion of TRU waste, with the TRU waste AK characterization requirements presented in attachment WAP of the CCA, as well as in the 1995 WIPP TRU Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) referenced in the CCA. In joint EPA/ NRC guidance (1997), which is primarily applicable to low­ level mixed waste, EPA recognized the use of AK to make RCRA hazardous waste determinations. The guidance does not, however, speak to the use of AK to determine radioactive component content, except to state that the NRC does not describe specific testing requirements for waste to determine if it is radioactive (10 CFR 20.2006 requires that the waste manifest include, as completely as practicable, the radionuclide identity and quantity and the total radioactivity). The 1994 and 1997 guidances both state that the use of waste knowledge by a generator and/ or treatment, storage, disposal, recycling facilities (TSDF) to characterize mixed waste is allowed – and even recommended – to eliminate unnecessary or redundant waste testing. EPA broadly interprets AK to include: ° Process knowledge, which is detailed information on waste obtained from existing published or documented waste analysis data, from a waste generator's records , or from wastes generated by processes similar to that which generated the waste; ° Available records of radionuclides analysis; or ° Combinations of both, supplemented by confirmatory analysis. II. A. 1 Overview of Technical Elements AK is used by DOE in the context of radioactive waste characterization to provide the following: ° Waste stream identification ° Radionuclide isotopic content, ° Isotopic ratios, ° Low level vs. TRU designation ° Overall radioactivity based on facility records and process information 14 ° Physical waste type ° Waste material parameter content As indicated in Section I, DOE is required to identify and quantify specific WIPP­ tracked isotopes, additional isotopic information to support waste limits presented in the CCA, as well as inventory estimates presented in Attachment BIR of the CCA. Additionally, waste material parameters require identification. AK is used to obtain available information pertaining to these required parameters, and this information is available to NDA and nondestructive evaluation (NDE) personnel to facilitate their measurement activities. Additionally, information derived via AK is compared to that obtained by NDA measurement to assess the accuracy of AK data. II. A. 2 Technical Description of System or Measurement Device( s) AK requirements are presented in the WIPP QAPjP (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item II­ G­ 1, Reference 201), as well as Appendix WAP to the CCA. Since submission of the CCA, DOE has removed AK requirements from the QAPjP because it was redundant with the RCRA Waste Analysis Plan (WAP) with respect to AK requirements. As such, EPA uses the most recent version of the WAP as the governing document for AK requirements. AK is gathered, evaluated, and assessed following a specific process committed to by the DOE in its CCA via associated attachments and references. This process, which is examined by EPA during inspections, includes: ° Assembling AK information; ° Compiling AK documentation into an auditable record (i. e., the process should include review of AK information to determine the waste material parameters and radionuclides present, as well as source info discrepancy resolution); ° Assigning waste streams/ waste matrix codes; ° Identifying physical forms, waste material parameters, and radionuclides (including, if possible, isotopic ratios); ° Resolving data discrepancies; ° Identifying management controls for discrepant items/ containers/ waste streams; ° Confirming AK information with other analytical results by comparing AK characterization data with that obtained through NDA, NDE, and/ or visual examination, including discrepancy resolution; and ° Auditing of AK records. EPA examines these elements during inspections to ensure that the process is being followed. Specifically, EPA examines whether procedures demonstrate a logical progression from general facility information to more detailed waste stream­ specific information. EPA examines whether the site's TRU waste management program has procedures to determine: 15 ° Waste categorization schemes (e. g., consistent definitions of waste streams) and terminology, ° Breakdown of the types and quantities of TRU waste generated/ stored at the site, and ° How waste is tracked and managed at the generator site, including historical and current operations. As indicated previously, EPA is particularly concerned about the completeness and accuracy of data collection with respect to those elements critical to continued compliance. Data gathered under the AK process should support identification of radionuclides and parameters important to WIPP performance, as well as information useful when assessing the accuracy of PA inventory assumptions presented in the BIR. EPA examines the AK process to see whether radionuclide origin is documented and that information is collected for: ° 241 Am, 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, 242 Pu, 233 U, 234 U, 238 U, 90 Sr, 137 Cs, and unexpected radionuclides, ° Ferrous metals (in containers), ° Cellulosics, plastics, rubber, and ° Nonferrous metals (in containers). In addition to this information, EPA expects AK information to be properly managed and recorded by following procedures requiring that: ° AK information be compiled in an auditable record, including a road map for all applicable information. ° A reference list be provided that identifies documents, databases, QA protocols, and other sources of information that support AK information. ° The overview of the facility and TRU waste management operations in the context of the facility's mission be correlated to specific waste stream information. ° Correlations between waste streams, with regard to time of generation, waste generating processes, and site­ specific facilities be clearly described. For newly generated wastes, the rate and quantity of waste to be generated shall be defined. ° Nonconforming waste be segregated. The AK record must contain the following items: ° A map of the site that identifies the areas and facilities involved in TRU waste generation, treatment, and storage; ° Facility mission description related to TRU waste generation and management; ° Description of the operations that generate TRU waste at the site and process information, including: ­ Area( s) or building( s) from which the waste stream was or is generated, ­ Estimated waste stream volume and time period of generation, ­ Waste generating process description for each building or area, 16 ­ Process flow diagrams, if appropriate, ­ Generalized material inputs or other information that identifies the radionuclide content of the waste stream and the physical waste form; and ° Types and quantities of TRU waste generated, including historical generation through future projections. Additionally, EPA expects sites to collect additional "supplemental," or supporting information as available to bolster information included in the AK record, which may include but not be limited to historical safeguard data (for radionuclides), waste package information, shipping records, etc. As a test of AK data viability, NDE and NDA information are compared to AK data to assess AK information accuracy (this is sometimes called "confirmation"). EPA examines whether reevaluation of AK is performed, if NDE/ NDA or VE identify waste to be of a different waste matrix category (such as sludges vs. debris) or radionuclide content. The reevaluation should include, as applicable, waste reassignment to a new waste stream and repackaging, if appropriate. All of the requisite AK data are assembled in an AK Summary that compiles and summarizes information collected, including the basis for all waste stream designations. EPA examines the AK Summary for several elements, including but not limited to whether the AK Summary addresses radionuclide content of waste, how detailed this information is, the nature of supporting documentation, completeness of the AK Summary with respect to inclusion of all pertinent AK data, accuracy of process discussions within the AK Summary, traceability of AK information on a drum/ container basis, and AK accuracy calculations (which are generally included in documents outside of the AK Summary). EPA examines the AK process and the accuracy and viability of the information obtained through this process. As part of this examination, EPA performs a traceability analysis where drums are randomly selected and AK data pertinent to those drums examined. This activity includes not only historic AK information, but NDA and NDE data collected under EPA/ WIPPapproved programs, and comparison of these data to AK to demonstrate that the complete characterization process is attainable and approveable. Additionally, EPA examines the interface between NDA, NDE, and AK to see how information is shared and used between the various characterization processes. AK is intended to serve as the "starting point" from which basic waste information is assembled and examined; this information is then used to varying degrees by the NDE and NDA personnel when performing radionuclide assay or x­ rays to assess drum waste material and prohibited item contents. AK information is available to NDA operators to use when performing drum analysis as a source of matrix information and radionuclide content information against which measurements are "checked." Also, NDA often relies on AK to provide isotopic information, including isotopic ratios. On a case by case basis, EPA has allowed this AK information, if demonstrated to be viable and of exceptional quality, to be used in the radionuclide characterization process. For 17 example, EPA has allowed a site to define the isotopic distribution using AK, but has required verification of one or two isotopes in each drum to confirm the AK­ identified isotopes of a number of radionuclides. Specifically, EPA has allowed a site (RFETS) to identify weapons grade plutonium isotopic distributions for plutonium isotopes using AK, but has required measurement of two isotopes in each container to confirm the AK isotopes. II. A. 3 Effect of Waste Matrix Type on Measurement The viability of the AK process is more directly related to the adequacy of AK information available than to the waste matrix type. Generator facilities are currently assembling AK information on, and characterizing wastes with, the best available AK information. These wastes typically have a significant body of information available through site records, process information, historic assay, etc., and the resulting AK data assembly, assessment, and verification process is generally successful. However, existing wastes to be characterized in the future may have much less historic information available, which means that the AK process aspect of waste characterization could have varying degrees of success with respect to collection of mandatory and supplemental information, acquisition of radionuclide data, etc. Therefore, the AK process is not so much affected by the waste matrix, but instead by the age of the waste, the historic information available for the waste, and the success of data collection efforts by the generator sites. II. A. 4 Scope of EPA Approvals for AK EPA typically approves site AK on a Summary Waste Category basis, primarily because sites themselves limit the approvals being sought to this categorization. However, EPA's overall approval of any given site may be limited to groups within the Summary Waste Category group, depending upon the technical viability of the various characterization processes. For example, even if AK approval extends to all retrievably stored waste, overall approval could be limited if NDA approval can only be extended to a specific type of waste. EPA also approves the AK process for relatively large groups of wastes that are not necessarily restricted by Summary Waste Category Groupings. For example, wastes generated at Rocky Flats and currently in storage at INEEL tend to have relatively complete data records, regardless of the Summary Waste Category group in question. Even if there is little AK information, EPA can and has extended approval of the process if the site is able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the AK process. In short, EPA may approve whatever is appropriate given a site's ability to characterize waste using the AK process. AK approval is restricted by the quantity and quality of AK data, not by the waste type. II. B Nondestructive Assay (NDA) NDA is used to identify and quantify the radioactive constituents in a container. Waste to be disposed of at WIPP is assayed on a container basis to quantify the activity of the 18 radionuclides, particularly those identified in the transuranic waste baseline inventory report TWBIR as most important to the PA, and to demonstrate that the waste in the container meets the definition of TRU waste. II. B. 1 Overview of Technical Elements NDA examines the ten isotopes requiring quantification, as well as additional isotopes. The ten isotopes are: ° 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, and 242 Pu; ° 241 Am; ° 233 U, 234 U, and 238 U; ° 90 Sr; and ° 137 Cs. In addition to the isotopes listed as important to PA and requiring quantification, the waste characterization program also is responsible for adequately calculating the emplaced activities of the isotopes contributing to the Waste Unit (in this case, the activity of the TRU alpha emitting isotopes in Table 4­ 8 of the CCA). Section 4.4.1 of the CCA states, Collectively, those elements of the waste characterization program that support long­ term regulatory compliance include the determination of the radionuclide inventory (for purposes of normalizing radionuclide releases as required for comparison with 40 CFR Part 191.13( a)), the identification of the physical and chemical waste form inventories (if applicable), and the verification that no wastes are emplaced in the WIPP that exceed the disposal system's safety and/ or performance limitations. The normalization requirement in Table 1 referenced in 40 CFR Part 191.13( a) necessitates knowledge of the EPA Waste Unit, defined as the total curies divided by one million. EPA has, as part of the inspection program, also required DOE to quantify isotopes other than those identified as important in the CCA or 40 CFR Part 191. These additional isotopes are usually necessary to support the technical adequacy of the assay values for isotopes identified as important to PA. Typically, EPA may require a site to ensure that DOE identify and account for isotopes that may interfere with the assay of isotopes identified as important to PA. One example of additional required isotopes is 237 Np at LANL, when LANL was employing the Fixed Energy Response Analysis using Multiple Efficiencies (FRAM) system for gamma spectroscopy. Another example is the presence of 244 Cm or 252 Cf in waste planned for assay using passive neutron methods. These special cases are documented in the EPA inspection report, and are usually specific to a given system and a given type of waste. 19 II. B. 2 Technical Description of System or Measurement Device( s) To demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 194.24( c), DOE described general methods for accomplishing NDA in the CCA. DOE described more detailed requirements for NDA programs in Chapter 9 of the Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP), a document that has since been replaced by the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) document. Each waste generator site describes their specific NDA program, and how the program complies with the upper tier EPA and DOE requirements, in a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP). Site operating procedures for each instrument or method are then written to implement the QAPjP requirements, along with any other specific instrument or site dependent requirements. NDA systems typically include data collection and analysis software that performs quality related functions. In accordance with 40 CFR 194.22 any NDA system used to support EPA characterization requirements must adhere to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) Requirements for Software (ASME, 1990). Radioactive components in waste to be disposed of at WIPP may be characterized by radiochemistry or NDA. NDA methods are by far the preferred techniques for performing radioassay, as they generally have greater throughput and produce lower human exposures than do radiochemistry techniques. II. B. 2.1 General NDA System Information The NDA techniques approved for use on WIPP waste containers are classified as active or passive. Passive NDA methods measure spontaneously emitted radiation produced by natural decay of the radioactive isotopes inside the waste container. Active NDA methods measure radiation produced by artificially generated reactions in the waste material. Active NDA systems used for assay of TRU waste generate reactions in the heavy metals within the waste using a low intensity beam of neutrons. Presently, most waste is characterized using passive­ active neutron (PAN) counters and gamma ray spectrometry systems. A small fraction of the waste, primarily from the production of radioisotopic thermal generators (RTG), is characterized by calorimetry instruments. The neutron counting systems being used for NDA of WIPP waste containers are designed to provide quantification of the plutonium isotopes in TRU waste. Neutrons are naturally produced by only a small number of isotopes; the rate at which neutrons of certain energies are produced by the waste container provides a good measure of the quantity of these isotopes. Passive neutron counting systems detect these naturally occurring neutrons and use various computational techniques to relate their quantity to isotopic activities. Many NDA systems using neutron counting are also capable of active counting. In the active mode, a low intensity beam of neutrons is fired into the waste container. This neutron beam 20 will produce a series of reactions in the fissionable and fissile isotopes within the waste, with the number of particles produced by the reactions being proportional to the amount of fissile and fissionable isotopes present in the waste. The external detectors then count these particles and convert the particle response to source strength. By using active NDA methods and special sensitive neutron detectors, even very small quantities of plutonium in the waste containers can be detected and quantified. The gamma ray measurement systems being used to characterize WIPP waste containers are based on two basic principals. First, almost all radioactive materials produce gamma rays. Second, the gamma ray pattern produced by any isotope is unique to that isotope; no two isotopes produce the same number of gamma rays having the same energies. Given a detector with good enough resolution to count the various gamma rays individually and a method to determine what the gamma ray energy patterns mean, it is possible to quantitatively determine the isotopes present in a waste sample. Modern radiation detectors coupled to sophisticated computer programs that solve the energy pattern for the presence of certain isotopes are capable of performing this task for a large number of isotopes. The gamma measurement systems approved for use in characterizing WIPP waste are capable of quantifying the presence of many of the isotopes defined by 40 CFR Part 191, even in the presence of potential interfering isotopes and background radiation. When the gamma and neutron NDA systems are used together, these systems provide information about the radiological content of a waste container. The information that can be produced by the WIPP waste NDA systems includes, but is not limited to, 239 Pu equivalent activity, 239 Pu fissile gram equivalent, total alpha activity, the decay heat of waste containers, and the activity of the isotopes of interest to the performance assessment and the applicable regulations. The purpose of these data relative to long­ term repository compliance with 40 CFR Parts 191 and 194 is to establish the radionuclide content emplaced in the repository. All assay systems using radiation detection methods must be calibrated using a variety of standards that simulate the various waste compositions, source distributions and interferences common to the waste streams originating from a particular generator site. AK enhances the NDA systems by providing advance information on the radiological characteristics of a waste stream, which allows the NDA systems to be made particularly sensitive to that type of waste by developing realistic calibration standards. Calibration records and expected system performance curves are compared against the actual results of the measurements performed on the waste containers. II. B. 2.2 Neutron Systems Because they have no charge, and are not purely an electromagnetic packet like gamma rays, neutrons have a unique set of interactions with matter. They do not interact with the electron cloud around a nucleus, but rather with the nucleus itself. Thus, when a material absorbs neutrons, the neutrons are interacting with and changing the nuclei of the atoms in the absorbing material, 21 which can produce a number of secondary reactions. Neutron interactions with nuclei may result in the disappearance of the neutron and its replacement by secondary radiations, or a significant change in the neutron's energy or direction. It may even result in the fragmentation of the nucleus with which it is interacting in a process known as fission. The secondary radiations produced by neutron interactions are usually heavy charged particles; it is these charged particles produced by the conversion of the neutron energy that are seen by neutron detectors, as discussed below. Generally, the type and probability of the various neutron interactions with any given type of nucleus depend strongly on the energy of the neutron. NDA systems do not require exact measures of neutron energy. For NDA purposes, neutrons can simplistically be divided into two categories based on their energy: high energy or "fast" neutrons, and low energy or "slow" neutrons, using an arbitrary energy division of approximately 0.5 electron volts (eV). Neutrons are measured indirectly by detecting secondary particles resulting from interactions of neutrons with target nuclei. These possible interactions include: ° (n, p) or (n, a) reactions where a nucleus absorbs a neutron and emits a charged particle, which, along with the recoil product nucleus, causes ionization in the detector; ° Neutron induced fission, or (n, f) reactions, where the detector registers ionization produced by the fission fragments or the prompt or delayed neutrons and photons; and/ or ° Neutron scattering, where the recoil nucleus produces ionization in the detector. The (n, p), (n, a) and (n, f) reactions are of greatest interest for neutron detection because they produce secondary radiations (i. e., charged particles that can be detected directly). The neutron detectors most widely used in NDA systems are gas proportional detectors filled with a light isotope of helium ( 3 He). These detectors are commonly called helium tubes. A neutron detection system typically contains many helium tubes, maintained under an applied voltage, or electric field. The neutron­ helium reaction of interest is shown below: 3 He + n 6 3 H + p + 0.764 MeV The term "cross section" is used to describe the probability of interaction. Helium is used because it has a high cross section for interaction with thermal, or low energy, neutrons, which provides a high detection efficiency and pulse height resolution. The charge liberated by the neutron­ helium interaction produces initial ionizations of helium gas. By maintaining the appropriate electric field within the gas, the number of secondary ionizations produced is proportional to those produced initially, while the number of actual ion pairs is multiplied by a factor of many thousands. The detection system collects the ion pairs as charge which, with proper calibration, is correlated with the number of neutron interactions and therefore the sample reaction rate. 22 Because the probability of neutrons interacting with target materials is a strong inverse function of the neutron's energy, high energy neutrons produced by spontaneous or induced fission (" fast" neutrons) must be slowed before they can be efficiently detected. This occurs through multiple collisions with atoms in the materials within the detection system (i. e., polyethylene, graphite, etc.). Neutron cross sections for a given target nucleus are interaction specific (i. e., there is a different cross section for fission, elastic scattering, inelastic scattering, (n, p) reaction, etc.), and each is strongly dependent on the neutron energy. Cross sections are also material specific. Certain isotopes have large cross sections for various reactions, which may make them a preferred material for neutron detection systems. The main source of neutrons of interest to NDA result from spontaneous or induced nuclear fission, which is the disintegration of an atomic nucleus into two or more lighter fragments. In general, isotopes of plutonium and uranium have a low rate of spontaneous fission compared to the rate for other decay modes, such as alpha emission. This is particularly so for heavy radionuclides with odd numbers of neutrons and odd mass number, but these isotopes frequently have a high thermal neutron fission cross section, which means these isotopes can be made to undergo induced fission by bombardment with low energy neutrons. Examples of these isotopes are 233 U, 235 U and 239 Pu. Plutonium isotopes with even mass numbers ( 238 Pu, 240 Pu, and 242 Pu) undergo higher rates of spontaneous fission, and for 240 Pu the rates of spontaneous fission and alpha emission are close. This is important as 240 Pu is typically present as an impurity in weapons grade plutonium and is a component of TRU wastes. Assays of TRU wastes by measuring the neutrons emitted by spontaneous fission are called "passive" mode assays. Passive mode measurements count neutrons produced by isotopes with significant likelihood of decay by spontaneous fission, including 238 Pu, 240 Pu, 242 Pu, and 244 Cm. Neutrons are also emitted by TRU radionuclides in response to induced fission caused by bombardment with energetic neutrons supplied by the measurement system. Such assays measuring induced neutrons are called "active" mode assays. Active mode assays provide information for 239 Pu and 241 Pu, as well as other fissile isotopes present in the TRU waste being assayed (e. g., 235 U), that fission takes place in response to neutrons supplied by the measurement system. II. B. 2.3 Passive­ Active Neutron Counters PAN counters are used to quantify the amount of a fissile or fissionable nuclide inside a container. More precisely, these systems quantify the amount of a particular radionuclide that would result in the number of counts observed. This is referred to as the effective mass. For active measurements, the 239 Pu effective mass is measured, while for passive measurements, the 240 Pu effective mass is measured. To convert the effective mass measured into the true mass of each of the radionuclides present, the ratio of each nuclide to that of the primary nuclide being measured must be known. These ratios can be measured using a gamma­ ray spectrometry system, described in the following section. To quantify the effective mass of 239 Pu or 240 Pu, fast neutrons from induced or spontaneous 23 fissions are detected and counted. Since two or more neutrons usually result from a fission event, neutron counters are operated in coincidence mode. In coincidence mode, an event is only counted when two or more neutrons are individually detected. Most PAN counters consist of a large number of individual neutron detectors surrounding the container being assayed. The most common type of neutron detector used is a 3 He tube, which is a long cylindrical proportional gas counter filled with 3 He. Since the probability of detection in a 3 He tube is much greater for thermal neutrons than for fast neutrons, 3 He tubes are usually surrounded by a moderator. Fast neutrons lose energy through numerous collisions in the moderator until they are reduced in energy, or "thermalized." As previously described, a PAN counter in passive mode counts neutrons from spontaneously fissioning nuclides, such as 240 Pu. In active mode the PAN system counts neutrons generated in the waste container after the container is exposed to fast neutrons from an external source, which induce fissile nuclides in the waste to fission. The most common source of fast neutrons is a D­ T neutron generator, although other sources, such as 252 Cf sources can also be used. A D­ T neutron generator creates 14 MeV neutrons by accelerating deuterium ( 2 H) nuclei into a tritium ( 3 H) target. Proper use and calibration of a PAN system requires tests using known sources in order to evaluate system efficiency. Additionally, the environmental neutron signal must be measured in order to remove background signals that are not contributed by the waste components. Both the efficiency and the background signal must be periodically checked in order to ensure data quality is not degraded. II. B. 2.4 Photon Emission and NDA Photons in the general sense are packets of electromagnetic energy, and are the basic constituents of any electromagnetic energy, including visible light. When these photons are generated by de­ excitation reactions in an atomic nucleus, they are often referred to as gamma radiation or gamma rays. Gamma photons are essentially the same as x­ rays, but have different origins: gamma radiation is emitted during changes in the state of nuclei, while x­ rays are emitted during changes in the state of inner or more tightly bound electrons. Gamma radiation is a penetrating radiation best attenuated by dense materials like concrete, lead, etc. Gamma emissions occur at discrete energies that are characteristic of specific radionuclide transitions, enabling their identification by spectroscopic techniques, as discussed below. Gamma photon emissions range in energy from approximately one thousand electron volts (1 KeV) to almost ten million electron volts (10 MeV). For purposes of NDA isotopic measurements of plutonium, the photon emissions of interest occur between the energies of approximately 40 to 640 KeV; for uranium, the photon emissions of interest occur between approximately 100 KeV and 1 MeV in energy. Their electromagnetic nature causes photons to interact strongly with the charged electrons in the atoms of all matter. The photon gives up energy to an electron, which then is released from 24 its parent atom and collides with other atoms, liberating more electrons. The total charge released is proportional to the photon energy, since the higher the photon energy the more energy is available to release electrons. The charge resulting from this cascade of released electrons is then collected, causing a signal indicating the presence of the gamma photon. The magnitude of the signal tells the energy of the photon since the electrical signal output to the detector is proportional to the energy deposited in the detector. After a large number of these gamma photons have been detected, a graph of the number of gamma photons measured versus the energy of the photons can be displayed. This graph, or spectrum, results in a "fingerprint" of specific radionuclides since the gamma photon energy release pattern is unique for each isotope. With the appropriate calibration, the spectrum allows identification and quantification of photon emitting radionuclides in various media. There are many types of materials suitable for use in photon detectors. The NDA systems of interest primarily use modern solid state detectors constructed from germanium, in which the charge produced by the photon interactions is collected directly. Germanium is the semiconductor material of choice for modern photon detectors due to its nearly ideal electronic characteristics that allow electrons and "electron holes" to move freely. The ionization charge resulting from the photon interaction within the detector is swept to an electrode by the high electric field in the semiconductor material produced by the voltage applied to the detector with the system's high voltage power supply. The charge is converted to a voltage pulse by a preamplifier; this voltage is then amplified and sent to a multi­ channel analyzer, which displays the spectrum of gamma counts detected versus energy. Spectroscopic evaluation, including radionuclide identification by energy peak pattern, background correction, pulse height determination, etc., can then be performed on the spectrum either manually or by computer. By applying calibration and correction factors appropriate to the waste matrix, container, and radionuclides, the spectroscopic data can be transformed into concentrations of specific photon emitting TRU radionuclides. II. B. 2.5 Gamma Ray Spectrometry Systems Gamma ray spectrometry systems are used to quantify the amount of individual radionuclides, or to measure the ratio of different radionuclides, by detecting gamma­ ray emissions. Because radionuclides emit gamma rays of discrete energies, the quantity of individual radionuclides can be related to the number of gamma rays detected at a specific energy. Effective use of gamma ray spectrometry systems requires the user to define the system efficiency and resolution. These parameters must be periodically checked to ensure the system is providing consistent results. The radiological background present at the detector must also be defined in order to calculate accurate results for the radionuclide quantities present in the waste. The background gamma­ ray spectrum must be periodically measured in order to ensure that unintended errors are not introduced into the results. Most gamma­ ray spectrometry systems involve one or more high resolution detectors, with high purity germanium (HPGe) being the most common. These detectors, typically about three inches in diameter and three inches in length, are positioned alongside the container. In many 25 systems, commonly referred to as scanners, a collimator is used so that the detector only detects gamma rays emitted from a portion of the container. The detector, or more commonly the container, is then translated until the entire container is measured. Some gamma­ ray scanners incorporate a transmission source to correct for gamma­ ray attenuation in the container. These collimated radioactive sources are positioned directly opposite of the detector. Shutters are often used to shield the source from the detector when it is not being used. II. B. 2.6 Calorimetry Instruments Calorimetry instruments are used to quantify radionuclides for waste containers that contain significant quantities of 238 Pu. The high specific activity of 238 Pu, used primarily for radioisotopic thermal generators, results in a measurable heat flux that can be correlated to the activity of the radionuclides in question. Like neutron counters, isotopic ratios must be known in order to relate the heat flux to the activities of individual radionuclides. Calorimetry has only been used in a limited number of instances, and EPA has approved its use only at Rocky Flats. II. B. 3 Effect of Waste Matrix or Waste Type on Measurement The applicability of PAN counters and gamma­ ray spectrometry systems to characterize waste to be disposed of at WIPP depends primarily on the matrix properties of the waste and the types and quantities of radionuclides present. For neutron counters, the matrix parameters of primary interest are the neutron absorption and moderating properties. Large quantities of hydrogen­ containing materials will enhance neutron moderation, making active measurements, and to a lesser extent passive measurements, more difficult. The presence of any materials that enhance neutron capture will make any neutron measurements, active or passive, more difficult. Passive and active neutron counters work best with radionuclides having large cross sections for induced fission and high spontaneous fission rates, respectively. Matrix parameters that affect gamma­ ray systems are matrix density and the effective atomic number. Denser materials and materials with high atomic numbers (Z) absorb more gamma rays than less dense, lower Z number materials, resulting in increased gamma­ ray attenuation and poorer signal­ to­ source ratios. Gamma­ ray spectrometry systems are best suited to detect radionuclides that emit gamma rays at energies between about 50 keV and 1 MeV with a high probability, or branching ratio. Specific issues related to waste properties are described in the following sections for each of the neutron and gamma detection methods. II. B. 3.1 Neutron Counting Systems PAN counters typically must account for the following: ° Radionuclide source (source) heterogeneity. Most neutron systems are calibrated 26 assuming that sources are uniformly distributed throughout the container volume. When sources are not uniformly distributed, but are instead concentrated in parts of the drum, the system will underestimate or overestimate the 239 Pu or 240 Pu effective mass. ° Matrix heterogeneity. In addition to a uniformly distributed source, most neutron calibrations are done for matrices whose neutron absorption and moderation properties are assumed to be the same throughout the volume of the container. Like non­ uniform source distributions, non­ uniform matrices can result in an underestimation or overestimation of the 239 Pu or 240 Pu effective mass. ° Source self­ shielding. If the fissile material is concentrated in a small volume (i. e., a lump) the inner material is shielded from interrogating neutron flux during an active measurement. This effect, referred to as self­ shielding, can result in an underestimation of the 239 Pu effective mass. This problem is not significant in passive mode, where the mean free path of the fast neutrons is much larger than the size of the fissile mass. ° Interfering nuclides. Any fissile or spontaneously fissioning nuclides, such as 244 Cm, not accounted for in the determination of the isotopic ratios will result in an incorrect estimation of the individual radionuclide activities and any derived quantities. Containers are often rotated during the measurement to reduce the effect of source and matrix heterogeneity on the measurement. Some neutron counters incorporate imaging algorithms to measure the spatial variations in the source distribution and the matrix properties. II. B. 3.2 Photon Measuring Systems Gamma­ ray systems are affected by many of the source and matrix effects that affect neutron counters, including source heterogeneity, matrix heterogeneity, and source self­ shielding. ° Source heterogeneity. Like neutron counters, most gamma­ ray systems are calibrated for uniformly distributed sources, and nonuniform source distributions are likely to result in underestimation or overestimation of radionuclide activities. ° Matrix heterogeneity. Gamma­ ray system calibrations generally assume that gamma attenuation properties are uniform throughout the volume of the container. Spatial variations in these properties, namely the density and effective atomic number, can cause the radionuclide activities to be incorrectly estimated. ° Source self­ absorption. Concentrated masses, or lumps, of high Z materials, such as uranium and plutonium, can result in underestimation of the radionuclide activity. Unlike the self­ shielding effect in active neutron measurements, the difficulty in gamma spectrometry arises when gamma rays from the interior of the mass are absorbed before escaping the lump. 27 ° Interfering radionuclides. Some radionuclides emit gamma rays very close in energy to those being measured. If not properly accounted for, these interfering radionuclides can result in the incorrect determination of radionuclide activities and/ or isotopic ratios. Like neutron counters, effects due to source and matrix heterogeneity can be significantly reduced by rotating the container during the measurement. Additionally, segmented gamma scanners, using transmission sources, can account for spatial variations in the source activity and matrix attenuation properties as a function of height. A number of systems also use computed tomography (CT) to measure the matrix properties and source distribution in three dimensions. II. B. 4 Scope of EPA Approvals for Nondestructive Assay EPA approves NDA methods for a waste stream or group of waste streams based on the demonstrated capability of the NDA system to quantify the radiological properties of the waste stream (s). This approach has been used because of the 194.8( b) language specifying waste stream examinations, and also because DOE generator sites most often test and qualify their NDA instruments to a given set of waste as defined by waste streams. This approach, however, has led to some problems during waste certification inspections because waste streams are generally defined by physical properties rather than by radiological properties. While there is some correlation between the effectiveness of a given NDA method and the physical properties of the waste material (e. g., a highly absorbing or moderating matrix like organic sludge), in practice this approval system has frequently resulted in limited approvals relative to the total population of waste intended for approval. A few sites, such as INEEL and LANL, currently attempt to define their assay programs as a process applicable to broad ranges of wastes that are defined by their radiological and nuclear properties of interest to the assay method (e. g., moderator/ absorber index for neutron systems), rather than strictly by waste stream or Summary Waste Category Group. Other generator sites, such as Savannah River, have programs that are designed around the waste stream intended for shipment. A radioassay system should be capable of characterizing waste containers, provided the important matrix properties of the containers are within the bounds for which the system is calibrated. For neutron systems, the absorption and moderating properties of the matrix are of primary interest. Density and atomic number of the waste are of primary interest for gamma spectrometry systems. Since NDA systems, particularly neutron systems, often use different parameters to characterize the matrix properties, it is difficult to establish standard limits for matrix characteristics or to compare calibration limits from one instrument to another. II. C Visual Examination and Radiography Radiography (e. g., RTR) is a nondestructive, qualitative and quantitative technique that involves x­ ray scanning of waste container contents. It is used to identify and quantify waste 28 material parameters important to PA, such as cellulosic, plastic, and rubber content. Radiography also is used to identify items such as liquids, pyrophorics, explosives, compressed gas cylinders, and sealed containers larger than 4 liters, which are prohibited from disposal by DOE. Unlike nondestructive assay, no radiological analysis is done with this technique. Radiography is considered to be both qualitative and quantitative because measurements are made by an operator who views a real­ time x­ ray scan of the contents of a waste container (e. g., drum or standard waste box) to estimate values for parameters of interest. For example, the operator (based on experience, on­ the­ job­ training, and drum aids) estimates the container fill percentage (i. e., the percentage of the drum filled with waste), the volume of "combustible" materials, metals, etc. Visual Examination (VE) involves opening of waste containers in glove boxes or other controlled structures and manually cataloging the contents. VE is currently used as either a confirmation of Nondestructive Examination (NDE) ­ which to date has been RTR ­ or as a replacement for NDE. Visual verification (which differs from VE in that the visual verification process is used during repackaging and no videotape records are kept) is also used. Sites are required to conduct VE on newly generated waste, on a statistically selected population of waste containers examined through radiography, and on waste containers that the site was unable to characterize using either radiography and/ or NDA due to the presence of an interfering material, such as lead shielding. The results of the VE of the statistically selected population of waste containers is used by the site to verify waste container determinations (and measurements) made through radiography. The site is required to calculate miscertification rates on an annual basis and, based on these calculations (and estimates of the number of waste containers to be radiographed in the coming year), determine the required number of waste containers to undergo VE in the following year. II. C. 1 Overview of Technical Elements EPA typically views actual radiography and VE activities during inspections, as well as supporting documentation and procedures. At a minimum, radiography and VE should provide the following: ° Identification of cellulosics, plastics, and rubber, including quantities; ° Identification of prohibited items, including liquids; and ° Confirmation of Summary Waste Category Group and Waste Matrix Code. Under the CH­ TRU program, every retrievably stored container must be examined to determine the cellulosics, plastics, rubber (CPR), and prohibited item content using RTR. Alternatively, containers can be examined either visually or by a different NDE technology, such as CT or digital radiography (DR), if RTR is not possible. Newly generated wastes do not have to be examined using RTR because the packaging process would exclude the inclusion of prohibited items. II. C. 1.1 RTR Document Review 29 EPA examines site specific documents and information related to any of the following areas during inspections: ° Replicate Scans. The sites must document that the imaging system characteristics of the monitoring system are verified on a routine basis and that independent replicate scans and replicate observations of the audio/ video output of the RTR process are performed under uniform conditions and procedures. C Independent Observations. The sites must document that independent observations of RTR scans are performed during each work shift. C System Capabilities. The site must document that its RTR system is appropriate and is capable of characterizing the typical waste configurations and parameters observed at the site. C Procedures. The site must have procedures for ensuring that the RTR system is tested, inspected, and maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions. In addition, EPA expects the site's procedures to address the following: ­ The RTR system is calibrated through observation of a test pattern at the beginning and end of each work shift (when operating). The RTR system must be able to be adjusted to obtain optimum contrast and resolution using a line­ pair gauge or equivalent device. ­ Data management is sufficient to ensure that the RTR results for every waste container are documented, validated, and ultimately verified by VE of a randomly selected statistical population of waste containers. ­ The RTR examination is captured on both audio/ video and documents the following types of information necessary for WIPP WAC certification: ­­ Item description code (IDC), ­­ TRUCON code (Transuranic Package Transporter­ II Content Code), ­­ Presence or absence of free liquids, ­­ Content inventory, and ­­ Description of contents packaging materials. ­ The following types of information resulting from the RTR examination must be recorded: ­­ Waste container identification number; ­­ Date of radiography examination; ­­ TRUCON code, IDC, and Waste Matrix Code, as applicable; 30 ­­ Any changes made to Waste Matrix Code; ­­ Presence or absence of waste container liner; ­­ Estimated inventory of waste container contents; ­­ Description of contents packaging materials, including the number of layers of packaging; ­­ Audio/ videotape identification number; ­­ Estimate of each applicable waste material parameter weight; ­­ Identification of quality control (QC) replicate; and ­­ An operator/ reviewer signature and date block. ­ Explicit guidance is included to account for materials that interfere with the RTR examination (e. g., lead liners, leaded gloves, stabilized wastes or cement, etc.). ­ Prohibited items must be identified and procedures followed to ensure that the proper steps are taken to isolate the particular waste container. ­ Appropriate measures can be taken when conditions adverse to quality occur. C Reporting. EPA examines the data reports prepared by the site. Each data report batch may not include more than 20 waste containers. The data reports must contain the following types of records: ­ RTR data forms, ­ RTR reports, ­ RTR videotape, and ­ Identification of any nonconformance reports (NCRs) and variances pertinent to the data package. C C Data Quality Characteristics. The site should have a procedure for correctly calculating and reporting the relative percent difference between the estimated waste material parameter weights (as determined by the RTR operator) and these same parameters as determined visually (i. e., precision). The site must also have a procedure for documenting the accuracy with which the matrix parameter category can be determined through VE of a randomly selected statistical subpopulation of waste containers. The site must prepare and validate RTR data forms and audio/ videotape for 100 percent of the waste containers examined (i. e., completeness). The site must also document the comparability of the matrix parameter category determined by RTR with the matrix parameter category determined by VE (i. e., comparability). II. C. 1.2 Additional Verification (RTR) During the course of the on­ site inspection of the radiography system and site operating procedures, the EPA inspection team both observes the radiography operation and interviews 31 radiography operators and other DOE/ contractor personnel to assess how well the radiography process is being implemented. As part of the EPA inspection team's observation of the radiography operation, the inspection team both views videotaped recordings of previously radiographed waste containers and observes the actual operation of the radiography equipment. The EPA inspection team notes the presence of required equipment, adherence to procedures, and documentation of all activities. For example, the EPA inspection team inspects the radiography booth and asks the radiography operators to point out all of the required radiographic equipment, as described originally in the TRU QAPP (Section 10) and Methods Manual (CCA Reference No. 210), and subsequently in the WAP: C A shielded room that is properly ventilated and lighted, C An x­ ray producing device, C Controls which allow the operator to vary voltage, typically between 150­ 400 kV, C An imaging system that typically includes a fluorescent screen and a low light television camera, C An enclosure for radiation protection, C A waste container handling system (including a turntable dolly assembly), C An audio/ video recording system, C Safety interlocks, and C An operator control and data acquisition station. As part of the inspection activities, the radiography operator is required to demonstrate the operation of the radiography equipment, including estimation of waste materials' parameters and volumes, and data entry. The EPA inspection team also interviews the radiography operators and DOE staff/ contractors involved in certifying and tracking operator training to ensure that a formal operator's training program exists and is completely implemented. The EPA inspection team requires the training staff and radiography operators to demonstrate through actual radiography equipment operation and training file documentation that operator training includes the following, at a minimum: C Formal training ­ Project requirements, ­ State and federal regulations, ­ Basic principles of radiography, ­ Radiographic image quality, and ­ Radiographic scanning techniques. C Application techniques 32 ­ Radiography of waste forms, ­ Standards, codes, and procedures for radiography, and ­ Site­ specific instruction. C On­ the­ job training ­ System operation, ­ Identification of packaging configurations, ­ Identification of WMPs, ­ Weight and volume estimation, and ­ Identification of prohibited items. The EPA inspection team observes the operator's examination of a radiography test drum (either in real time or by reviewing videotape) and expects to see the operator satisfactorily identify its content. The EPA inspection team reviews the contents of the radiography test drum to ensure that the following required elements are present: C Aerosol can with puncture, C Horsetail bag, C Pair of coveralls, C Empty bottle, C Irregular shaped pieces of wood, C Empty one gallon paint can, C Full container, C Aerosol can with fluid, C One gallon bottle with three tablespoons of fluid, C One gallon bottle with one cup of fluid (upside down), C Leaded glove or leaded apron, and C Wrench. Training drums must contain all of the required test elements. The EPA inspection team requests the radiography operator to discuss how the site has determined that the test drum contained test elements that were typical of what might be encountered at the site (both content and packaging density). EPA expects there to be a process for ensuring that the RTR operators receive standardized training and certification, recertification, retraining, and on­ the­ job training with oversight from appropriately qualified RTR operators. RTR operators must have sufficient experience to operate the RTR system. EPA expects RTR operators to be instructed in the specific waste generating practices and typical packaging configurations expected for each matrix parameter category or IDC. 33 EPA inspectors examine the procedures for ensuring that this training occurs, as well as operator training/ experience records to ensure that the personnel operating the RTR system are qualified and appropriately trained. Inspectors also interview the RTR operators and observes their operation of the RTR system. EPA expects the generator sites to provide procedures regarding the operation of the RTR system, and RTR/ VE records (see below) that document that the required technical elements are adequately addressed by these procedures. EPA may require the generator site to provide RTR data packages and RTR/ VE comparison sheets, including calculations of miscertification rates and other information pertinent to making the determination that the generator site has a system of controls in place that adequately meets the requirements of §194.24( c)( 4). II. C. 1.3 VE Document Review EPA examines VE documents and information related to any of the following areas during inspections: C Documentation. The VE procedure ensures that the inventory of unopened contents includes a description and documented weight of all waste items, residual materials, poly liners, contents packaging materials, and waste material parameters. C Reference Tables. The site's VE procedure has reference tables, updated as necessary, to facilitate the development of weight estimates and assignment of wastes to waste material parameters, also updated as necessary during the process. The site must establish standard nomenclature and volumetric conversion factors. C VE Data. VE staff record a description of the location, container, and estimated volume of any detected liquid. All empty containers must be weighed and recorded, with the gross weight of each container recorded on the VE data form. The site must also record the total number of bags or packages found in each waste container. Replicate weight measurements must also be made. C Miscertification Rate. The site must have a procedure to select a random statistical sample of waste containers for VE and correctly calculate and report an annual miscertification rate. The site may use INEEL's historical miscertification rate of 2 percent to calculate the number of waste containers that must be visually examined during the first year of program activities. However, the site must also have a procedure for establishing a site­ specific miscertification rate that is based on the last 12 (or more) months of certification activities. C Radiography Check. EPA expects that site procedures require the use of data from VE to check the matrix parameter category and waste material parameter weight estimates as determined by radiography. 34 C Replacement Containers. The facility must have a procedure for selecting replacement waste containers. The site's replacement strategy should be restricted to a waste stream or waste stream lot that, through the random selection process, happened to have container( s) identified for VE. The procedure must ensure that VE is performed on the replacement container. Once containers have been visually examined, the upper 90 percent confidence limit (UCL90) for the proportion miscertified must be correctly calculated. EPA expects the site to use the hypergeometric distribution for the UCL90 calculation. C Data Management. The site must have a procedure for data management that is sufficient to ensure that the VE results for every waste container examined are documented and validated. C Documentation. VE examination must be captured on both audio and video to document IDC, TRUCON code, the presence or absence of free liquids and other prohibited items, content inventory, and a description of contents packaging materials. C Data Reports. The site must ensure that data reports are prepared on a per­ batch basis, which includes no more than 20 waste containers, and the data reports must contain VE data forms, VE reports, VE videotape( s), and identification of any NCRs and variances pertinent to the data package. The site's data reporting procedures should ensure that the following types of information resulting from the VE are recorded: ­ Waste container identification number, ­ Date of VE, ­ TRUCON code, IDC, and Waste Matrix Code, as applicable, ­ Any changes made to the Waste Matrix Code, ­ Presence or absence of waste container liner, ­ Estimated inventory of waste container contents, ­ Description of contents packaging materials, including the number of layers of packaging, ­ Audio/ videotape identification number, ­ Estimate of each applicable waste material parameter weight, ­ Identification of QC replicate, and ­ Operator/ reviewer signature and date blocks. C Interfering Items. The site's VE procedure should provide explicit guidance on how to handle materials that interfere with the examination, such as metal containers, discolored plastic bags, stabilized wastes or cement, etc. Also, the site's VE procedure must require that prohibited items be identified and that the proper steps be taken to isolate a waste container with prohibited items. C Discrepancy Resolution. EPA expects the site to have a procedure for resolving 35 discrepancies between VE QC checks and between RTR and VE observations, and to ensure that appropriate measures can be taken when conditions adverse to quality occur. II. C. 1.4 Additional Verification­ VE During the course of the on­ site inspection of VE activities and site operating procedures, the inspection team observes VE activities and interviews VE experts and other personnel to assess how well the VE process is being implemented. As part of the inspection team's observation of the VE, the inspection team views videotaped recordings of previously examined waste containers and observes the actual VE of waste containers (when possible). Inspectors note the presence of required equipment, adherence to procedures, and documentation of all activities. For example, the EPA inspection team inspects the VE glove box (or room) and ask the VE experts to point out all of the required equipment, as described in DOE's Method Manual (CCA Reference No. 210), as listed in the following bullets: C Check weights (certified to National Institute of Standards and Technologies standards), C Scales, C Torque wrenches, C Airflow meters, C Platform scale, C Empty 55­ gallon drums, C Remote drum handler, C Knifes, scissors, platform ladder, dolly/ drum mover, leather gloves, plastic bags, tape, towels, decontamination solution, secondary containment bags, permanent markers, rubber and/ or surgical gloves, C Video camera, C Audio recording system, and C Glove box or negative pressure containment area. The EPA inspection team also interviews the VE experts and other personnel involved in certifying and tracking operator training to ensure that a formal operator's training program exists and is complete. There must be a standardized training program for visual inspection examiners that includes both formal classroom and on­ the­ job training (OJT). The program must be specific to the generator site and includes the various waste configurations generated/ stored at the site. The EPA inspection team interviews the VE experts to determine whether (and the extent to which) they have received training on the specific waste generating processes, typical packaging configurations, and waste material parameters expected to be found in each matrix parameter category at the site. EPA expects the VE training program to include: ° Formal training ­ Project requirements, 36 ­ State and federal regulations, ­ Application techniques, and ­ Site­ specific instruction. ° On­ the­ job training ­ Identification of packaging configurations, ­ Identification of waste material parameters, ­ Weight and volume estimation, and ­ Identification of prohibited items. EPA expects sites to provide procedures regarding the performance of VE. EPA also expects generator sites to provide VE data packages and RTR/ VE comparison sheets, including calculations of miscertification rates and other information pertinent to making the determination that the generator site has a system of controls in place that adequately meets the requirements of 194.24( c)( 4). II. C. 2 Technical Description of System or Measurement Device( s) II. C. 2.1 Radiography Radiographic systems include not only real­ time systems, but new systems that are currently being brought on­ line at DOE sites. These new systems may offer advantages over RTR with respect to system resolution, etc. Real­ Time Radiography Sites are currently conducting NDE examination of all waste containers using standard radiography techniques (i. e., an x­ ray tube, an image intensifier, and a charge coupled device camera). As part of the RTR process, the RTR operator (or drum handler) loads up to three waste containers onto a rolling sled that is then moved into the RTR vault. The drum( s) is placed on a turntable that the operator uses to rotate the drum and the x­ ray system components automatically move up and down to smoothly transition through the entire height of the drum (with every revolution the height of the x­ ray system components change to allow for an automated, complete scan of the entire container from top to bottom). Some sites do not employ a turn table that automatically moves up and down, but rely instead, on the operator to manually adjust the height of the drum manually to obtain a scan of 100 percent of the drum's height. The x­ ray­ producing device has controls that allow the operator to vary the voltage, thereby controlling image quality. It is typically possible to vary the voltage, between 150 to 430 kilovolts (KV), to provide an optimum degree of penetration through the waste. For example, high­ density material should be examined with the x­ ray device set on the maximum voltage to ensure maximum penetration through the waste container. Low­ density material should be 37 examined at lower voltage settings to improve contrast and image definition. The imaging system typically uses a fluorescent screen and a low­ light television camera. To perform radiography, the waste container is scanned while the operator views the television screen. The RTR operator controls the entire process from a remote operator's booth and the entire exam is recorded on audio/ video tape (some sites use optical disks). The operator then records the data using data sheets; however, several sites use automated data entry systems. For example, INEEL RTR operators use an automated data entry system, which has a series of screens designed to capture the required information. The RTR examination results are used by the site to verify that the physical waste form matches the waste stream description, to document the waste matrix code group, to estimate waste material parameters and drum utilization, to confirm AK, and to identify prohibited items. Sites also compare the radiography RTR examination results with those obtained through VE to calculate miscertification rates on an annual basis and, based on these calculations (and the expected number of waste drums to be processed next year) determine the required number of waste containers to undergo VE in the following year. II. C. 2.2 Visual Examination Sites are currently conducting VE on a statistically selected subpopulation of waste containers examined through radiography, and any waste container that the site was unable to characterize through radiography due to the presence of an interfering material, such as lead shielding. As part of the VE process, the VE team typically opens each waste container in a specially designed glove box that is approximately 15 feet long and operated under a negativepressure environment. At some sites, core sampling is also conducted in this glove box. Although the VE process is relatively straightforward, it is a physically demanding and intensive operation and typically consists of the VE technicians performing the following steps: C Load the waste drum at the back end of the glove box, C Remove the drum lid and empty the drum's contents in the middle portion of the glove box, C Open every individual waste package or bag, and C Manually sort and categorize waste materials for subsequent weighing and repackaging at the front end of the glove box. The entire process is conducted under the supervision of the VE expert (VEE) and is recorded on both audio/ video tape and waste container inventory sheets. The VE results are used by the site to verify waste form, confirm and/ or identify prohibited items, and verify drum utilization and waste material parameter estimates made through radiography. The VEE also assesses the need to open individual bags or packages of waste. If individual bags/ packages are not opened, estimated weights are recorded. Estimated weights are established through the use of historically derived waste weight tables and an estimation of the waste volumes. It may not be possible to see through inner bags because of discoloration, dust, or because inner containers are 38 sealed. In these instances, documented AK can be used to identify the matrix parameter category and estimated waste material parameter weights. If AK is insufficient for individual bags/ packages, actual weights of waste items, residual materials, contents packaging materials, or waste material parameters are recorded. The sites also compare the VE data to that obtained through radiography to calculate miscertification rates on an annual basis and, based on these calculations (and the expected number of waste drums to be processed next year), determine the required number of waste containers to undergo VE in the following year. II. C. 3 Effect of Waste Matrix or Waste Type on Measurement As discussed previously, the RTR operator can vary the voltage to provide an optimum degree of penetration through the waste. For example, high­ density material needs to be examined with the x­ ray device set on the maximum voltage to ensure maximum penetration through the waste container. In comparison, low­ density materials need to be examined at lower voltage settings to improve contrast and image definition. For example, containers with lead liners or containers filled with sludges or stabilized (or cemented) wastes cannot be readily penetrated by the x­ ray energy. Thus, containers with lead liners, or other containers whose contents prevent full examination, are either repackaged or examined using VE. Radiography systems also can have difficulty detecting cellulosics in lead­ lined drums because a higher energy x­ ray must be used to scan through the lead lining. The higher energy xray scans past the cellulosics as well. Similarly, sites may be unable to differentiate between cellulosics and plastics, as low density materials can appear very similar. Densely packed drums with highly heterogeneous waste materials can be difficult to characterize, as can bottles and cans that are completely filled with liquid (there is no observable meniscus during container motion). VE is a physically demanding task and densely packed drums can take a long time to be completely examined; however, as long as sufficient time and working space are available there should be no reduction in data quality. Likewise, waste containers packed with fine particles (e. g., soda ash, graphite, or incinerator residue) can present a housekeeping problem, but also can be examined as long as sufficient time and working space are available. Inner containers that are opaque or are packed with sharp metal objects are challenging and must be handled with care. Opaque containers are generally opened, unless the VEE is able to determine what the contents of the container are based on AK. The handling of waste packages containing sharp metallic objects is minimized and often times set aside for repackaging so as not to present undue risks to the VE personnel. II. C. 4 Scope of EPA Approvals for Radiography and Visual Examination All types of CH TRU wastes may be examined using RTR, except for those that are packed in lead­ lined containers or have been stabilized. Also, all types of CH TRU wastes may be 39 examined using VE, except for those that have been stabilized. EPA's approvals with respect to RTR and VE have been limited to date by the scope of the approval sought by the sites. Reinspection would be required with the introduction of new systems (e. g., DR/ CT, VE technique), or specific wastes (e. g. RH TRU waste, lead­ lined drums). II. D WIPP Waste Information System and Data Validation To ensure that the sites ship only waste that conforms with the waste component requirements established by DOE, a system of controls must be implemented that includes tracking of information about waste destined for the WIPP. For this purpose, DOE uses a computerized waste tracking system, the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS). The WWIS is a data transfer system whereby waste characterization and other information is input electronically at generator sites and is transferred to WIPP prior to waste shipment. Additionally, EPA examines the data validation and verification processes for checking data ultimately input into the WWIS. II. D. 1 Overview of Technical Elements When EPA conducts inspections to verify compliance with §194.24( c)( 4), EPA reviews the WWIS for the following items: C The total quantity of waste (volumetrically); C The quantity of the important non­ radionuclide waste components for which DOE has identified limits; C Radionuclide activity for the ten WIPP radionuclides; C Radionuclide activity uncertainty; C Radionuclide mass; C Radionuclide mass uncertainty; C TRU alpha activity; C TRU alpha activity uncertainty; C Verification data; C Verification method; 40 C Visual examination of container; C WAC certification data; C Waste Matrix Code (WMC); and C General location of the waste in WIPP. II. D. 1.1 Data Validation/ Verification and WWIS Inspection Components EPA inspects the following components of the systems of control for tracking WIPP waste parameters: ° Documentation. The inspection team first reviews site documentation including, but not limited to, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Detailed Technical Procedures (DTPs), and QAPjPs. These are reviewed to ensure that technical elements are adequately addressed, that the applicable WAC and WAP technical elements and requirements are adequately addressed in site procedures or other documents, and that the technical results of procedure implementation are adequate. ° Data Collection and Entry. EPA examines the overall data collection and date entry process for consistent implementation to ensure data integrity and accuracy. Procedures are also examined to ensure that they are acceptable and allow for submitting data to WIPP via the WWIS system. ° Data Validation. EPA ensures that procedures exist and are technically adequate for reviewing/ validating waste characterization data prior to submittal to WIPP via WWIS. ° Data Requirements. The Agency also determines whether data are collected and formatted consistently with requirements of WWIS, including: ­ Container number ­ TRU alpha activity ­ Site identifier ­ TRU alpha activity uncertainty ­ Waste stream profile number ­ Matrix code ­ TRU alpha activity concentration ­ TRUCON code ­ Decay heat ­ TRU alpha activity ­ Decay heat uncertainty concentration uncertainty ­ Packaging number ­ 239 Pu equivalent activity ­ Assembly identifier ­ 239 Pu fissile gram equivalent ­ Handling code ­ 239 Pu fissile gram equivalent ­ Waste type code uncertainty ­ Radionuclide name ­ Packaging layers 41 ­ Radionuclide activity ­ Alpha surface contamination ­ Radionuclide activity uncertainty ­ Dose rate ­ Radionuclide mass ­ Sample identifier ­ Radionuclide mass uncertainty ­ Sample type ­ Waste material parameter weight ­ Sample date ­ Radioassay method ­ Analyte ­ Assay date ­ Analyte concentration ­ Characterization method ­ Analyte detection method ­ Characterization method date ­ Shipment number ° Data Security. Procedures should be in place to ensure that data in the system are secure. ° WWIS Verification. Procedures should be in place to verify data submitted to the WIPP via the WWIS system. The sites must provide any container­ specific tracking reports (e. g., WWIS Waste Container Data Reports), data validation forms, and other information as needed to determine that the site has a system of controls in place that adequately meets the requirements of §194.24( c)( 4). II. D. 1.2 Demonstration of WWIS Implementation EPA inspection team observes a demonstration of data entry and submittal to the WIPP site via the WWIS system and interviews system operators and data tracking/ validation officials to assess the extent to which the specified processes are being implemented. The inspection team observes adherence to procedures, proper documentation of required data (e. g., validation at the project level, verification of data received from the WWIP site after submittal of characterization data), and results of system operation. No specific analytical equipment is required for this process other than the WWIS itself and any other site­ specific data entry systems used to convey site information to the WWIS, including any computerized systems for implementing data validation procedures. EPA expects the sites to provide a demonstration of their data systems, the ability to transmit and receive data from the WWIS system, and the ability to verify that accurate data have been input into the WWIS system. EPA inspectors examine the data system used to collect waste characterization data to ensure that all appropriate data fields required for entry into the WWIS are accounted for and that the data are transferrable to WWIS either manually or electronically. Further, EPA evaluates the quality of the input data, by reviewing data packages at the point of project level data validation (the point at which data are input into the WWIS for submittal to WIPP). EPA expects a demonstration of the site's ability to ensure connectivity with the WWIS and that data can be transmitted via the WWIS to WIPP and received from WIPP as entered into the site's individual data system. II. D. 1.3 Personnel Qualifications 42 EPA checks that personnel conducting validation/ review and verification and entry of waste characterization data into the WWIS data system are qualified to enter data and verify accuracy of waste characterization data for wastes destined for disposal at WIPP. Specifically, EPA examines procedures for ensuring that training occurs and operator training/ experience records for: ° Initial WWIS orientation ° Using the WIPP Waste Information System User's Manual for Use by Shippers/ Generators (DOE/ CAO­ 97­ 2273) ° Site­ specific procedures for manual or electronic data entry into WWIS. II. D. 2 Technical Description of Measurement Device As previously described, the WWIS is an electronic database that contains information related to the characterization, certification, shipment, and emplacement of TRU waste at the WIPP. The data are required to ensure that waste destined for WIPP meets applicable regulatory conditions, including radionuclide data on CH and RH TRU waste, cumulative activity of RH waste, and amount of important waste material parameters (e. g., cellulosics). Individual generator sites are responsible for inputting waste data into the WWIS system externally. Generator sites have developed their own unique systems for collecting the information needed to be transmitted to WWIS, including worksheets, electronic spreadsheets, and fully integrated electronic data systems. Regardless of the mechanism for collecting data, each generator site is responsible for verifying and validating all required data prior to submittal to WIPP via the WWIS system. In the CCA, DOE stated that the WWIS tracks waste components and associated uncertainties against their upper and lower limits and provides notification before the waste component limits are exceeded, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 194.24( e)( 1) and (2). Each site has determined its own approach for submitting TRU waste characterization data to WIPP for shipments for disposal. In some cases, sites have developed separate databases to track data generation, validation, and/ or data submittal to WIPP. At other sites, the data input system is manual, which may result in a higher degree of uncertainty in data quality. However, issues with respect to data quality may also arise at sites using electronic data collection, verification, and transmittal. For example, EPA observed during an inspection at INEEL that personnel had the ability to change data without receiving proper approval for such changes. II. D. 3 Effect of Waste Matrix or Waste Type on Measurement The WWIS and data validation programs at sites are not impacted by waste type, with the exception of RH­ TRU waste. EPA determined in its initial certification that DOE did not provide any waste characterization methods for RH­ TRU waste, nor was there discussion specific to how DOE will quantify the RH­ TRU waste. All of the waste characterization discussions in Chapter 4 43 of the CCA concern CH­ TRU waste, except for Chapter 4, Table 4­ 13 (p. 4­ 49), which is entitled "Applicable CH­ and RH­ TRU Waste Component Characterization Methods." Furthermore, DOE provided no discussion regarding the applicability of CH­ TRU waste characterization methods to RH­ TRU waste. Therefore, the effectiveness of existing WWIS procedures and methods has yet to be demonstrated for RH­ TRU waste streams. II. D. 4 Scope of EPA Approvals for Data Validation/ Verification and the WWIS The range of waste types that EPA may approve at any given time is not affected by the WWIS or the data validation processes, with the exception of RH­ TRU waste as described in section D. 3. To date, approvals have not specifically been limited by waste type, although they may be limited due to other factors (e. g. NDA). 44 III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNED III. A Summary of Results Implementation of the inspection process described in Sections I and II has resulted in a program whereby EPA is compelled to provide authorizations that either mirror that sought by the site (i. e., for given waste streams or Summary Waste Category Groups), or is less than that sought by a site due to system limitations. Consequently, EPA is required to revisit sites multiple times as new systems, wastes, or other elements arise. Table 2 presents inspections performed by EPA to date under the authority of § 194.8( b) and the scope of the resulting approvals. As shown in this Table, EPA has inspected 7 sites, ranging from one to 9 times each. The broadest approval given by EPA has been for specific Summary Waste Category Groups of Retrievably Stored Waste (i. e., debris waste at RFETS), while the most limited approval was for a single waste stream at the SRS, although this limited approval was all that SRS sought at the time of the inspection. DOE sites that have been authorized by EPA to ship waste to the WIPP have adequate waste characterization programs overall. In some instances, EPA was unable to complete an inspection because of the site's limited implementation of activities within the scope of the inspection. 45 Table 2 § 194.8( b) Inspections Performed by EPA as of January, 2002 Generator Site Date of Inspection Type of Inspection Inspection Scope Elements Examined Scope of EPA Approval Rocky Flats (RFETS) EPA­ RFETS­ 6.98­ 8 June 22­ 25, 1998 194.8 Contact­ handled debris waste NDA, AK, RTR, VE, WWIS/ DV Characterization program was approved, with NDA approval limited to the use of IQ­ 3 SGS and WM3100 PNC RFETS EPA­ RFETS­ 4.99­ 8 April 27­ 28, 1999 194.8 Leco crucibles and pyrochemical salt NDA, AK, VE Characterization program was approved and broadened to include Leco Crucibles and pyrochemical salt, with NDA approval expanded to include the use of calorimetry (CAL/ GAMMA) RFETS EPA RFETS­ 11.99­ 8 November 16­ 18, 1999 194.8 Wet residue, dry residue, pyrochemical salts, incinerator ash (including Leco crucibles and magnesium oxide inserts) NDA/ gravimetric techniques, AK, WWIS/ DV Characterization program was approved and broadened to include wet/ dry residue, pyrochemical salts, and incinerator ash, with NDA approval expanded to include SGS Can Counters, SGS Drum Counters, and the TGS RFETS EPA­ RFETS­ 9.00­ 8 September 18­ 21, 2000 194.8 Residues NDA Characterization program was approved, with NDA approval expanded to include NMC, two new TGS CAN Scanners, and a skid­ mounted Tomographic Gamma Can/ Drum Scanner RFETS EPA­ RFETS­ 1.01­ 8 January 29­ February 2, 2001 194.8 Contact Handled Retrievably Stored Debris/ Solids NDA Inspection postponed by DOE RFETS EPA­ RFETS­ 5.01­ 8 May 14­ 17, 2001 194.8 Debris waste NDA, WWIS/ DV, VE, RTR Limited approval of SuperHENC, Building 569 PADC, Building 569 Tomographic Gamma Scanner. Generator Site Date of Inspection Type of Inspection Inspection Scope Elements Examined Scope of EPA Approval 46 INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 7.98­ 8 July 28­ 30, 1998 194.8 Contact­ handled retrievably stored debris waste generated at Rocky Flats AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV Limited characterization program was approved for only inorganic solids and graphite debris waste, with NDA limited to Canberra IQ2 and SWEPP PAN INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 5.99­ 8 May 17­ 21, 1999 Originally planned to be 194.8, revised to 194.24 Scheduled to examine solids, debris, soils, gravels. AK, NDA, RTR, WWIS/ DV Elements of system examined were inconclusive with regard to wastes examined; EPA instead verified that previously approved system was being adequately maintained INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 4.00­ 8 April 24­ 28, 2000 194.8 Contact­ handled retrievably stored debris waste generated at Rocky Flats NDA, WWIS/ DV, VE, RTR Characterization program was approved and broadened to include all CH retrievably stored debris waste generated at Rocky Flats. NDA approval broadened to include SWEPP SGRS and PAN systems INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 12.00­ 8 December 5­ 7, 2000 and one day follow­ up on January 8, 2001 194.8 Contact­ handled retrievably stored homogenous solids (S3000) waste generated at Rocky Flats AK, NDA Characterization program was approved and broadened to include homogenous solids; NDA approval expanded to include SWEPP SGRS and PAN systems re­ examined for subject waste INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 7.01­ 8 July 25­ 26, 2001 194.8 Contact­ handled retrievably stored homogenous solids and debris waste generated at Rocky Flats NDA Characterization program was approved; NDA system approval broadened to include WAGS INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 10.01­ 8 October 29­ 31, 2001 194.8 Organic sludge NDA, AK Inspection postponed by DOE SRS EPA­ SRS­ 11.00­ 8 November 6­ 17, 2000 194.8 Waste stream SR­ T001­ 221F­ HET (a contacthandled debris waste) AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV Characterization program approved for one waste stream; NDA approved use of PAN and SGS systems Generator Site Date of Inspection Type of Inspection Inspection Scope Elements Examined Scope of EPA Approval 47 SRS EPA­ SRS­ 9.01­ 8 September 24­ 26, 2001 194.8 Retrievably stored, contact­ handled debris waste generated at SRS and limited to waste streams SRW027­ 221F HET A­ HET­ E AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV Inspection postponed by DOE SRS EPA­ CCP­ 10.01­ 8 October 15­ 19, 2001 194.8 Retrievably stored, contact­ handled debris waste generated at SRS and limited to waste streams SRW027­ 221F HET A­ HET­ E AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV All elements approved for CCP systems at SRS only (i. e., CCP VE, IPAN/ GEA, RTR, WWIS). SRS EPA­ SRS­ 12.01­ 8 December 12­ 16, 2001 194.8 Retrievably stored, contact­ handled debris waste generated at SRS and limited to waste streams SRW027­ 221F HET A­ HET­ E AK, NDA Report pending. LANL EPA­ LANL­ 6.99­ 8 June 14­ 18, 1999 194.8 Contact­ handled, retrievably stored debris and solidified homogenous solid wastes (S5000 and S3000) AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV All elements approved, NDA systems approved were the TGS and HENC NTS EPA­ NTS­ 6.99­ 8 June 7­ 11, 1999 194.8 Contact­ handled debris waste AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV Waste characterization program did not adequately characterize the proposed waste; approval denied. Hanford EPA­ HAN­ 1.00­ 8 January 24­ 28, 2000 194.8 Contact­ handled debris waste AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV Characterization program was approved for contact­ handled debris waste; NDA systems approved were two GEA systems and one IPAN system Generator Site Date of Inspection Type of Inspection Inspection Scope Elements Examined Scope of EPA Approval 48 Hanford EPA­ HAN­ 12.01­ 8 December 17­ 21, 2001 194.8 Contact­ handled debris and solid waste NDA, VE Approved to characterize CH­ debris waste using the SGSAS NDA system and CH­ solids using VE process during repackaging. AK = Acceptable Knowledge; CAL/ GAMMA = Calorimetry; CBFO = DOE Carlsbad Field Office; CCP = Centralized Characterization Project; DOE = U. S. Department of Energy; DR/ CT = Digital Radiography/ Computed Tomography; DV = Data Validation; GEA = Gamma Energy Assay; EPA = U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; HENC = High Efficiency Neutron Counter; HGPe = High Purity Germanium; INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; IPAN = Imaging Passive Active Counter ; LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratories; LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; NDA = Nondestructive Assay; NMC = Neutron Multiplicity Counter; NTS = Nevada Test Site; PADC = Passive Active Drum Counter; RFETS = Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site; RTR = Real­ Time Radiography; SGS = Segmented Gamma Scanner; SGSAS =Segmented Gamma Scan Assay System ; SRS = Savannah River Site; SWEPP SGRS = Stored Waste Examination Pilot Plant Gamma Ray Spectrometer ; SWEPP PAN = Stored Waste Examination Pilot Plant Passive Active Neutron Counter ; TGS CAN = Tomographic Gamma Scanner; TRU = Transuranic; VE = Visual Examination; WAGS = Waste Assay Gamma Spectrometer; WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plan; WWIS = WIPP Waste Information System 49 III. B Lessons Learned As a result of our site inspection experience we have identified a number of general observations, or "lessons learned," related to waste characterization activities. ° Implementation of waste characterization is not consistent across sites. Because one generator site is capable of implementing an adequate program does not mean that other sites that use the same equipment are also implementing an adequate program. For example, while EPA has approved the use of Mobile Characterization System (MCS) NDA at RFETS (Inspection EPA­ RFETS­ 6.98­ 8; Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 4), EPA has not allowed the use of the same equipment at Nevada Test Site due to concerns regarding quality control, measurement performance, and documentation (Inspection EPA­ 6.99­ 8; Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 9). ° Sites have not been able to characterize all of their wastes at the time of inspection, and approvals have been sought and given based on sites' own limitations. For example, Savannah River Site originally sought and was granted EPA approval for characterization of a single waste stream, and wrote procedures specific to that waste stream (Inspection EPA­ SRS­ 11.00­ 8; Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 16). EPA may extend approvals for all waste types in some areas, but in other instances the limitation is warranted. For example, use of the WWIS for data transmittal is not conditioned on waste type, but the method of nondestructive analysis may be. INEEL initially developed procedures and characterization activities focusing only on inorganic solids and graphite debris waste (Inspection EPA­ INEEL­ 7.98­ 8, Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 2). Consequently, a single, one­ size­ fits­ all approval typically is not possible for all waste types and processes at a site. ° AK and NDA personnel sometimes do not communicate adequately, resulting in the use of AK data by NDA personnel that the AK personnel did not know existed. For example, Hanford Site NDA personnel used AK radioassay information to help determine isotopic distribution, but this information was not provided to the AK personnel, included in the AK record, or integrated into AK Summary documentation. The AK­ NDA linkage is crucial when AK is used directly by NDA personnel, and EPA inspectors examine AK­ NDA interface issues as part of the evaluation of the overall characterization program. Problems with the interface reflect a loss of control over use of important data by a site. ° EPA has performed some inspections for which only limited examples of procedural implementation were provided by the site. Only a few waste containers were fully characterized, and it was difficult to determine how the system would function once the process was fully operational. For example, initial approval of the INEEL waste characterization system for solids/ solidified waste was sought based on full characterization of only a single drum of waste (Inspection EPA­ INEEL­ 12.00­ 8; Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 15). In such instances, it is essential that rigorous application 50 of controls be maintained after approval is given and production level characterization begins. In the case of INEEL, EPA found that this site inadvertently shipped waste characterized using an NDA system that was not yet approved by EPA, necessitating more inspections by EPA. (Inspection EPA­ INEEL­ 7.01­ 8; Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 17). Once EPA has given the initial approval to a site's overall program, it is useful to perform "system check" inspections on a regular basis. The frequency of inspections may lessen as the site demonstrates institutional control over the characterization process. EPA should have flexibility in scheduling inspections, and this flexibility should be independent of DOE's own inspection process. ° Often EPA inspectors arrive at a site to find that the lower­ tier procedures that they reviewed in advance have been revised by the site, in response to earlier CBFO inspections and surveillances or for other reasons. EPA has experienced this problem at every site. This situation interferes with the smooth progress of the inspection plan, because inspectors must take the time to compare the procedures and understand the changes before proceeding with the substance of the inspection. ° Consistent with 40 CFR 194.8( b), EPA's approach to site approvals has been to authorize characterization only for certain waste streams or groupings of waste streams (i. e., Summary Waste Category Groups). Consistent with its QA procedures, DOE's approach has been to certify sites' characterization programs overall and then authorize shipment only of waste streams presented by the site. This difference in approach to site approvals/ certification has been confusing for DOE sites, particularly during EPA's early inspections in 1998 and 1999. 51 IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON EPA INSPECTIONS This section presents several examples of the public comments that EPA has received on their inspection results. As of January 2002, we have published a total of twenty­ one Federal Register notices related to those inspections. In response to the twenty­ one notices, we have received nine sets of comments. Of the comments received, four were from the Environmental Evaluation Group (or EEG, New Mexico's independent scientific oversight organization for the WIPP) and focused specifically on documents in the docket [see Docket A­ 98­ 49, Category II­ A3, Items 11, 21, 22, and 31]. EEG observers usually attend EPA inspections, and so have the opportunity to discuss their comments directly with DOE personnel during the inspection. Other than comments from EEG, we received five sets of comments. Four of these sets were requests to extend the public comment period, which we did in one instance [see Docket A98 49, Category II­ A3, Items 3, 8, 27, and 30], and the remaining set contained specific comments on documents in the docket [see Docket A­ 98­ 49, Category II­ A3, Item 29]. We respond to comments sent to the docket in our inspection reports, which are filed in Docket A­ 98­ 49, Category II­ A4. Representative examples of comments are presented below. EPA­ INEEL­ 7.01­ 8 (July 25­ 26, 2001); Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 17 EPA received two sets of comments in EPA Air Docket A­ 98­ 49 in response to our Federal Register notice of July 13, 2001. The comments are filed as (1) Item II­ A3­ 27 and (2) IIA3 29. Examples of significant comments follows. Issue A: Information provided in Docket A­ 98­ 49 was not sufficient to enable the public or EPA to reach conclusions about the compliance of the WAGS system. Therefore, EPA should extend the public comment period. 1. Based on the documents in the docket, it is impossible for EPA or the public to know how many drums were certified using the WAGS system because none of the documents in the docket describe what characterization and quality assurance (QA) procedures were used on the 1,917 drums with waste in the 69 shipments that INEEL made to WIPP between December 7, 2000 and June 27, 2001 (INEEL shipments KN001201 and 1202, IN010031 to 010097 ­­ WIPP Waste Information System data). [1] 2. The docket provides no basis for EPA, or the public, to conclude that the WAGS System actually operated in a manner equivalent to the SGRS system for any or all of the period that it was being used as part of the waste characterization process. [1] 3. Neither EPA, nor the public, can conclude that the drums shipped to WIPP were adequately characterized, so the question of what should now be done with those drums at WIPP cannot be answered based on documents currently available to the public. We believe that 52 EPA cannot make any decision about the status of those drums without adequate documentation being made available to the public. [1] 4. Based on the documents in the docket, we cannot conclude that the WAGS system meets the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR 194.8( a). [1] 5. Based on the documents in the docket, we also cannot conclude that the WAGS system meets the waste characterization requirements of 40 CFR 194.8( b). [1] 6. The docket provides no documentation regarding how INEEL or EPA determined which drums were characterized using the WAGS system, how the WAGS system was used and how its use changed during the time period in question, as to the nature of the process knowledge documentation for those drums, or other relevant information. Thus, based on what is available in the docket, the public cannot adequately comment on the status of those drums, nor does EPA have adequate information to make its determinations. [1] 7. As specified in its Federal Register notice of July 13, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 36723), EPA is providing its normal 30­ day public comment period on "waste characterization program documents." However, the current situation is not normal, it is the most complex yet faced by EPA involving a site's waste characterization program. In such an abnormal situation, a longer public comment period is necessary, and it is clearly allowed by 40 CFR 194.8. In addition, the fact that important documents are not yet available necessitates an extension of the public comment period to allow public comment on the appropriate documentation. [1] Response to Issue A: We decided not to extend the comment period. We believe that 30 days was sufficient time to allow the public to raise questions or concerns about the WAGS system, and that the information that we docketed was appropriate, for the reasons explained below. When we open a comment period under 40 CFR 194.8, the primary purpose of the public comment period is to allow the public to provide potentially relevant information to EPA or to raise compliance concerns or questions, so that EPA is aware of those concerns and questions and can seek resolution to them prior to making a final compliance decision. Any specific processes or waste streams about which we are seeking public input are defined in the inspection notice that we provide in the Federal Register. As we explained in our May 1998 Certification Decision (see, for example, EPA Air Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item V­ C­ 1, pp. 2­ 8 to 2­ 11 and 6­ 26), EPA's compliance decision under 194.8 must be based on our independent inspections of waste characterization processes. Inspections involve review of many different documents, interviews with staff, and on­ site demonstrations, which are then summarized and made public in our inspection reports. It is neither possible nor appropriate to attempt to place all information that may be relevant to the scope of our inspection in our docket before we conduct an inspection. 53 We docketed key documents that we determined were pertinent to the proposed WAGS system. In light of the WAGS­ related nonconformance that we identified in June 2001 (see Issue B below), and in anticipation of public concern, we included additional DOE documents that directly pertained to the nonconformance. It was not our expectation that the public would be able to reach conclusions about either the WAGS system's technical adequacy or the WAGS­ related nonconformance based solely on the docketed materials. EPA makes the determination of compliance following a site inspection. With regard to comment A. 1, we obtained objective evidence during our July 2­ 3 inspection at INEEL that established the status of all drums characterized by the WAGS system and shipped to the WIPP site. This information is contained in our report for inspection no. EPAINEEL 7.01­ 24 (Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A1­ 28). EPA­ RFETS­ 4.99­ 8 (April 27­ 28, 1999); Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 6 EPA received one set of comments from the EEG in response to the items announced in the Federal Register on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14418). The letter from EEG, dated April 23, 1999, may be found in EPA Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A3­ 11. Below are some examples of significant issues raised in EEG's letter and EPA's response to those issues. EPA inspectors discussed some of the issues with DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CAO) personnel (Sam Vega, Van Bynum, and Mark Doherty) and RFETS personnel (Gerald O'Leary and Mark Castagneri) during the inspection, in the presence of Ben Walker of EEG. EEG Issue D: Sites such as RFETS must meet requirements for certain waste material parameters that have not been shown to affect the WIPP's performance. RFETS should consider the relative importance of waste material parameters. 1. The RFETS QAPjP follows the CAO's Transuranic Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Program Plan (TRU Waste QAPP, CAO­ 94­ 1010, Revision 0) in continuing to consider all of the TWBIR waste material parameters equally. . . [The RFETS QAPjP], and the overall RFETS TRU waste program, should develop training and awareness of the relative importance of obtaining defensible measurements for the two types of waste material parameters [i. e., cellulosics/ plastics/ rubbers and ferrous metals] that have been shown to be important to containment of waste in the repository. EPA's Response to Issue D: This comment suggests that, by treating "all of the TWBIR waste material parameters equally," RFETS (and DOE generally) may be compromising in some fashion the analysis of waste parameters that are central to compliance with EPA's disposal regulations. EPA did not find evidence during the inspection to support the claim that RFETS is not properly accounting for the important waste parameters. As for other parameters, EPA does not have a basis to require 54 programmatic changes in the WIPP project unless they are shown to be necessary for compliance with our regulations. EEG Issue N: The docketed items were well done but may be insufficient for assessing RFETS compliance. 1. [EEG's] comments. . . should be considered as describing deviations in what, for the most part, appears to be a very well­ planned program adequate to meet the EPA's waste characterization planning requirements specified in 40 CFR 194.8. . . The EEG does, however, point out that documentation the EPA may need for thorough analysis of RFETS compliance with 40 CFR 194 may not be covered by the documents provided to the WIPP docket for public review. EPA's Response to Issue N: EPA agrees that the RFETS TRU Waste Management Manual and Quality Assurance Project Plan are well­ prepared documents. EPA cannot rely solely on such documents, however, to evaluate transuranic waste sites' quality assurance and waste characterization programs. As we have noted elsewhere, inspections and inspections are appropriate mechanisms for verifying compliance with Conditions 2 and 3 of our certification of the WIPP (see, for example, 63 FR 27359). Prior to, during, and after inspections EPA may review a wide variety of procedures, records, and data in order to reach a determination that the programs under review are adequately established and executed. EPA requires DOE to submit a site's top governing documents prior to an inspection to afford the public an opportunity to comment on the site's programs and to raise issues that the Agency should consider in deciding whether or not to approve those programs. 55 V. CONCLUSIONS EPA's inspection process examines the technical elements important to demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR 194.24 waste characterization systems of control. EPA inspectors examine Acceptable Knowledge (i. e., the historical documentation that provides radionuclide, waste material parameter, and other information), Nondestructive Assay (for radionuclide quantifications), Visual Examination/ Radiography (to assess physical waste contents), and data transfer and data validation. Evaluation of these technical elements is sufficiently comprehensive to assess the technical adequacy of the system of controls for waste characterization. Inspections conducted to date have demonstrated that the application of technical elements listed above varies considerably from site to site. The regulatory language governing site inspections has led EPA to respond to issues involving one or more technical elements by restricting the scope of site approval. As a result, EPA inspectors must return to an approved site if the site seeks to ship additional waste streams, use equipment not previously inspected, or make significant changes to procedures or methods for waste characterization. 56 REFERENCES EPA 1994. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Analysis at Facilities that Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Waste. EPA Office of Solid Waste. Directive Number 9938.4­ 03. April 26, 1994. EPA/ NRC 1997. U. S. Environmental Protection Agecy & U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Joint NRC/ EPA Guidance on Testing Requirements for Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous Waste. 62 FR 62079­ 62094. November 20, 1997.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.760384

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0005-0003

Proposed Rule

Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance with the Disposal Regulations; Alternative Provisions [A-98-49-VI-A-1]

Friday, August 9, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 194 Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waster Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance With the Disposal Regulations; Alternative Provisions; Proposed Rule VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51930 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 194 [FRL– 7255– 4] RIN 2060– AJ07 Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the Disposal Regulations; Alternative Provisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (`` EPA, '' or `` the Agency'' or `` we'') is proposing to revise the `` Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the Disposal Regulations, '' which are used to determine whether the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (`` WIPP'') will comply with EPA's `` Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High­ Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes. '' The following proposed revisions are included in today's action: addition of a mechanism to address minor changes to the provisions of the Compliance Criteria; changes to the approval process for waste characterization programs at Department of Energy transuranic sites; changes to allow for the submission of copies of compliance applications and reference materials in alternative format; and replacement of the term `` process knowledge'' with `` acceptable knowledge. '' The proposed changes do not lessen the requirements for complying with the Compliance Criteria. Moreover, these changes will have no effect on the technical approach that EPA employs when conducting independent inspections of the waste characterization capabilities at DOE waste generator sites. EPA is conducting this proposed action in accordance with the procedures for substituting alternative provisions of the Compliance Criteria. Today's notice marks the beginning of a 120­ day public comment period on this proposed action. DATES: EPA requests comments on all aspects of these proposed revisions. If you wish to submit comments on this proposal, you must do so by December 9, 2002. ADDRESSES: Send your comments to: Air Docket, Room M– 1500, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Mail Code 6102, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR– 2002– 0005. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Section B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Agnes Ortiz; telephone number: (202) 564– 9310; postal address: Radiation Protection Division, Mail Code 6608J, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR– 2002– 0005. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at: Air Docket, Room M– 1500, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Mail Code 6102, Washington, DC 20460. This Docket Facility is open from 8: 30am– 5 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Air Docket telephone number is 202– 260– 7548. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Section B under General Information. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002. B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51931 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late. '' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be considered if time permits. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Section C under General Information. Do not use EPA Dockets or e­ mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet home page, select `` Information Sources, '' `` Dockets, '' and `` EPA Dockets. '' Once in the system, select `` search, '' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR– 2002– 0005. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e­ mail) to a­ and­ r­ docket@ epa. gov Attention Docket ID No. OAR– 2002– 0005. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Section A under General Information. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail Send your comments to: Air Docket, Room M– 1500, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Mail Code 6102, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR– 2002– 0005. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier Deliver your comments to: Air Docket, Room M– 1500, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Mail Code 6102, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR– 2002– 0005. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Section A under General Information. 4. By Facsimile Fax your comments to: (202) 260– 4400, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR– 2002– 0005. C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments. Abbreviations Used in This Document AK— Acceptable knowledge Am— Americium APA— Administrative Procedure Act ASME— American Society of Mechanical Engineers BID— Background information document CAR— Corrective Action Required CARD— Compliance Application Review Document CBFO— Carlsbad Field Office CCA— Compliance Certification Application CFR— Code of Federal Regulations CH— Contact handled Cs— Cesium DOE— Department of Energy EEG— Environmental Evaluation Group EPA— Environmental Protection Agency INEEL— Idaho National Energy and Engineering Laboratory LANL— Los Alamos National Laboratory NDA— Nondestructive Assay NPRM— Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NTS— Nevada Test Site NQA— Nuclear Quality Assurance ORNL— Oak Ridge National Laboratory PK— Process knowledge Pu— Plutonium QA— Quality assurance QAPP— Quality Assurance Project Plan QAPjP— Quality Assurance Project Plan RC— Radiochemistry RCRA— Resource Conservation Recovery Act RFETS— Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site RTR— Real­ time radiography SRS— Savannah River Site VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51932 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules Sr— Strontium TRU— Transuranic U— Uranium VE— Visual inspection WAC— Waste Acceptance Criteria WAP— Waste Acceptance plan WC— Waste characterization WIPP— Waste Isolation Pilot Plant WIPP LWA— WIPP Land Withdrawal Act WWIS— WIPP Waste Information System Table of Contents I. What Is WIPP? II. What Is the Purpose of Today's Proposed Action? III. How Is EPA Revising the Process for Establishing Alternative Provisions in § 194.6? A. What Are the Current Requirements in § 194.6? B. What Changes Are Proposed for § 194.6? C. How Has EPA Addressed the Alternative Provision Analysis Required by § 194.6? IV. How Is EPA Revising the Approval Process for Waste Shipment from Waste Generator Sites for Disposal at WIPP in § 194.8( b)? A. What Are the Current Requirements in § 194.8( b)? B. What Are the Proposed Changes to § 194.8( b)? C. How Has EPA Addressed the Alternative Provision Analysis Required by § 194.6? V. How Is EPA Revising the Submission of Compliance Applications and Reference Materials Requirements in §§ 194.12 and 194.13? A. What Are the Current Requirements in §§ 194.12 and 194.13? B. What Are the Proposed Changes to §§ 194.12 and 194.13? C. How Has EPA Addressed the Alternative Provision Analysis Required by § 194.6? VI. How Is EPA Revising the Waste Characterization Requirements in § 194.24( c)( 3)? A. What Are the Current Waste Characterization Requirements in § 194.24( c)( 3)? B. What Are the Proposed Changes to § 194.24( c)( 3)? C. How Has EPA Addressed the Alternative Provision Analysis Required by § 194.6? VII. Administrative Reuquirments A. Executive Order 12866 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 12898 F. National Technology Transfer & Advancement Act of 1995 G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism I. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects I. What Is WIPP? The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (`` WIPP'') is a disposal system for transuranic radioactive waste. Developed by the Department of Energy (`` DOE'' or `` the Department''), the WIPP is located near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico. Transuranic (TRU) radioactive wastes are emplaced 2,150 feet underground in an ancient layer of salt that will eventually `` creep'' and encapsulate the waste containers. The WIPP has a total capacity of 6.2 million cubic feet of TRU waste. Development and construction of the WIPP was authorized under Section 213 of the Department of Energy National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1980 (Public Law No. 96– 164, 93 U. S. Stat. 1259, 1265). WIPP was authorized as a defense activity of the Department of Energy to demonstrate the safe disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from the defense activities and programs of the United States. Pursuant to Section 7 of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (Public Law No. 102– 579, as amended by Public Law No. 104– 201) (WIPP LWA), disposal operations at WIPP are limited to a total volume of 6.2 million cubic feet of transuranic radioactive waste. Section 2( 18) of the WIPP LWA defines TRU waste as waste containing more than 100 nanocuries of alphaemitting transuranic isotopes per gram of waste, with half­ lives greater than 20 years. This definition excludes highlevel radioactive waste, waste determined by DOE with the concurrence of EPA to not need such isolation, or waste that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved for disposal on a case­ by­ case basis, consistent with NRC regulations. Most TRU waste proposed for disposal at WIPP consists of items that have become contaminated as a result of activities associated with the production of nuclear weapons (or with the cleanup of nuclear weapons production facilities), such as, rags, equipment, tools, protective gear, and sludges. Some TRU waste is contaminated with hazardous wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U. S. C. 6901– 6992k)( RCRA). The waste proposed for disposal at WIPP is currently stored at Federal facilities across the United States, including locations in Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington. Section 8( c) of the WIPP LWA required EPA to promulgate criteria, pursuant to Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), for EPA's certification of the WIPP's compliance with the radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR Part 191. On February 9, 1996, EPA published the final `` Criteria for the Certification and Re­ Certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance With the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations' (61 FR 5224) (Compliance Criteria). Section 8( d) of the WIPP LWA set forth specific procedures governing the certification of the WIPP. Section 8( d)( 1) required DOE to submit a complete compliance application by October 31, 1996. Section 8( d)( 1) also provided that EPA had the authority to request any additional information necessary for the Agency's determination of compliance. Section 8( d)( 2) required that EPA complete its certification decision within one year of receipt of the DOE's application. (EPA clarified at § 194.11 of the Compliance Criteria that, consistent with legislative intent, EPA's certification decision would be due within one year of receipt of a complete compliance application.) EPA determined DOE's compliance application to be complete on May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27996). EPA determined on May 18, 1998, that DOE had demonstrated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at Subparts B and C of 40 CFR part 191. EPA's certification determination permitted the WIPP to begin accepting transuranic waste for disposal, provided that other applicable environmental regulations were met and once a 30­ day statutory waiting period had elapsed. EPA based its decision on a thorough review of all the information submitted by DOE, independent technical analyses, and all significant public comments submitted during a nominal 120­ day comment period. EPA's certification, however, was subject to four specific conditions. Thus, EPA amended the WIPP compliance criteria at 40 CFR part 194 to include an appendix setting forth the four conditions on the certification of compliance. These conditions related to (1) design of the panel closure system (which is intended over the long term to block brine flow between waste panels in the WIPP); (2) and (3) activities conducted at waste generator sites that produce the transuranic waste proposed for disposal in the WIPP (specifically with respect to quality assurance and waste characterization); and (4) passive institutional controls. Subsequent to the initial certification, EPA continues to have an oversight role at the WIPP. First, Section 9 of the WIPP LWA requires that DOE submit biennial documentation of continued compliance with specified laws, regulations, and permit requirements. Second, § 194.4 of the Compliance Criteria requires that DOE submit periodic reports on any activities or conditions at the WIPP that differ significantly from the information contained in the most recent compliance application. EPA may also, at any time, request additional information from DOE regarding the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51933 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules WIPP to determine if regulatory action is required concerning the certification. Third, Section 8( f) of the WIPP LWA requires at least five years after the initial certification and every five years thereafter, that DOE submit to EPA and the State of New Mexico documentation of continued compliance with the Part 191 radioactive waste disposal regulations. In accordance with § 194.64 of the Compliance Criteria, documentation of continued compliance will be made available in EPA's dockets, and the public will be provided at least a 30­ day period during which to submit comments. EPA's decision on recertification will be announced in the Federal Register. II. What Is the Purpose of Today's Proposed Action? EPA proposes to revise certain provisions of the Compliance Criteria at 40 CFR part 194. Specifically, EPA is proposing to (1) revise the process for establishing `` alternative provisions'' in § 194.6; (2) revise the approval process in § 194.8 for waste characterization processes at TRU waste generator sites for disposal at WIPP; (3) revise the requirements in §§ 194.12 and 194.13 for submission of compliance applications and reference materials; and (4) change the term `` process knowledge'' to `` acceptable knowledge'' in § 194.24( c)( 3). The proposed revisions are intended to ensure that 40 CFR Part 194 remains comprehensive, appropriate, and based upon current knowledge and information. The Agency solicits comments on this proposal. Section 194.6 of the Compliance Criteria imposes specific requirements for substitution of `` alternative provisions'' of the Criteria. Such alternative provisions must be promulgated pursuant to Section 4 of the APA. Also, in proposing the alternative provisions EPA must describe how the proposed changes comport with the radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, the reasons why the existing provisions appear inappropriate, and the costs, risks, and benefits of compliance with the new provisions. Finally, EPA must provide for a public comment period of 120 days and hearings in New Mexico, and fully consider the public comments that are received. Today's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is organized so that, for each of the proposed revisions, the preamble addresses the following topics: A. What are the current requirements?; B. What are the proposed changes?; and C. How has EPA addressed the Alternative Provision Analysis required by § 194.6? III. How Is EPA Revising the Process for Establishing Alternative Provisions in § 194.6? A. What Are the Current Requirements in § 194.6? Section 194.6 establishes procedures applicable to substitution of alternative provisions of the Compliance Criteria. As discussed above, such substitutions require notice and comment rulemaking, pursuant to Section 4 of the APA. In addition, § 194.6 stipulates that EPA's NPRM address specific aspects of the proposed substitution, include a public comment period of at least 120 days, and public hearings in New Mexico. B. What Changes Are Proposed for § 194.6? EPA is proposing to revise § 194.6 to add a rulemaking process for substituting `` minor alternative provisions'' of the Compliance Criteria. The process for substituting `` minor alternative provisions'' would include: (1) Rulemaking pursuant to Section 4 of the APA; (2) publication of the proposed changes in the Federal Register, together with information describing how the changes conform with the disposal regulations, the reasons why the changes are needed, and the benefits of compliance with the minor changes; (3) a public comment period of at least 30 days; and (4) publication in the Federal Register of the final notice after public comments received have been fully considered. EPA is also proposing to add the following definition of `` minor alternative provision'' to § 194.2: `` minor alternative provision means an alternative provision to the Compliance Criteria that clarifies a regulatory provision, or does not substantively alter the existing regulatory requirement. '' C. How Has EPA Addressed the Alternative Provision Analysis Required by § 194.6? The Agency wants to have the ability to make insignificant changes to the Compliance Criteria in an expedited time frame to facilitate WIPP's continued compliance with our regulations. The provisions for substituting minor alternative provisions could, for example, be used to modify the Compliance Criteria to change regulatory terminology to more clearly express the Agency's intended meaning or to clarify expectations. Substitution of `` minor alternative provisions'' would not in any way substantively modify the Compliance Criteria requirements. 1. Why Do the Existing Provisions in § 194.6 Appear Inappropriate? In certain specific contexts, discussed below, EPA considers the existing provisions to be inappropriate because they are unnecessarily stringent. When § 194.6 was promulgated, EPA was beginning the process of formal regulation of the WIPP. EPA had not yet even received the DOE's compliance certification application. EPA now has engaged in close regulatory oversight of the WIPP for over six years. EPA has engaged in post­ certification oversight of the WIPP for almost four years. During that time, EPA has gained substantial experience and insight into this regulatory process. While § 194.6, as originally drafted, was intended to address all changes to the Compliance Criteria, EPA now realizes that there may be modifications to the Compliance Criteria that, while useful, are not sufficiently significant to require the stringent procedures currently set forth in § 194.6. EPA's oversight experience indicates that minor revisions to the Compliance Criteria requirements may improve implementation and consistency in regulatory compliance. EPA believes that today's proposal includes several examples of minor revisions that would be appropriately addressed by a less stringent process than currently available under § 194.6. For example, EPA is proposing to replace the term `` process knowledge'' in § 194.24( c)( 3) with the term `` acceptable knowledge'' (see section VI of the preamble). This minor revision is intended to acknowledge that `` acceptable knowledge'' is the term EPA has used consistently since the WIPP was certified. EPA is also proposing to permit DOE to submit fewer printed recertification compliance applications than currently required in the Compliance Criteria. These proposed revisions do not substantively alter the intent or the approach to verifying compliance with the waste characterization requirements in any way, but improve the clarity of and more clearly reflect the intent of the Compliance Criteria. Such minor revisions should not require a 120­ day public comment period, nor necessitate a public hearing. We propose that a 30­ day comment period is sufficient for the public to provide the Agency with relevant input on such minor revisions of the Compliance Criteria. In addition to the publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register, EPA intends to announce the proposal on the Agency's website and place all relevant supporting materials in the Agency's public docket. For all VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 16: 53 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 09AUP2 51934 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 The term `` waste characterization, '' as we use it with regard to the WIPP repository and the numerous waste generator sites, encompasses a wide array of activities, all of which serve to determine what is inside any given container of transuranic waste and to control that container until DOE places it in the WIPP for disposal. Stated generally, the Compliance Criteria for waste characterization in § 194.24 require DOE to: Determine which waste components (such as ferrous metals) and characteristics (e. g., acidity) are relevant to the WIPP's performance; show how they affect performance; and identify and track significant waste components as they are placed in the WIPP. The last of these activities is the subject of § 194.8( b). The waste characterization requirements are discussed in great detail in the preamble to the May 18, 1998, Certification Decision final rule. (63 FR 27389– 27393) 2 The term `` waste stream'' means wastes derived from a single process or activity that are similar in material, physical form, isotopic makeup, and hazardous constituents. (Certification Decision proposed rule 62 FR 58813.) 3 Process knowledge (`` PK'') refers to knowledge of waste characteristics derived from information generated contemporaneously with the waste on the materials or processes used to generate the waste. This information may include administrative, procurement, and quality control documentation associated with the generating process, or past sampling or analytical data. Usually, the major elements of process knowledge include information about the process used to generate the waste, material inputs to the process, and the time period during which the waste was generated. (Certification Decision final rule 63 FR 27390.) 4 The system of controls for waste characterization includes, but is not limited to: Measurement, sampling, chain of custody records, record keeping systems, waste loading schemes used, and other documentation. 40 CFR 194.24( c)( 4). 5 The term `` waste component'' means `` an ingredient of the total inventory of the waste that influences a waste characteristic''. 40 CFR 194.2. The term `` waste characteristic'' means `` a property of the waste that has an impact on the containment of waste in the disposal system''. 40 CFR 194.2. The important waste components with regard to the WIPP's compliance are radionuclides, ferrous and nonferrous metals, organic materials such as paper and rubber, and free water. 6 The WWIS is described in Chapter 4 (page 4– 35) of the WIPP Compliance Certification Application as `` a computerized data management system used * * * to gather, store, and process information pertaining to transuranic (TRU) waste destined for or disposed at the WIPP. '' [Air Docket A– 93– 02, Item II– G– 1.] substitutions of alternative provisions that are not minor alternative provisions, as defined in this document (for example, the addition, deletion, or significant revision of a requirement), EPA will continue to comply with the current requirements of § 194.6. EPA defines a `` minor alternative provision'' as an alternative provision that `` clarifies a regulatory provision, or does not substantively alter the existing regulatory requirement. '' Thus, revisions that do not alter the intent or the approach to verifying compliance of an existing regulatory requirement are considered to constitute minor alternative provisions. For example, today's proposed revisions to §§ 194.2, 194.12, 194.13, and 194.24( c)( 3) are examples of minor changes. The proposed revisions to §§ 194.6 and 194.8( b), however, are examples of nonminor alternative provisions. 2. How Do the Proposed Changes in § 194.6 Comport with 40 CFR part 191? The proposed changes for § 194.6 comport fully with the radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191. The WIPP must comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations located at Subparts B and C of 40 CFR part 191. These regulations limit the amount of radioactive materials that may escape from a disposal facility, and are intended to protect individuals and ground water resources from dangerous levels of radioactive contamination. The Compliance Criteria implement and interpret the general disposal regulations specifically for the WIPP, and constitute the basis on which EPA's certification decision was made. Section 194.6 was included in the Compliance Criteria to ensure that any amendments to the Criteria would be effected through the same rigorous rulemaking procedure under which the original Criteria were promulgated. The proposed amendment to § 194.6 would not substantively alter the scope of those requirements. The Compliance Criteria would continue to include the current process established in § 194.6 to revise 40 CFR part 194. The principle difference between the existing and proposed new provisions is the addition of a revision process for minor changes. This new revision process would not substantively affect the Compliance Criteria's implementation of 40 CFR part 191. 3. What Are the Costs, Risks, and Benefits of Compliance with the New Provisions in § 194.6 ? As part of our implementation efforts for the 1998 certification decision, we will continue to develop revisions to the Compliance Criteria, as we deem necessary, based on lessons learned from our oversight experience. This is our first revision to the Compliance Criteria since the initial certification decision in 1998. There will be no increased costs for EPA as a result of the proposed revision. Rather, EPA believes that it is reasonable to expect significant savings over the period of active regulation of the WIPP. The proposed revision will shorten rulemakings where appropriate and eliminate a requirement for public hearings in instances where the impact of changes would be small and public interest may reasonably be expected to be low. Moreover, EPA does not expect DOE to incur additional costs, since the implementation of § 194.6 is solely EPA's responsibility. EPA does not anticipate any increased risks related to the implementation of the proposed revision. Rather, we anticipate that EPA's regulatory activities will become more efficient, and that EPA will be able to implement necessary minor revisions to the Compliance Criteria that are designed to improve implementation and consistency in regulatory compliance. The benefits of the proposed revision to § 194.6 are several. First, the Agency, would be able to make minor revisions to the Compliance Criteria in a timely fashion. Making these types of revisions in a shorter timeframe will enhance compliance with 40 CFR part 194. Second, the public will continue to have an opportunity to review and comment on proposed minor revisions. Third, the Agency will continue to hold public hearings in New Mexico for major revisions to the Compliance Criteria. Fourth, DOE will be able to implement minor revisions faster, therefore, this proposed revision will contribute to safer and more cost effective disposal of radioactive wastes. IV. How Is EPA Revising the Approval Process for Waste Shipment From Waste Generator Sites for Disposal at WIPP in § 194.8( b)? A. What Are the Current Requirements in § 194.8( b)? Section 194.8( b) describes the process by which EPA reviews and approves WIPP­ related waste characterization activities 1 at DOE transuranic waste sites. At present, for each waste stream or group of waste streams 2 other than those approved in our final certification decision, DOE must provide information on how a waste site uses process knowledge 3 to characterize those streams (§ 194.8( b)( 1)( i)). The DOE also must implement a system of controls 4 that confirms that the total quantity of important waste components 5 in the WIPP does not exceed limits established by the final Certification Decision (§ 194.8( b)( 1)( ii)). In order to show EPA that the system of controls is effective, DOE must demonstrate each TRU waste site's measurement techniques and control methods, and must demonstrate that data about waste components are properly transferred from the waste sites to the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS). 6 To evaluate compliance with the above­ mentioned requirements, we must inspect and approve each DOE transuranic waste site that wishes to ship waste to the WIPP for disposal. We must inspect the site's use of process VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51935 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 7 EPA specifically addressed public comments concerning the importance of Condition 3 in EPA's Response to Comments Document for the Certification Decision. See EPA Air Docket A– 93– 02, Item V– C– 1, pages 2– 5 to 2– 9. knowledge and witness a demonstration of waste characterization processes for each waste stream, or group of waste streams, that the site intends to ship. If a site receives our approval to ship a single waste stream, that site cannot ship a different waste stream until we perform an additional inspection under authority of § 194.8( b). EPA imposed these requirements as a condition of the certification to ensure full compliance with the waste characterization regulations at § 194.24( c). Once DOE has submitted waste characterization program plans for a given site, we place the plans in our docket and publish one or more notices in the Federal Register that announce the availability of the plans and our intent to inspect the site on a specific date (§ 194.8( b)( 2)). We also open a comment period of at least 30 days for others to comment on the waste site's plans. After the inspection, we notify DOE of our compliance determination by letter, and place the letter and the report of the inspection in our docket (§ 194.8( b)( 3)). Finally, we perform follow­ up inspections at a site to verify the continuing compliance of approved waste characterization programs (§ 194.8( b)( 4)). The following two subsections explain the purpose of the requirements described above and the basic elements of a waste characterization inspection. 1. What Is the Purpose of EPA's Waste Characterization Inspections? The purpose of EPA inspections at DOE sites is to verify that TRU waste sites are characterizing and tracking the waste such that EPA is confident that the volume and characteristics of the wastes conform with the requirements of the WIPP LWA and the specific conditions of the Certification Decision. The requirements set forth at § 194.8( b) establish a process by which EPA determines whether DOE is in compliance with Condition 3 of the Certification Decision. Condition 3 states, ``[ t] he Secretary [of Energy] shall not allow shipment of any waste from any additional LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory] waste stream( s) or from any waste generator site other than LANL for disposal at the WIPP until the Agency has approved the processes for characterizing those waste streams for shipment using the process set forth in § 194.8.'' (40 CFR part 194, Appendix A.) Accordingly, § 194.8( b) sets forth procedural requirements for EPA's approval of DOE TRU waste sites to ship specific waste streams or groups of waste streams to WIPP. The basis for applying Condition 3 to the WIPP project is rooted in our rationale for the waste characterization criteria in § 194.24. We developed these criteria because, `` in order to make meaningful predictions about the performance of the WIPP over long periods of time, it is necessary to have a good understanding of the characteristics of the waste proposed to be emplaced in the disposal system. '' (Compliance Criteria proposed rule, 60 FR 5771). We required DOE to show, in its compliance application for the WIPP, that a `` system of controls'' was in place to ensure that `` the actual characteristics of waste will be identified before the waste is emplaced in the WIPP. '' (60 FR 5772). The DOE developed an extensive set of technical and quality assurance requirements with which all transuranic waste sites must comply before shipping waste to the WIPP for disposal. At the time of application, DOE had incorporated these requirements into such documents as the Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP), Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC), and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP). However, DOE did not submit the necessary information about all transuranic waste site programs in the application. At the time that DOE submitted the CCA, most sites had not begun the complex process of complying with the WIPP waste characterization requirements and the information therefore was not available to EPA during the certification process. (Certification Decision proposed rule 62 FR 58813– 58814). Consequently, we were not able to determine during the certification rulemaking that the technical and quality assurance requirements for waste characterization activities had been established and properly executed at all transuranic waste sites. LANL was the only transuranic waste site to demonstrate during the certification rulemaking that it could meet the waste characterization requirements for certain wastes. Therefore, as stated in Condition 3 of the certification, EPA only authorized DOE to ship legacy debris waste from LANL to the WIPP. DOE was not authorized to ship other than legacy debris waste from LANL, or any waste streams from other TRU waste sites, until DOE had demonstrated the ability to properly characterize these wastes. DOE's Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO), which operates the WIPP, is responsible for maintaining compliance with EPA's waste characterization requirements. DOE transuranic waste sites vary considerably with regard to the types of waste they characterize and the manner in which they implement the program requirements of CBFO. Therefore, confirmation that waste characterization is adequate must take place where waste characterization occurs, that is, at the transuranic waste sites themselves. (Certification Decision final rule, 63 FR 27392). Inspections of waste characterization programs at individual sites are the best way for us to verify that the sites have identified the actual characteristics of the waste. During inspections, we have access to the site personnel who perform the work, to the facilities and equipment used at the site, and to the operators' extensive documentation. Direct observation of the site's activities greatly increases our confidence in their effectiveness. Confidence in the results of waste characterization is particularly important at this early stage of disposal, when DOE is characterizing waste that TRU waste sites packaged years before the establishment of the WIPP Compliance Criteria. 7 2. What Are the Elements of an EPA Waste Characterization Inspection? After EPA determines that an inspection is necessary, we define the scope of the inspection based on information provided by DOE. We then prepare, and share with DOE, a checklist for each of the activities that we will inspect. During the inspection, our evaluation of a site's waste characterization activities typically involves the activities listed below. EPA inspectors may or may not perform these and other activities depending on the scope of the inspection. Review procedures, records of the maintenance and calibration of equipment and instruments, and personnel training files. Interview responsible personnel (such as equipment operators) and site managers overseeing program implementation. Observe analytical testing of waste drums selected by EPA inspectors to ensure that approved procedures are followed and an instrument is capable of analyzing a given waste stream. Observe equipment operation to determine whether the operator has deviated from the procedures and why and how the deviation may haven affected the waste characterization. Review waste stream data reports. Track waste characterization data through various phases of its generation and confirmation and eventual inclusion in the WWIS. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51936 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 8 In the context of its 194.8 inspections, EPA has defined a finding as `` a determination that a specific item or activity is not in compliance with 40 CFR part 194.'' Similarly, EPA has defined a concern as `` an opinion that a specific item or activity may lead to noncompliance with 40 CFR part 194 at a future time''. The inspectors' determinations are recorded in the checklist for each activity that we inspect. At the end of each inspection, we prepare an inspection report. The completed checklists are included in the inspection report. The inspection report also describes any findings or concerns that the inspectors identified, and states whether EPA requires a response showing how any unresolved finding or concern was resolved. 8 It is sometimes necessary to return to a site to confirm the adequate resolution of a finding. After a site is approved, EPA may review the site's progress on issues that we identified previously during a subsequent compliance inspection. B. What Are the Proposed Changes to § 194.8( b)? Section 194.8 will continue to describe the process by which EPA will inspect and approve waste characterization activities at TRU waste sites. However, we are proposing to alter the process so that the individual waste generator sites will only need one § 194.8 approval from EPA to conduct waste characterization activities related to all on­ site waste streams. This single § 194.8 approval will, however, specify any limitations on the approval that will necessitate additional inspections by EPA. Any such additional inspections will be conducted under authority of § 194.24( h), not under § 194.8. The second key change is that the opportunity for public comment will come after EPA has completed its inspection, but before EPA has approved the site. Therefore, EPA will request public comment on the Agency's inspection report and proposed compliance decision for a site under § 194.8. The revised process by which the Agency will verify compliance with Condition 3 of the certification is described below, followed by an explanation of the two principal procedural changes that result from the revisions. Under today's proposal, first, we require DOE to implement waste characterization programs and processes in accordance with § 194.24( c)( 4) to confirm that the total amount of each waste component that will be emplaced in the WIPP will not exceed the upper limiting value or fall below the lower limiting value described in the introductory text of paragraph (c) of § 194.24. Waste characterization processes include the collection and use of acceptable knowledge; destructive and/ or nondestructive techniques for identifying and measuring waste components; and the validation, control, and transmittal to the WIPP Waste Information System database of waste characterization data in accordance with § 194.24( c)( 4). Second, DOE must notify EPA in writing that a waste characterization program at a transuranic waste site is prepared to characterize waste destined for disposal at the WIPP. The Department will also send documents that explain the site's system of controls for waste characterization, including the use of acceptable knowledge, as described in § 194.24( c)( 4). Third, EPA will conduct a baseline inspection of the waste characterization program at the site to verify that an adequate system of controls has been established in plans and technical procedures, and that those plans and procedures are adequately implemented. The inspection will include a demonstration by DOE of the following: collection and appropriate use of acceptable knowledge data; destructive and nondestructive techniques for measuring waste components identified in accordance with § 194.24( b)( 2), performed on the wastes proposed for disposal; verification of the qualifications of the personnel responsible for performing waste characterization activities; and the validation, control, and transmittal to the WIPP Waste Information System database of waste characterization data, in accordance with § 194.24( c)( 4). It may be necessary to conduct follow­ up inspection activities or continuation of the baseline inspection in order to obtain additional information and/ or confirm the implementation of corrective actions. Fourth, EPA will announce in the Federal Register our proposed Baseline Compliance Decision to accept the site's compliance with § 194.24( c)( 4). In the notice, we will solicit public comment on the relevant inspection report( s) and all supporting materials that we rely upon in making our proposed Baseline Compliance Decision. These materials will be placed in the public docket described in § 194.67. The notice will describe any limitations on approved waste streams or waste characterization processes and identify (through tier designations) what changes to the approved waste characterization process must be reported to and approved by EPA before they can be implemented. EPA will designate significant changes as Tier 1; minor changes will be designated as Tier 2. The notice will open a 30­ day public comment period on the proposed compliance decision. Fifth, after the end of the public comment period our written final Baseline Compliance Decision will be conveyed in a letter from the Administrator's authorized representative to DOE. DOE will comply with any reporting requirements identified in the Baseline Compliance Decision and the accompanying inspection report. A section summarizing significant comments and issues arising from comments received on the compliance decision, as well as the Administrator's response to those comments and issues, will be included in our final inspection report and will be made available to the public through our public docket. A copy of our compliance decision letter will also be placed in the docket. Last, after a site receives our Baseline Compliance Decision, EPA will conduct inspections under § 194.24( h) to confirm the continued compliance of the programs approved and/ or to verify the adequacy of any tier­ assigned changes to the waste characterization processes not authorized by our Baseline Compliance Decision. DOE must report to EPA any changes as identified in the inspection report of our Baseline Compliance Decision. The reporting will inform EPA's decision whether to perform follow­ up inspections. The results of EPA's inspections will be made available to the public through the public docket. If we determine that the system of controls used by the site is not adequate to characterize certain waste streams, then the site may not dispose of materials from those waste streams at the WIPP until the Agency's findings have been adequately resolved. 1. Changes to the Scope of EPA Approvals of Waste Characterization Programs Under the proposed new provisions, EPA will issue a proposed Baseline Compliance Decision that describes what we inspected and found to be technically adequate and also identifies DOE's subsequent reporting requirements for the waste characterization program in question. The various elements of the waste characterization program will be tiered, and the basis for the tiering will be described in the inspection report that accompanies the proposed Baseline Compliance Decision. The proposed tiering approach is a mechanism by which EPA can specify which changes to an approved waste characterization program require EPA approval before waste characterized by VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51937 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules that program is disposed of in the WIPP. TRU waste sites would have a clear understanding of which changes must be approved by EPA prior to shipment and disposal. The tiering of elements of the system of controls for waste characterization will vary depending on the type of analytical systems that a site has demonstrated, the types of retrievably­ stored waste at a site, and the type and quality of information the site has compiled to describe waste contents. The proposed tiered approach applies only to waste characterization activities subject to § 194.8( b) requirements. We propose to institute two tiering levels. Tier 1 designation will be given to activities for which changes have a potentially significant impact on compliance with EPA regulations, such as changes that directly affect measurements and/ or estimates of isotopes and other limited waste components. Tier 1 activities are those for which EPA approval would be necessary prior to shipment and disposal of waste. For example, EPA approval would be necessary if a site introduced a new radioassay technique, because radioassay is a critical element of the system of waste characterization controls. Technical areas that are likely to be subject to Tier 1 designation are acceptable knowledge and radioassay. DOE will be required to submit documentation to EPA in advance that describes planned changes to Tier 1 activities. This documentation will inform EPA's decision regarding which actions, such as performance of an inspection, are necessary in order to approve the changes. Tier 2 activities are those for which EPA approval would not be necessary prior to shipment and disposal of waste. An approved site could implement changes to elements of the waste characterization program with Tier 2 designation without first being inspected or approved by EPA. However, DOE must report changes in the manner prescribed by EPA in the Baseline Compliance Decision. DOE's reporting of changes to Tier 2 activities will assist EPA with the planning of follow­ up inspections at sites. Tier 2 designation will be given to activities that have a minor impact on compliance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria or are sufficiently standardized that they would not be expected to change significantly. For example, the actual operation of radiographic equipment does not vary greatly from machine to machine or from site to site. Also, minor revisions to procedures are a regular part of operations and usually serve to clarify or improve work processes. Technical areas that are likely to be subject to Tier 2 designation are radiography and visual examination. The required reporting by DOE of Tier 2 changes will enable EPA to monitor the overall waste characterization program at a site and develop targeted inspection plans for continuing compliance inspections. When we approve a waste characterization program, we will assign tiering designations based chiefly on the following topics: the extent to which a process was demonstrated at the time of our § 194.8( b) inspection( s); quality of documentation; the range of possible waste streams at a site; the demonstrated proficiency of waste characterization personnel; and the site's compliance with DOE's waste acceptance criteria for the WIPP, as reviewed and approved by EPA. Our inspection report will describe EPA's requirements for reporting of changes to waste characterization activities, including the scope and frequency of reporting. Sites that have not been authorized by EPA to ship waste to the WIPP under the current provisions of § 194.8( b) will be subject to the new process immediately after we issue the final version of this rule. For sites that already have received EPA's approval to ship certain waste streams, we are proposing to reinspect those sites using the revised process. In other words, we will perform a full­ scope inspection at approved sites (Hanford Site, Idaho National Energy and Environment Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, and the Savannah River Site) in order to reset the Baseline Compliance Decision based on current activities at the sites. We will place our proposed compliance decision for each approved site in our docket and open comment on it. TRU waste sites with an approved waste characterization program may continue to ship waste within the scope of the existing approval while the baseline inspection process is taking place, provided that they continue to operate in accordance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria. DOE has initiated an effort called the Central Characterization Project (CCP) to assist small quantity TRU waste sites with the completion of the waste characterization activities required by EPA and State agencies. Under the CCP, a single DOE contractor assumes responsibility for the characterization of a site's transuranic waste. The CCP sends a mobile waste characterization laboratory to the site to complete certain activities, such as radioassay. EPA has approved the CCP's operation at the Savannah River Site, where it was first tested [Air Docket A– 98– 49, Item II– A4– 19]. Under the existing provisions for § 194.8, EPA must first inspect and approve the CCP at each site, for each waste stream or group of waste streams. Under the proposed new provisions, EPA approval under § 194.8( b) will still be required for CCP operations at each site. However, once we have approved the CCP at a site, the CCP will be approved to characterize all waste streams at that site. Moreover, any subsequent inspections by EPA will be performed under § 194.24( h). The same processes described above for TRU waste sites will apply to our compliance decisions for the CCP. 2. Changes to Public Notice of Waste Characterization Inspections Under the existing provisions of § 194.8( b), EPA opens comment on DOE waste characterization plans each time that we plan to inspect a waste characterization program at a site, if that program involves new waste streams or changes to the system of waste characterization controls. We announce comment periods and dates of inspections in the Federal Register. Because each site has multiple waste streams and evolving waste characterization programs, we have opened multiple comment periods on different documents for each site that we have approved to ship waste. We respond to the relevant comments that we receive in our inspection reports, and docket the inspection reports and compliance decisions. Under the new provisions of § 194.8( b), EPA will request comment on our proposed Baseline Compliance Decision for each site, which includes the results of our inspection( s) in the form of an inspection report, and any appropriate supporting documentation, such as objective evidence in support of Agency findings. We will open comment periods only in relation to baseline inspections under § 194.8( b). We will continue to respond to the relevant comments that we receive in our inspection reports, and to docket the inspection reports and compliance decisions. The results of subsequent inspections of waste characterization programs that we perform, including for the purpose of approving Tier 1 changes, will be placed in our docket. In addition to these steps, we plan to continue to announce our inspections and other WIPP­ related activities on our WIPP home page at www. epa. gov/ radiation/ wipp and our WIPP Information Line (1– 800– 331– 9477). We VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51938 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 9 The existing provisions were designed to address the fact that at the time of certification, DOE was able to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed system of controls for waste characterization only for certain waste streams at Los Alamos National Laboratory [see 63 FR 27390]. 10 EPA has prepared a document entitled `` Background Information Document for § 194.8( b) Modification'' (Air Docket OAR– 2002– 0005– 0001), which explains in more detail the technical elements examined during waste characterization inspections, summarizes EPA's inspection experiences to date, and presents lessons learned. This document expands and complements this preamble discussion for the proposed revisions to § 194.8( b). encourage the public to visit our Website and to contact us with questions or information regardless of whether we have opened a public comment period. (Comments in response to an announcement in the Federal Register should be sent directly to the EPA docket specified in the announcement.) C. How Has EPA Addressed the Alternative Provision Analysis Required by § 194.6? The proposed changes to § 194.8( b) are needed to increase the options available to EPA in implementing our regulatory oversight of DOE's waste characterization program, and to simplify the public notice process. 1. How Do the Proposed Changes Comport With 40 CFR part 191? Considered individually and as a group, the proposed changes comport fully with the radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191. The inclusion of requirements for waste characterization in order to implement the disposal regulations was established by the rulemaking that resulted in the WIPP Compliance Criteria at 40 CFR part 194. Today's proposed changes do not alter the scope of the part 191 requirements. The Compliance Criteria will continue to apply waste characterization requirements to the WIPP project. The principal difference between the existing and proposed provisions is the process by which EPA verifies compliance with the provisions and notifies the public of that process. This new process will not substantively affect the Compliance Criteria's implementation of EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191. Moreover, EPA believes that the proposed changes to the 194.8 approval process will allow for more meaningful public participation. 2. Why Do the Existing Provisions Appear Inappropriate? EPA considers the existing provisions inappropriate for the reasons explicated below. EPA explained the basis for the existing provisions in the May 18, 1998, Certification Decision final rule (63 FR 27354). 9 The importance of independently verifying the adequacy of waste characterization activities conducted by DOE has not grown any less relevant. However, our experience with site inspections since the 1998 certification decision has raised two key issues that we believe must be addressed through alternative provisions. First, for a variety of reasons, the focus of the existing provisions on waste streams as the determining factor for initiation of an inspection is overly restrictive for EPA. The requirement at § 194.8( b)( 1) that DOE must demonstrate the system of controls for each waste stream or group of waste streams reflects the fact that some waste streams are better documented than others. Consequently, there may be variations in how a given site uses information in the acceptable knowledge (AK) record in relation to the AK confirmatory program that DOE employs under the terms of the Certification Decision. DOE sites must report to WIPP as part of the TRU waste tracking requirement on a container basis, quantities of 10 WIPPtracked radionuclides (americium­ 241, cesium­ 137, plutonium­ 238, plutonium239 plutonium­ 240, plutonium­ 242, strontium­ 90, uranium­ 233, uranium234 and uranium­ 238) disposed of at the WIPP. Reporting on a container basis may require sites to perform additional waste analysis if using the site­ compiled AK is not adequate to estimate these radionuclides. Similarly, sites are responsible for reporting the quantities of cellulosics, paper, and rubber (CPR) present in each waste container. During the certification rulemaking, we were concerned about the need to monitor the effect of these variances on the quality of waste characterization data. Section 194.8( b) was therefore constructed such that changes to the system of controls, in addition to the introduction of new waste streams, would be sufficient cause to require separate approval. As explained in the 194.8 BID document, EPA's regulatory experience over the past four years suggests that this narrow focus on specific waste streams is no longer necessary. Second, the public notice process described in § 194.8( b) has not yielded the level of comment that we anticipated. As demonstrated by the quantity and type of comments we have received following publication of inspection announcements in the Federal Register, the process may actually be a source of confusion for the public. Each of these issues is discussed below. a. Why are the existing provisions overly restrictive for EPA? EPA now has several years of experience with inspections at DOE sites where waste characterization takes place. Since certifying the WIPP in May 1998, we have completed over twenty inspections under authority of § 194.8. We also have completed numerous other inspections of waste characterization activities under authority of §§ 194.21 and 194.24( h). We conducted the § 194.8 inspections at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site, the Savannah River Site, and the Hanford Site. In addition, we inspected the operation of the DOE Central Characterization Program (CCP) at the Savannah River Site. We approved all of the programs we inspected except for the Nevada Test Site. We also have observed DOE audits at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and Battelle Columbus Laboratory for the purpose of learning about the system of waste characterization controls those sites are developing. 10 Based on this experience, we have determined that the existing provisions constrain EPA's ability to apply limited resources to a burgeoning waste characterization program for maximum regulatory benefit. Under the existing provisions, we must conduct a § 194.8 inspection at a site if any of the following conditions is true: the site has not previously been approved by EPA to ship waste; the site seeks approval for one or more new waste streams that will be characterized using approved processes; the site seeks approval for one or more new waste streams that will be characterized using at least one new or revised process; or the site seeks approval to introduce a new or revised process to characterize one or more previously approved waste streams. DOE is currently engaged in waste characterization at five major sites, and plans to begin operations at four or more additional sites in the near future. The number of DOE sites that ultimately will ship waste to the WIPP could grow to approximately two dozen. There are or will be hundreds of waste streams at these sites, and the methods used to characterize them will change as sites acquire new instruments and techniques. Consequently, the expansion of DOE's national transuranic waste shipment program could lead to an indefinite expansion of EPA's inspection program. If EPA must complete a § 194.8 inspection for each VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51939 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 11 For quality assurance purposes, we verify that data validation occurs in accordance with site procedures, and that properly qualified and independent QA personnel review the data. This step takes place during a QA audit or inspection. For technical purposes, we independently verify the quality of a sample of data. This step takes place during a waste characterization inspection. 12 Currently, EPA is able to conduct such a broad scope inspection. However, new processes and/ or waste streams must be inspected under § 194.8( b), and previously approved processes and/ or waste streams must be inspected under §§ 194.21 and 194.24( h). Today's proposal would allow EPA to review new processes and waste streams under § 194.24( h) after a site has been initially approved under § 194.8( b). new waste stream, group of waste streams, or waste characterization process, the demands of this inspection regime will overwhelm our resources. We believe that it is appropriate to amend the Compliance Criteria to increase the flexibility of our waste characterization inspection program. At present, the most restrictive factor in the existing provisions is that § 194.8( b) requires EPA to issue approvals that are specific to individual waste streams or groups of waste streams. Our experience with DOE's waste characterization activities since 1998 has shown that there are multiple factors that must be considered when verifying technical adequacy, including but not limited to waste groupings. Moreover, for purposes of waste characterization as required under the Compliance Criteria, the applicable waste groupings at the site are often of limited relevance. Typically, DOE TRU waste sites define and delineate waste streams on the basis of factors related to hazardous components of the waste, not radiological waste components. Thus, while the waste stream groupings may have significant relevance for RCRA purposes, they are often of less relevance for purposes of waste characterization requirements conducted under authority of the WIPP LWA. In order to approve a site's waste characterization program, we must be confident that the site is capable of identifying and reporting waste components (particularly certain radioisotopes) identified in the 1998 Certification Decision as important to compliance (see Compliance Application Review Document (CARD) 31, Air Docket A– 93– 02, Item V– B– 2). As DOE stated in Chapter 4 of the Compliance Certification Application (Air Docket A– 93– 02, Item II– G– 1), a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods would be used to identify and report waste components. These methods are: acceptable knowledge, which provides information about waste stream contents and the processes that generated the waste; nondestructive examination of waste containers using radiographic techniques, which provides qualitative estimates of physical waste components; destructive and nondestructive examination of waste containers using radioassay techniques, which was the only quantitative means proposed by DOE to quantify radioisotopic components; destructive (visual) examination of sampled containers to confirm the results of radiography through direct observation and measurement; and data reporting via the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS). Confirmation of data validity at various points is an integral part of these processes. 11 All of these technical processes constitute the `` system of controls'' specified in § 194.24( c)( 4). The demonstrated effectiveness of a given element of the system of controls may or may not be constrained by the specific features of a waste stream. A TRU waste site's implementation of certain elements of the system of controls, such as the WWIS, may not change at all from one waste stream to the next. In contrast, which nondestructive assay techniques may be effective for a given waste stream depends in part on the physical form of the waste and the quality of the acceptable knowledge for that waste. The result most often has been that we have defined limitations on approved waste streams based on the element of the system of controls whose effectiveness is tied most closely to the characteristics of individual waste streams, that is, nondestructive assay (NDA). We have limited (or narrowed) our approvals to certain NDA equipment because factors such as the calibration and physical location of an individual instrument are important to the technical adequacy of the method, and because instrument performance varies based on the radioisotopes in a waste container. DOE may only ship waste streams characterized with certain equipment; otherwise, EPA must conduct another § 194.8 inspection to approve new equipment. Our new approach to waste characterization inspections, with the new tiering approach, will require DOE to report changes such as the introduction of new nondestructive assay equipment, but will allow EPA to determine whether an inspection is needed for the new equipment. Under Tier 2, it is possible that a `` desktop'' review of procedures and data packages will be sufficient to demonstrate the similarity of a new process to an approved process. Alternatively, under Tier 1, EPA will have flexibility to schedule an inspection whose scope covers multiple processes and waste streams, etc. 12 Ultimately, the critical factor in our decision making on the initial approval is how effectively TRU waste sites set and enforce appropriate limitations on the usage of certain techniques, and how carefully they confirm and control the results of those techniques. Issuance of our approval under § 194.8( b) means that we have found that the site developed appropriate procedures for waste characterization processes; the site properly implemented those procedures; and we are confident, based on our independent evaluation, that the data reported to the WWIS are properly controlled. We will continue to make this assessment during the initial § 194.8 inspection( s) at a site. Under the existing provisions, introduction of any waste streams or processes outside the scope of the initial approval necessitates potentially many more § 194.8( b) inspections. The changes that we are proposing today will not alter our authority to limit the scope of any site approval. Rather, the changes will enable EPA to determine independently whether a subsequent inspection is appropriate, and when it should occur. We reserve the authority to specify any appropriate limitations on the waste streams that may be shipped and the processes that may be used to characterize waste. b. How can the public notice process for § 194.8 inspections be improved? Under the existing provisions, EPA must publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing a scheduled inspection under authority of § 194.8( b)( 2). In the same notice or a separate notice, we must solicit public comment for at least thirty days on waste characterization program plans and other documents relevant to the inspection. DOE sends these plans and other documents to EPA and we place copies in our public docket and supplemental dockets. After the comment period has ended, we notify DOE by letter of our compliance determination and place the resulting inspection reports in our dockets (§ 194.8( b)( 3)). In our 1998 Certification Decision, we explained the rationale for the process described in § 194.8( b). In particular, we explained that our compliance decision must be based on our independent inspections of waste characterization processes. Inspections involve review of many different documents, interviews with staff, and on­ site demonstrations, which are then summarized and made VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51940 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules public in our inspection reports [see, for example, EPA Air Docket A– 93– 02, Item V– C– 1, pp. 2– 8 to 2– 11 and 6– 26]. We are not able to provide all potentially relevant information in our dockets when we open a public comment period. Under the existing provisions, we open comment on the top­ tier program plans that describe the fundamental requirements for and organization of waste characterization activities at a site, plus additional procedures if appropriate to the scope of the inspection. Such documents inform our preparation for an inspection and are sufficient to allow the public to raise compliance concerns or questions, or provide additional information to EPA, so that we are aware of that information prior to reaching a compliance decision. We refrain from reaching a final compliance decision until we have reviewed and responded to public comment. Our inspection reports reference the specific materials that we reviewed at the site and contain objective evidence in support of our findings. As mentioned above, we have completed a significant number of inspections under authority of § 194.8( b) since May 1998. We have published a total of twenty­ one Federal Register notices related to those inspections. In response, we received only nine sets of comments, which we believe to be low. Also, several comments consisted of requests to extend a public comment period, which suggests there may be a misunderstanding of the purpose of the comment period under current procedures (that is, to comment on the waste characterization documents in the docket and/ or raise concerns to EPA). Specifically, at least one of the requests argued that an extension was appropriate so that information other than the waste characterization plans and procedures could be docketed and reviewed by the public. Both of these factors indicate that the existing provisions for public notice are not optimal for either EPA or the public. There is also evidence to suggest that the conditions that necessitate additional § 194.8 inspections at an approved site may not be widely understood, even within the DOE transuranic waste complex. The most serious example occurred in July 2001, when EPA learned that waste was shipped from DOE's Idaho site (INEEL) and disposed of in the WIPP despite having been assayed by equipment that had not approved by EPA following inspection. INEEL had received our approval to use certain waste characterization processes on certain waste streams in 1999, but the equipment in question was not included in the previous approval. During an inspection to investigate the nonconformance, we learned that its cause was an isolated failure to follow document control procedures. Nevertheless, our interviews with site personnel and Carlsbad Field Office personnel revealed confusion over whether a § 194.8( b) inspection (including public notice) was required for the new equipment (see Air Docket A– 98– 49, Item II– A1– 28). In response to these issues, the new public notice process that we are proposing would change three key aspects. First, each site would be inspected only once under § 194.8( b), therefore only one comment period would be opened for each site under § 194.8. Second, EPA would solicit comment not only on DOE documentation, but also on our baseline inspection report( s) and proposed compliance decision for each site. The comment period would begin after we have completed all necessary inspections and assembled the inspection report( s). Third, the inspection report resulting from a site's § 194.8( b) baseline inspection( s) would identify and explain EPA's tier assignments for DOE reporting of changes to the approved waste characterization processes, based on the conditions and maturity of the waste characterization program particular to that site. This reporting would inform EPA that a site has implemented or is considering changes to the approved waste characterization processes. For those changes requiring EPA approval, we would perform follow­ up inspections prior to allowing changes in the site's system of controls, or in the waste streams shipped from the site. We believe that this approach is more straightforward than the existing provisions and should serve to reduce any confusion about the public notice process that may exist. 3. What Are the Costs, Risks, and Benefits of Compliance With the Alternative Provisions? Since 1998, we have conducted over twenty inspections under § 194.8( b), at an average cost of approximately $22,350 each (this estimate includes contractor travel and technical support plus labor and travel costs of EPA personnel). These inspections were conducted to approve both new waste streams and new waste characterization processes proposed by DOE. DOE has identified 569 different waste streams as potentially eligible for disposal at the WIPP facility [Air Docket A– 93– 02, Item II­ G– 1, Vol. s III­ IV, Appendix BIRTransuranic Baseline Inventory Report]. If we were to continue to approve site waste characterization activity on a waste stream basis, the costs and logistics of our inspection schedule would rapidly become unmanageable. DOE incurs costs as a result of being inspected by EPA. Operations may be interrupted to some extent while key personnel respond to the inquiries of inspectors and operators respond to EPA's requirements for testing of equipment. The additional reporting requirements introduced by the proposed new provisions also represent costs to DOE. However, we do not anticipate that the long­ term costs to DOE due to the proposed new provisions will be greater than at present. The risk associated with the proposed new provisions is the same as that which exists for the existing provisions. There is always a possibility that a compliance issue may continue undetected by EPA for a period of time, leading to the improper placement of waste in the repository. With regard to this possibility, we note several important considerations. First, EPA will maintain a rigorous inspection program for WIPP waste characterization activities. Second, DOE is required to maintain an active quality assurance program that audits waste characterization programs on an annual basis for compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Last, as the operator of the WIPP, DOE is responsible for maintaining the quality of waste characterization programs. As a regulator of the WIPP, EPA's role is to verify independently that DOE is adequately maintaining quality. The combination of DOE's internal quality assurance audits and EPA's independent regulatory inspections has proven able to identify compliance issues and correct them. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed new provisions do not carry greater risks for compliance with the disposal regulations than the existing provisions. The benefits of the new provisions were described in the preceding section. We expect site shipment activity to increase as approved waste generator sites incorporate new waste streams to their current characterization activities and new waste generator sites seek EPA approval for their shipments for the first time. Under the proposed new provisions, EPA will have more control over our inspection schedule, which will enable us to manage limited resources for maximum regulatory benefit. The proposed changes will not alter EPA's technical approach to VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51941 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules inspections of the waste characterization capabilities at DOE waste generator sites. Inspections will continue to involve in­ depth interviews of personnel, careful reviews of analytical procedures, and demonstrations of waste characterization techniques and equipment. We will approve only sites that can effectively characterize wastes destined for disposal at the WIPP. Once those sites are approved, we will continue to oversee their programs through ongoing inspections. Additionally, we expect that the changes to the public notice process that we are proposing will make the comment period for inspections more relevant. The public will now have an opportunity to review and comment on EPA's proposed decisions and inspection reports prior to site approvals. Finally, the new provisions will be beneficial to DOE because reporting requirements for DOE will be established on a site­ by­ site basis. It will be clearer to the sites when a particular change in their activities will trigger review, inspection, or approval on EPA's part. Also, DOE will be able to implement changes in the Tier 2 elements of their waste characterization activities without prior approval. Sites with more effective waste characterization programs, including sites that successfully demonstrate the applicability of waste characterization controls to the broadest possible spectrum of waste at the time of EPA's inspection, are likely to have more activities listed in Tier 2 than sites with less effective programs. V. How Is EPA Revising the Submission of Compliance Applications and Reference Materials Requirements in §§ 194.12 and 194.13? A. What Are the Current Requirements in §§ 194.12 and 194.13? Section 194.12 of the Compliance Criteria requires DOE to submit 30 copies of the compliance applications and any accompanying materials to the Administrator in printed form. This provision also applies to the compliance applications periodically submitted by DOE for re­ certification of compliance. Section 194.13 requires that 10 printed copies of referenced materials be submitted to the Administrator, unless such materials are generally available. B. What Are the Proposed Changes to §§ 194.12 and 194.13? EPA proposes to revise § 194.12 by changing the number of copies of compliance applications in printed form from 30 to 5 (one original and four printed copies). In addition, the Agency is revising § 194.12 to require that DOE submit 10 complete compliance applications in alternative format (e. g., compact disk) or other approved format. Also, the Agency is proposing to revise § 194.13 by changing the number of copies in printed form of the reference materials from 10 to 5 and to require DOE to submit 10 copies of reference materials in alternative format (e. g., compact disk) or other approved format. C. How Has EPA Addressed the Alternative Provision Analysis Required by § 194.6? The proposed changes to §§ 194.12 and 194.13 are intended to minimize the number of copies in printed form that need to be submitted and to allow for the submission of compliance applications and reference materials in alternative format (e. g., compact disk). The use of alternative format will facilitate compliance with 40 CFR part 194 requirements because it will expedite EPA's evaluation of the compliance application and reduce costs associated with the review of compliance applications and reference materials. Receipt of application materials in alternative format will also improve information sharing with the public by enabling the Agency to more easily make these materials available via the Internet. 1. Why Do the Existing Provisions in §§ 194.12 and 194.13 Appear Inappropriate? The existing provisions in §§ 194.12 and 194.13 are inappropriate because EPA does not need DOE to deliver 30 printed copies of the complete compliance application, nor 10 printed copies of all reference materials. In 1996, when the Compliance Criteria were finalized, the Agency required that 30 copies of the compliance application and 10 copies of the referenced material be submitted for use in our review and evaluation activities. Printed form copies were necessary because the Agency had a limited time period for review and the complexity of the application material required many reviewers. Also, EPA placed copies of these documents in various public dockets. EPA's requirements for the submission of compliance applications and reference materials have changed since the promulgation of the Compliance Criteria in 1996. If material is submitted in alternative format (e. g., compact disk) or other approved format instead of printed matter, it is only necessary to have 5 printed copies of the compliance application and 5 printed copies of the reference materials not included in previous compliance applications (provided that the information has remained true and accurate) for our four public dockets (including an official copy for EPA). New advances in information management require the use of new submission methods, such as the use of alternative format (e. g., compact disk). Information and data in alternative format are easier to view, share, navigate, and analyze. However, current regulatory language in §§ 194.12 and 194.13 does not allow for the submission of compliance applications and reference materials in alternative format. Therefore, today's action proposes to revise the regulatory language in these sections to require alternative format (or other approved format) submission of both compliance application (also re­ certification applications) and reference materials. 2. How Do the Proposed Changes in §§ 194.12 and 194.13 Comport With 40 CFR Part 191? The proposed changes to §§ 194.12 and 193.13 comport fully with the radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191. The inclusion of submission requirements for compliance applications and reference materials in order to implement the disposal regulations was established by the rulemaking that resulted in the WIPP Compliance Criteria at 40 CFR part 194. Today's proposed changes do not alter the scope of those requirements. The Compliance Criteria would continue to apply submission requirements to the WIPP project. The principle differences between the existing and proposed new provisions are that the number of printed copies to be submitted to EPA has been reduced considerably and alternative format (or other approved format) submission of compliance applications and reference materials is now required. The proposed revisions to this part do not impact the Compliance Criteria's implementation of 40 CFR part 191. 3. What Are the Costs, Risks, and Benefits of Compliance With the New Provisions in §§ 194.12 and 194.13? Sections 194.12 and 194.13 require DOE to submit a specified number of copies in printed form of the compliance application and reference materials. This provision also applies to the compliance applications periodically submitted by DOE for recertification of compliance. The VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51942 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 13 This definition is consistent with EPA's and DOE's use of the term `` acceptable knowledge'' during the WIPP certification rulemaking. See, for example: Air Docket A– 93– 02, Item II– G– 1, page 4– 45; Item V– B– 2, Compliance Application Review Document (CARD) 24, page 24– 1; and 63 FR 27390, footnote 32. 14 Examples of processes or operations that create transuranic waste are molding of plutonium with crucibles, laboratory analysis of radioactive samples, and chemical separation of plutonium from other materials. The number and types of processes in use at a DOE site depends on the nature and complexity of the site's mission. proposed revisions reduce the number of copies required and requires submission of compliance applications and references in alternative format (or other approved format). We do not anticipate any cost increase related to our implementation of the changes to §§ 194.12 and 194.13. These changes will improve our ability to view, share, navigate, print, and analyze submitted materials. We expect to be able to conduct our review of compliance applications in a more efficient and cost effective manner. Also, the implementation of these changes will facilitate our ability to share information with the public in a more timely fashion. As we received information and data in alternative format, it would be easier to post this information in our webpage. Similarly, we do not anticipate that DOE will experience any cost increase as a result of their compliance activities with this part because the technology to produce alternative format submittals exists and is currently in use. We do not anticipate any significant risks related to the implementation of the proposed revisions to this part. Submission of information and data in other than paper form is a widely accepted process that will ease the transfer of information between DOE and EPA and therefore, improve compliance with 40 CFR part 194. In summary, the benefits of the proposed revisions for §§ 194.12 and 194.13 are several. First the Agency will benefit from an improved evaluation process and reduced costs associated with the review of compliance applications and reference materials. Second, the public will be able to have better and faster access to information used in support of WIPP compliance activities. This change will improve the public's ability to participate more actively in the public comment process. Third, the proposed changes to §§ 194.12 and 194.13 are intended to reduce the number of copies in printed form that must be submitted, thereby reducing paper usage. VI. How Is EPA Revising the Waste Characterization Requirements in § 194.24( c)( 3)? A. What Are the Current Waste Characterization Requirements in § 194.24( c)( 3)? Section 194.24, waste characterization, generally requires DOE to identify, quantify, and track the chemical, physical, and radiological components of the waste destined for disposal at WIPP that may influence disposal system performance. Section 194.24( c)( 3) requires DOE to demonstrate that the use of process knowledge to quantify waste components conforms with the quality assurance (QA) requirements outlined in § 194.22. To demonstrate compliance DOE must have information and documentation to substantiate that process knowledge data acquired and used during waste characterization activities are in compliance with the QA requirements. EPA verifies compliance with this requirement through inspections, where EPA conducts proper review of such information to determine whether use of process knowledge data is appropriate and reliable. B. What Are the Proposed Changes to § 194.24( c)( 3)? The Agency is proposing to revise § 194.24( c)( 3) by replacing the term `` process knowledge'' with the term `` acceptable knowledge. '' The term `` acceptable knowledge'' has been the term used by EPA and DOE since DOE submitted the Compliance Certification Application, during both the certification rulemaking and subsequent site inspections. Use of the term `` acceptable knowledge'' in § 194.24( c)( 3) in lieu of `` process knowledge'' will not alter our technical approach to verifying compliance during an inspection; rather, it will reflect our actual practice more accurately. For consistency with the change being proposed today for § 194.24( c)( 3), the Agency is also proposing to add the following definition of `` acceptable knowledge'' to § 194.2: `` Acceptable knowledge means any information about the process used to generate waste, material inputs to the process, and the time period during which the waste was generated, as well as data resulting from the analysis of waste conducted prior to or separate from the waste certification process authorized by EPA's Certification Decision, to show compliance with Condition 3 of the certification decision (40 CFR part 194, Appendix A). '' 13 Section 194.2 is contained in Subpart A (General Provisions) of the rule, which describes the purpose and scope of the regulation, clarifies terms, specifies dates, and imparts a range of administrative information. Section 194.2 focuses on providing an explanation of all terms and abbreviations contained in 40 CFR part 194 for clarification purposes. C. How Has EPA Addressed the Alternative Provision Analysis Required by § 194.6? The proposed changes for both §§ 194.2 and 194.24( c)( 3) are intended to clarify exactly what information EPA requires from DOE. EPA expects that with these changes, acceptable knowledge (AK) will be more clearly identified as an integral part of the system of controls for waste characterization and will require DOE to provide information about the entire system of controls (including AK) and implement the systems at each site. Again, these proposed changes in terminology do not alter our technical approach to verifying compliance during an inspection, but will reflect our actual practice more accurately. 1. Why Do the Existing Provisions in § 194.24( c)( 3) Appear Inappropriate? We do not consider the existing provisions in § 194.24( c)( 3) to be fully inappropriate because process knowledge remains a crucial component of the waste characterization system of controls. However, the Agency seeks to improve communication with DOE and the public and the use of consistent and clear language is an important factor towards meeting that goal. Section 194.24( c)( 3) is used to verify compliance in the collection and appropriate use of process knowledge during waste characterization, and that the procedures adhere to the quality assurance requirements identified in § 194.22. During the EPA inspection of a TRU waste site, we review the establishment and implementation of procedures for collection and use of process knowledge, demonstration of waste characterization processes, and the qualifications and practices of technical personnel. The term `` process knowledge, '' as currently used by EPA in the Compliance Criteria, incorporates information about the process or operation that led to the creation of the transuranic waste. 14 The term `` acceptable knowledge'' includes process knowledge, any data resulting from analysis of waste prior to WIPP waste characterization, and any other information about the physical form of VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51943 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules the waste and its base components. The two terms are related; process knowledge is a subset of acceptable knowledge. In Chapter 4 of the Compliance Certification Application, DOE used the term `` acceptable knowledge'' and explained that this term incorporates `` information regarding the physical form of the waste, the base materials composing the waste, and the process that generates the waste. '' DOE derived this usage from an EPA document entitled, `` Waste Analysis at Facilities that Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Waste: A Guidance Manual (EPA530– R– 94– 024, April 1994.'' This guidance defines AK broadly as including process knowledge, waste analysis data from waste generators, and records of analysis performed. A hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility when accepting hazardous waste for management may test waste to confirm that the hazardous waste determination done by a generator is accurate and the facility indeed can handle that particular waste type. The referenced guidance document applies specifically to compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; however, its definition of AK is consistent with the definition that we are proposing for use in the WIPP Compliance Criteria. It is important that both EPA and DOE have the same understanding on the terminology applicable to the requirements in § 194.24( c)( 3). The use of the term `` process knowledge'' in the Compliance Criteria to date has not interfered with DOE's compliance with the terms and conditions of the certification. However, EPA seeks to avoid the possibility for miscommunication now or in the future. 2. How Do the Proposed Changes in § 194.24( c)( 3) Comport With 40 CFR part 191? The proposed changes to § 194.24( c)( 3) comport fully with the radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191. The inclusion of requirements for waste characterization requirements in order to implement the disposal regulations was established by the rulemaking that resulted in the WIPP Compliance Criteria at 40 CFR part 194. Today's proposed changes do not alter the scope of those requirements. The Compliance Criteria would continue to apply waste characterization requirements to the WIPP project. The principle difference between the existing and proposed new provisions is the replacement of the term process knowledge with acceptable knowledge. The use of the new term would not substantively affect the Compliance Criteria's implementation of 40 CFR part 191. 3. What Are the Costs, Risks, and Benefits of Compliance with the New Provisions in § 194.24( c)( 3)? We do not anticipate any cost increase related to our implementation of the changes to § 194.24( c)( 3). EPA will continue to conduct waste characterization oversight in the same manner as before. Similarly, we do not anticipate that DOE will experience any cost increase as a result of their compliance activities with this part. Essentially, DOE will continue to comply with the requirement of this part as they previously have. We do not anticipate any risks related to the implementation of the proposed revisions to this part. The Agency anticipates that the use of the term acceptable knowledge will serve to enhance communication with the regulated party and therefore, compliance with 40 CFR part 194. The benefits of the proposed revisions for § 194.24( c)( 3) are two­ fold. First, the proposed changes will not affect the actual technical approach to verifying compliance during our independent audits and inspections of the relevant WIPP activities. Therefore, EPA will continue to enforce the waste characterization requirements in the Compliance Criteria and ensure that DOE's waste characterization programs are properly implemented. Second, the clarification of the applicable terminology will ensure that no confusion arises regarding the specific waste characterization information required for compliance. VII. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is not a `` significant regulatory action. '' B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (`` RFA'') generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not­ for­ profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it sets forth requirements which apply only to Federal agencies. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paper Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. The Compliance Criteria in 40 CFR part 194 requirements are applicable only to both DOE and EPA and do not establish any form of collection of information from the public. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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. Pursuant to Title II of the UMRA, we have determined that this regulatory action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205, because this action does not contain any `` federal mandates'' for State, local, or tribal governments or for the private sector. This rule applies only to Federal agencies. E. Executive Order 12898 Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), entitled `` Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations, '' the Agency has considered environmental justice VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51944 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules related issues with regard to the potential impacts of this action on the environmental and health conditions in low­ income, minority, and native American communities. We have complied with this mandate. However, the requirements specifically set forth by the Congress in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (Pub. L. 102– 579), which prescribes EPA's role at the WIPP, did not provide authority for EPA to examine impacts in the communities in which wastes are produced, stored, and transported, and Congress did not delegate to EPA the authority to consider the issue of alternative locations for the WIPP. During the development of the existing provisions in 40 CFR part 194, the EPA involved minority and lowincome populations early in the rulemaking process. In 1993, EPA representatives met with New Mexico residents and government officials to identify the key issues that concern them, the types of information they wanted from EPA, and the best ways to communicate with different sectors of the New Mexico public. The feedback provided by this group of citizens formed the basis for EPA's WIPP communications and consultation plan. To help citizens (including a significant Hispanic population in Carlsbad and the nearby Mescalero Indian Reservation) stay abreast of EPA's WIPP­ related activities, the Agency developed many informational products and services. The EPA translated into Spanish several documents regarding WIPP, including educational materials and fact sheets describing EPA's WIPP oversight role and the radioactive waste disposal standards. The EPA also established a toll­ free WIPP Information Line, recorded in both English and Spanish, providing the latest information on upcoming public meetings, publications, and other WIPP­ related activities. The EPA also developed a mailing list, which includes many lowincome minority, and native American groups, to systematically provide interested parties with copies of EPA's public information documents and other materials. Even after the final rule, in 1998, EPA has continued to implement outreach services to all WIPP communities based on the needs determined during the certification. This proposed action does not add or delete any certification criteria. The proposal would revise the public notice process for the approval of waste characterization activities at DOE waste generator sites, which produce and store wastes destined for disposal at WIPP. Affected communities and the public in general would have the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed waste generator site approval decision. The existing provision does not offer such opportunity. The proposed revision makes the public comment period more meaningful to all communities. The Agency also intends to continue its outreach activities to make information on waste characterization activities more accessible by using the Internet, EPA information line, and fact sheets. F. National Technology Transfer & Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer & Advancement Act of 1995 is intended to avoid `` re­ inventing the wheel. '' It aims to reduce costs to the private and public sectors by requiring federal agencies to draw upon any existing, suitable technical standards used in commerce or industry. To comply with the Act, EPA must consider and use `` voluntary consensus standards, '' if available and applicable, when implementing policies and programs, unless doing so would be `` inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. '' We have determined that this regulatory action is not subject to the requirements of National Technology Transfer & Advancement Act of 1995 as this rulemaking is not setting any technical standards. G. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. H. 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. This proposed action revises specific portions of the Compliance Criteria in 40 CFR part 194. These criteria are applicable only to both DOE (operator) and EPA (regulator) of the WIPP disposal facility. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 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. I. 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 9, 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. '' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action revises specific portions of the Compliance Criteria in 40 CFR part 194. The Compliance Criteria are applicable only to Federal agencies. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from Tribal officials. J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 194 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Nuclear materials, Radionuclides, Plutonium, Radiation Protection, Uranium, Transuranics, Waste Treatment and Disposal. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51945 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules Dated: July 30, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 194 is proposed to be amended as follows. PART 194— CRITERIA FOR THE CERTIFICATION AND RECERTIFICATION OF THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE 40 CFR PART 191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for Part 194 continues to read as follows: Authority: Pub. L. 102– 579, 106 Stat. 4777, as amended by Public Law 104– 201, 110 Stat. 2422; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 35 FR 15623, Oct. 6, 1970, 5 U. S. C. app. 1; Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 2011– 2296 and 10101– 10270. 2. Section 194.2, is amended by adding definitions in alphabetical order for `` acceptable knowledge'' and `` minor alternative provision'' to read as follows: § 194.2 Definitions. * * * * * Acceptable knowledge means any information about the process used to generate waste, material inputs to the process, and the time period during which the waste was generated, as well as data resulting from the analysis of waste, conducted prior to or separate from the waste certification process authorized by EPA's Certification Decision, to show compliance with Condition 3 of the certification decision (Appendix A of this part). * * * * * Minor alternative provision means an alternative provision to the Compliance Criteria that clarifies a regulatory provision, or does not substantively alter the existing regulatory requirements. * * * * * 3. Section 194.6 is revised to read as follows: § 194.6 Alternative provisions. The Administrator may, by rule pursuant to 5 U. S. C. 553, substitute for any of the provisions of this part alternative provisions, or minor alternative provisions, in accordance with the following procedures: (a) Alternative provisions may be substituted after: (1) Alternative provisions have been proposed for public comment in the Federal Register together with information describing how the alternative provisions comport with the disposal regulations, the reasons why the existing provisions of this part appear inappropriate, and the costs, risks and benefits of compliance in accordance with the alternative provisions; (2) A public comment period of at least 120 days has been completed and public hearings have been held in New Mexico; (3) The public comments received have been fully considered; and (4) A notice of final rulemaking is published in the Federal Register. (b) Minor alternative provisions may be substituted after: (1) The minor alternative provisions have been proposed for public comment in the Federal Register together with information describing how they comport with the disposal regulations, the reasons why the existing provisions of this part appear inappropriate, and the benefit of compliance in accordance with the minor alternative provision; (2) A public comment period of at least 30 days has been completed for the minor alternative provisions and the public comments received have been fully considered; (3) A notice of final rulemaking is published in the Federal Register for the minor alternative provisions. 4. Section 194.8 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 194.8 Approval process for waste shipment from waste generator sites for disposal at the WIPP. * * * * * (b) Waste Characterization Programs at Transuranic Waste Sites. The Agency will establish compliance with Condition 3 of the certification using the following process. (1) DOE will implement waste characterization programs and processes in accordance with § 194.24( c)( 4) to confirm that the total amount of each waste component that will be emplaced in the disposal system will not exceed the upper limiting value or fall below the lower limiting value described in the introductory text of paragraph (c) of § 194.24. Waste characterization processes will include the collection and use of acceptable knowledge; destructive and/ or nondestructive techniques for identifying and measuring waste components; and the validation, control, and transmittal to the WIPP Waste Information System database of waste characterization data, in accordance with § 194.24( c)( 4). (2) The Agency will verify the compliance of waste characterization programs and processes identified in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section using the following process. (i) DOE will notify EPA by letter that a transuranic waste site is prepared to ship waste to the WIPP and has established adequate waste characterization processes and programs. DOE also will provide the relevant waste characterization program plans and documentation. EPA may request additional information from DOE. (ii) EPA will conduct a baseline inspection at the site to verify that adequate waste characterization program plans and technical procedures have been established, and that those plans and procedures are effectively implemented. The inspection will include a demonstration or test by the site of the waste characterization processes identified in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section. If an inspection does not lead to approval, we will a send an inspection report to DOE identifying deficiencies and place the report in the public docket described in § 194.67. More than one inspection may be necessary to resolve compliance issues. (iii) The Agency will announce in the Federal Register a proposed Baseline Compliance Decision to accept the site's compliance with § 194.24( c)( 4). In the notice, we will solicit public comment on the relevant inspection report( s) and any supporting materials, which will be placed in the public docket described in § 194.67. The proposal will describe any limitations on approved waste streams or waste characterization processes and identify (through tier designations) what changes to the approved waste characterization processes must be reported to and approved by EPA before they can be implemented. (iv) Our written decision regarding compliance with the requirements for waste characterization programs and processes described in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section will be conveyed in a letter from the Administrator's authorized representative to DOE. EPA will not issue a compliance decision until after the end of the public comment period described in paragraph (b)( 2)( iii) of this section. EPA's compliance decision will respond to significant and timely received comments. A copy of our compliance decision will be placed in the public docket described in § 194.67. DOE will comply with any requirements identified in the compliance decision and the accompanying inspection report. (3) Subsequent to any positive determination of compliance as described in paragraph (b)( 2)( iv) of this section, the Agency intends to conduct inspections, in accordance with § 194.24( h), to confirm the continued compliance of approved waste characterization programs and processes VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2 51946 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules at transuranic waste sites. EPA will make the results of these inspections available to the public in the dockets described in § 194.67. (i) If the Agency determines, at a subsequent inspection of an approved transuranic waste site, that waste characterization programs or processes are not adequately established or implemented, then we may suspend shipments and disposal of affected and potentially affected waste streams, or take other action in accordance with § 194.4( b)( 1) and (2), until we determine that the deficiencies have been adequately resolved. (ii) [Reserved] 5. Section 194.12 is revised to read as follows: § 194.12 Submission of compliance applications. Unless otherwise specified by the Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative, 5 copies of any compliance application( s), any accompanying materials, and any amendments thereto shall be submitted in a printed form to the Administrator's authorized representative. In addition, DOE shall submit 10 copies of the complete application in alternative format (e. g., compact disk) or other approved format, as specified by the Administrator's authorized representative. 6. Section 194.13 is revised to read as follows: § 194.13 Submission of reference materials. Information may be included by reference into compliance applications( s), provided that the references are clear specific and that unless, otherwise specified by the Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative, 5 copies of reference information are submitted to the Administrator's authorized representative. Reference materials that are widely available in standard text books or reference books need not to be submitted. Whenever possible, DOE shall submit 10 copies of reference materials in alternative format (e. g., compact disk) or other approved format, as specified by the Administrator's authorized representative. 7. Section 194.24 is amended by revising paragraph (c)( 3) to read as follows: § 194.24 Waste characterization. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) Provide information that demonstrates that the use of acceptable knowledge to quantify components in waste for disposal conforms with the quality assurance requirements of § 194.22. * * * * * [FR Doc. 02– 19796 Filed 8– 8– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 15: 29 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 09AUP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.791493

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0007-0001

Supporting & Related Material

Docket NO: OAR­ 2002­ 0005­ 0001 Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the Disposal Regulations; Alternative Provisions Background Information Document for Amendments to 40 CFR 194.8 (b) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Washington, DC 20460 July 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 A. CurrentProvisionsandSummaryofPertinentElements....................... 1 B. WasteComponentsandWasteDescriptions ............................... 2 B. 1RadiologicalWasteComponents ................................. 3 B. 2Non­ RadiologicalWasteComponents ............................. 5 B. 3GeneralWasteDescriptions ..................................... 5 C. DescriptionofWasteGenerators ....................................... 6 D. CurrentInspectionProcess ............................................ 8 II. DESCRIPTIONOFTECHNICALELEMENTSEXAMINED ..................... 12 DURING INSPECTIONS A. Acceptable Knowledge .............................................. 13 A. 1. OverviewofTechnicalElements................................ 13 A. 2. TechnicalDescriptionofSystemor MeasurementDevice( s) ........... 14 A. 3. EffectofWasteMatrixTypeonMeasurement ..................... 17 A. 4. Scope of Possible EPA Approvals for Acceptable Knowledge .......... 17 B. NondestructiveAssay( NDA) ......................................... 18 B. 1OverviewofTechnicalElements ................................ 18 B. 2: TechnicalDescriptionofSystemor MeasurementDevice( s) ........... 19 B. 2.1 General System Information ............................ 19 B. 2.2 Neutron Systems ..................................... 21 B. 2.3 Passive­ Active Neutron Counters ......................... 23 B. 2.4 Photon Emission and NDA ............................. 23 B. 2.5 Gamma Ray Spectrometry Systems ....................... 25 B. 2.6 Calorimetry Instruments ............................... 25 B. 3: EffectofWasteMatrixor WasteTypeonMeasurement .............. 25 B. 3.1 Neutron Counting Systems .............................. 26 B. 3.2 Photon Measuring Systems ............................. 27 B. 4ScopeofPossibleEPAApprovalsforNondestructiveAssay ........... 27 C. VisualExaminationandRadiography ................................... 28 C. 1 OverviewofTechnicalElements ................................ 29 C. 1.1 RTR Document Review ................................ 29 C. 1.2 Additional Verification­ RTR ............................ 31 C. 1.3 VE Document Review ................................. 33 C. 1.4 Additional Verification­ VE ............................. 35 C. 2 TechnicalDescriptionofSystemor MeasurementDevice( s)........... 37 C. 2.1 Radiography ........................................ 37 C. 2.2 Visual Examination .................................. 38 C. 3 EffectofWasteMatrixor WasteTypeonMeasurement.............. 39 C. 4 ScopeofPossibleEPAApprovalsforRadiographyandVisualExam.... 39 D. WIPPWasteInformationSystemandDataValidation ...................... 40 D. 1 OverviewofTechnicalElements................................ 40 D. 1.1 Data Validation/ Verification and WWIS Inspection Components 41 D. 1.2 Demonstration of WWIS Implementation .................. 42 D. 1.3 Personnel Qualifications .............................. 42 D. 2 TechnicalDescriptionofMeasurementDevice ..................... 43 D. 3 EffectofWasteMatrixor WasteTypeonMeasurement .............. 43 D. 4 Scope of EPA Approvals for Data Validation/ Verification and the WWIS . 44 III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNED ........................ 45 A. SummaryofResults ................................................ 45 B. LessonsLearned ................................................... 50 IV. SUMMARYOFPUBLICCOMMENTSONEPAINSPECTIONS................. 52 V. CONCLUSIONS........................................................ 56 REFERENCES ............................................................ 57 ACRONYM LIST A& PCT Active and Passive Computed Tomography AK Acceptable Knowledge Am Americium APNEA Active and Passive Neutron Examination and Assay ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers BID Background Information Document BIR Baseline Inventory Report CA Compliance Assessment CAO U. S. Department of Energy Carlsbad Area Office (now the Carlsbad Field Office) CAR Corrective Action Report CBFO U. S. Department of Energy Carlsbad Field Office CCA Compliance Certification Application CCD Charge Collection Device CCP Centralized Characterization Project Cf Californium CH­ TRU Contact­ Handled Transuranic Waste Cm Curium CPR cellulosics, plastics, rubber Cs Cesium CT Computed Tomography DOE U. S. Department of Energy DR Digital Radiography DTP Detailed Technical Procedure EEG Environmental Evaluation Group eV Electron Volt FRAM Fixed Energy Response Function Analysis with Multiple Efficiencies FY Fiscal Year GEA Gamma Energy Assay 2 H Deuterium 3 H Tritium HANDSS­ 55 Handling and Segregating System He Helium HENC High Efficiency Neutron Counter HPGe High Purity Germanium IDC Item Description Code INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory IPAN Imaging Passive Active Neutron Counter KV Kilovolt kVp kilovolts peak LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LDA Linear Diode Array LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory MCS Mobile Characterization Services msec Millisecond NCR Nonconformance Reports NDA Nondestructive Assay NDE Nondestructive Evaluation NMC Neutron Multiplicity Counters NMED New Mexico Environment Department Np Neptunium NQA Nuclear Quality Assurance NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTS Nevada Test Site OJT On­ The­ Job Training ORIA EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air PA Performance Assessment PADC Passive Active Drum Counter PAN Passive­ Active Neutron PCB polychlorinated biphenyls PDP Performance Demonstration Program Pu Plutonium QA Quality Assurance QAPjP Quality Assurance Project Plan QAPP Quality Assurance Program Plan QC Quality Control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 RFETS Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site RH­ TRU Remote­ Handled Transuranic Waste RTG Radioisotopic Thermal Generators RTR Real­ Time Radiography SGS Segmented Gamma Scanner SGSAS Segmented Gamma Scanner Assay System SOP Standard Operating Procedures Sr Strontium SRIC Southwest Research and Information Center SRS Savannah River Site SWEPP SGRS Stored Waste Examination Pilot Plant Gamma Ray Spectrometer SWEPP PAN Stored Waste Examination Pilot Plant Passive Active Neutron Counter TGS Tomographic Gamma Scanners TGS CAN Tomographic Gamma Can Scanners TMFA Transuranic and Mixed Waste Focus Area TRU Transuranic TRUCON Transuranic Package Transporter­ II Content Codes TSDF Treatment, Storage, Disposal, Recycling Facilities TWBIR Transuranic Waste Baseline Inventory Report U Uranium UCL90 Upper 90 Percent Confidence Limit V Volt VE Visual Examination VEE VE Expert WAC Waste Acceptance Criteria WAGS Waste Assay Gamma Spectrometer WAP Waste Analysis Plan WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant WMC Waste Matrix Code WMP Waste Material Parameters WWIS WIPP Waste Information System 1 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Background Information Document (BID) is to explain the Agency's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) transuranic (TRU) waste generator inspection process in support of alternative provisions for 40 CFR Part 194.8, "Approval Process for Waste Shipment from Waste Generator Sites for Disposal at the WIPP." Specifically, the Agency is proposing to revise section 194.8( b). This document presents: I. The current regulatory provisions and the basis for inspections, a summary of wastes that require inspection, and an overview of the current inspection approach. II. A summary discussion of the major technical elements examined during waste characterization inspections at generator sites, including acceptable knowledge (AK), nondestructive assay (NDA), radiography (such as real­ time radiography, or RTR), visual examination (VE), and data validation/ data transfer (via the WIPP Waste Information System, or WWIS). These discussions present what inspectors examined and how the results impact EPA's assessment of the waste characterization process. Technical descriptions of measurement and examination devices are included, as well as discussion of the impact of different waste matrices on the effectiveness of the measuring or examination device, and the range of waste types that the Agency may be able to approve inthe course ofaninspection. III. A summary of results and general conclusions reached by Agency inspectors from May 1998 through the present. This section identifies the number, scope, and results of technical inspections at the generator/ storage sites. IV. Examples of public comments on inspection notices and docketed materials. V. Conclusions. I. A Current Provisions and Summary of Pertinent Elements As specified in §194.24( b)( 2) of the Compliance Criteria, the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) was required to conduct an analysis to identify waste components important to performance assessment (PA). Section 194.24( c) deals with the identification of waste limits associated with these critical components, as well as how the limits are included in performance assessments (§ 194.32) and compliance assessments (§ 194.54). In addition, DOE must specify how waste components will be identified, quantified, tracked, and controlled. Important components are summarized in Section I. B of this BID. Waste characterization, as defined in §194.24( c), is necessary to ensure that waste 2 emplaced in the repository is consistent with the parameters established in the performance assessment (§ 194.32) and compliance assessment (§ 194.54), and that limitations (or constraints) on radionuclides and other waste components established by EPA's certification decisions are not exceeded. Waste characterization is also used to ensure that the actual waste inventory is consistent with the waste inventory estimates presented in DOE's Baseline Inventory Report (BIR), which was used in performance and compliance assessment (PA and CA) calculations. Waste characterization activities performed by DOE to demonstrate compliance with §194.24( c) include a "system of controls," involving characterization techniques as well as waste tracking and WIPP inventory identification and management. In the WIPP certification rulemaking, EPA evaluated waste characterization information provided by DOE in its Compliance Certification Application (CCA) and amended the Compliance Criteria by adding section 194.8. Section 194.8 specifies the waste characterization approval process for DOE waste generator sites. Condition 3 of the certification provides that DOE may not ship waste to the WIPP from any waste stream ­ other than wastes from specified waste streams ­ until EPA has approved processes for characterizing such waste streams in accordance with the section 194.8 approval process. Section 194.8( b) requires that, "[ f] or each waste stream or group of waste streams at a site proposed for disposal at WIPP," DOE must provide information on how process knowledge will be used for waste characterization of the waste stream( s), and must implement a system of controls at the site, in accordance with §194.24( c)( 4). Section 194.8( b) also states that EPA will conduct an "... aninspectionofa Department audit for the purpose of evaluating the use of process knowledge and the implementation of a system of controls for each waste stream or group of waste streams at a waste generator site." Moreover, DOE must demonstrate that each site has procedures in place to communicate with DOE's WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS). The WWIS is an electronic database that contains information related to the characterization, certification, shipment, and emplacement of TRU waste at the WIPP. In accordance with section 194.8, EPA must announce scheduled inspections in the Federal Register, place relevant DOE documents in the docket, and solicit public comment on those documents for at least 30 days. EPA also must provide written audit or inspection decisions and place these decisions in the public dockets. Section 194.8 also provides that subsequent to any positive determination of compliance under this approval process, EPA intends to conduct inspections, in accordance with §194.21 and §194.24( h), to confirm the continued compliance of the programs approved. The results of such inspections are made available to the public through the Agency's public dockets, as described in §194.67. I. B Waste Components and Waste Descriptions As required by § 194.24( b)( 2) and § 194.24( c), DOE identified the waste components that were expected to have a significant effect on disposal system performance and the emplacement 3 limits for these components in Chapter 4 (Table 4­ 10) of the Compliance Certification Application and in Appendices WCA and WCL (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item II­ G­ 1, Volume XIX). DOE must determine the quantities of these components in TRU waste containers. Based on DOE's analysis, EPA regulates the waste components discussed below. I. B. 1 Radiological Waste Components As discussed in Section 24.A. 6 of CARD 24 (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item V­ B­ 2), EPA concluded that DOE appropriately identified ten isotopes most significant to the PA, which EPA listed as 241 Am, 244 Cm, 137 Cs, 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, 241 Pu, 90 Sr, 233 U, and 234 U (the cesium and strontium isotopes and 233 U are important to remote­ handled TRU waste). These ten isotopes significant to PA comprise about 99 percent of the EPA units anticipated within the WIPP waste inventory. CARD 31, Application of Release Limits, contains an explanation of EPA units for radioisotopes (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item V­ B­ 2). EPA determined that about 90 percent of the total anticipated inventory of 6. 55 x 10 6 curies at closure is expected to be contributed by the following seven isotopes: 241 Am, 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, 241 Pu, 244 Cm, and 234 U (Figure 1). See alsoEPA's Technical Support Document for Section 194.24: Consolidated Technical Support Document – Compliance Certification Review of Waste Characterization Requirements (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item V­ B­ 15). DOE identified the following ten radionuclides in Appendix WCL (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item II­ G ,Volume XIX) as subject to identification and quantification: ° 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, and 242 Pu; ° 241 Am; ° 233 U, 234 U, and 238 U; ° 90 Sr; and ° 137 Cs. EPA examines tracking of the Appendix WCL list during inspections because the amount of 241 Pu and 244 Cm may be derived from measurements of isotopes on the WCL list. DOE must track these isotopes against the inventory estimates used in the performance assessment (the inventory estimates are listed in CARD 31, Table 3). As stated in Appendix WCL, "[ T] he performance assessment is sensitive to relative changes in inventory curie content as a function of radionuclide decay and ingrowth over time. The magnitude of change in the total curie content depends on the initial ratios of the total activities of the assayed radionuclides at the time of repository closure. Accordingly, the results of the performance assessment analysis are conditional on the ratios assumed. . .." Consequently, the inventory estimates upon which EPA's initial certification is based function as constraints on the amount of the key isotopes that may be disposed in the WIPP. Changes to the inventory estimates would necessitate further analysis by DOE of the effect( s) on the performance assessment, and perhaps, a modification of the certification. 4 Pu­ 240 2.89% U­ 234 0.01% All Others 11. 93% Cm­ 244 0.43% Am­ 241 6.02% Pu­ 239 10. 69% Pu­ 241 32. 94% Pu­ 238 35. 09% Figure 1. Percentage of Total Inventory Contributed by PA­ Significant Isotopes (Curies) Source: EPA Technical Support Document for Section 194.24 (Air Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item V­ B­ 15, Section 4.2.3) 5 I. B. 2 Non­ Radiological Waste Components In addition, DOE identified other waste components that were expected to have a significant effect on disposal system performance and which require limits (Appendix WCL, Table WCL­ 1). The non­ radiological waste components with limiting values are: ° Ferrous metals (iron): minimum of 2x10 7 kilograms; ° Cellulosics/ plastic/ rubber: maximum of 2x10 7 kilograms; ° Free water emplaced with waste: maximum of 1684 cubic meters; and ° Nonferrous metals (metals other than iron): minimum of 2x10 3 kilograms I. B. 3 General Waste Descriptions EPA examines general waste descriptions prepared by DOE sites to understand how radiological/ non­ radiological components are grouped and assessed. Wastes can be assigned waste material parameters that encompass those components with limiting values identified by DOE. The DOE identified (Appendix BIR of the CCA) the following 12 different waste material parameters and 3 different contents packaging materials which are tracked by sites and which allows quantification of non­ radionuclide waste components: Waste Material Parameters ° Iron­ base metal/ alloys ° Aluminum­ base metal/ alloys ° Other metal/ alloys ° Other inorganic materials ° Vitrified materials ° Cellulosics ° Rubber ° Plastics ° Solidified inorganic materials ° Solidified organic materials ° Cement (solidified) ° Soils Contents Packaging Materials ° Steel ° Plastic ° Lead (for RH­ TRU waste only) 6 Waste generator sites typically group waste by "waste streams," which are defined as "... wastematerialgeneratedfromasingleprocessor fromanactivitythatissimilar in material, physical form, and hazardous constituents" (Appendix WAP). Waste streams are not defined by their radionuclide content, but instead are grouped by chemical, physical, and process similarities. The Transuranic Waste Baseline Inventory Report (TWBIR, Appendix BIR) identified 569 different waste streams that will be emplaced in the repository. These wastes are also be categorized into broader Summary Waste Category Groups, defined as S5000 (debris), S4000 (soil/ gravel), and S3000 (solidified) waste. Generator sites tend to group waste by Summary Waste Category Group for inspection purposes. I. C Description of Waste Generators The wastes to be emplaced in the WIPP originate from generator/ storage sites within the DOE Weapons Complex and National Laboratories. Waste must be defense­ related TRU waste, and the range of wastes at each generator/ storage site is dependent upon the site's past and current missions. The generator/ storage sites and the volumes of contact­ handled TRU CHTRU and RH­ TRU waste expected are identified in Table 1. 7 Table 1 Anticipated Waste Volumes for Disposal at WIPP Storage Generator Site Anticipated CH­ TRU Waste (cubic meters) Anticipated RH­ TRU Waste (cubic meters) Ames Laboratory 0. 42 None Reported Argonne National Laboratory­ East 140 None Reported Argonne National Laboratory ­ West 750 1, 300 Battelle Columbus Laboratories None Reported 580 Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory 120 6. 7 Energy Technology Engineering Center 1. 7 0. 89 Hanford Site* 46,000 22,000 INEEL* 29, 000 220 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory* 940 None Reported LANL* 18,000 190 Mound Plant 270 None Reported Nevada Test Site* 630 None Reported Oak Ridge National Laboratory* 1600 2,900 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant 1. 9 None Reported Pantex Plant 0. 62 None Reported RFETS* 5, 100 None Reported Sandia National Laboratory 14 None Reported Savannah River Site* 9, 600 None Reported Teledyne Brown Engineering 0. 21 None Reported U. S. Army Material Command 2. 5 None Reported University of Missouri Research Center 1. 0 None Reported Totals 110,000 27,000 CH­ TRU = contact­ handled transuranics; INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratories; RFETS = Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site; RH­ TRU = remote­ handled transuranics (*) Major Sites Source: DOE CCA, Chapter 4. These totals do not include wastes excluded at the time of the Compliance Application (i. e., uncharacterized and classified wastes). There are additional wastes that could be added to the anticipated inventory in the event that the classified waste streams are declassified or the unclassified wastes are identified and characterized. Waste streams from three of the eight major 1 The potential contents of a waste stream or group of waste streams determine which processes can be used to adequately characterize the waste. For example, if acceptable knowledge information suggests that the waste form is heterogeneous, the site should select a nondestructive assay technique appropriate for such waste in order for adequate measurements to be obtained. Radiography and visual examination help both to confirm and quantify waste components, such as cellulosics, rubbers, plastics, and metals. Once the nature of the waste has been confirmed, the assay techniques then quantify the radioactive isotopes in the waste. In the given example, a TRU waste site may be able to characterize either a wide range of heterogeneous waste streams or only a few. Under the current regulation, the scope of a particular inspection is determined by a site's stated limits on the applicability of proposed waste characterization processes. 2 Process knowledge refers to knowledge of waste characteristics derived from information on the materials or processes used to generate the waste. This information may include administrative, procurement, and quality control documentation associated with the generating process, or past sampling and analytic data. Usually, the major elements of process knowledge include information about the process used to generate the waste, material inputs to the process, and the time period during which the waste was generated. EPA has used the term "acceptable knowledge" synonymously with "process knowledge." Acceptable knowledge is discussed further in Section II. 8 sites (Savannah River, Rocky Flats, and Los Alamos National Laboratories [LANL]), are expected to contribute over 85 percent of the total activity for seven key isotopes. I. D Current Inspection Process EPA evaluates the ability of each generator site's waste characterization program to adequately characterize TRU waste through the inspection process as established in §194.8( b). Inspections at generator/ storage sites are conducted to verify that characterization activities are performed in accordance with approved site procedures and that the characterization activities are adequate and appropriate to characterize and quantify waste from specific waste streams and waste containers so that the waste will not exceed the approved limits. By approving waste characterization systems and processes, EPA concludes the following: (1) the site personnel are capable of identifying and measuring the radioactive components (such as plutonium) in the TRU waste that must be tracked for compliance 1 ; and (2) the characterization program can demonstrate that the waste stream( s) examined meet Condition 3 of the Compliance Certification Criteria. The approval process described at 40 CFR 194.8( b) requires DOE to provide EPA with two types of information: (1) information on process knowledge 2 for waste streams proposed for disposal at WIPP, and (2) information on the system of controls in place at the generator site. The Agency solicits public comments on DOE site documentation and announces the date of the upcoming inspection. An EPA inspection/ surveillance team visits the site to verify that process knowledge and other elements of the system of controls are technically adequate and being implemented properly. Specifically, the EPA inspection/ surveillance team verifies compliance with 40 CFR 194.24( c)( 4), 3 The introductory text of paragraph 40 CFR 194.24( c) states: "For each waste component identified and assessed pursuant to [40 CFR 194.24( b)], the Department shall specify the limiting value (expressed as an upper or lower limit of mass, volume, curies, concentration, etc.), and the associated uncertainty (i. e., margin of error) for each limiting value, of the total inventory of such waste proposed for disposal in the disposal system." 9 which states: Any compliance application shall: Provide information which demonstrates that a system of controls has been and will continue to be implemented to confirm that the total amount of each waste component that will be emplaced in the disposal system will not exceed the upper limiting value or fall below the lower limiting value described in the introductory text of paragraph (c) of this section. 3 The system of controls shall include, but shall not be limited to: measurement; sampling; chain of custody records; record keeping systems; waste loading schemes used; and other documentation. As waste generator sites establish waste characterization programs for new waste streams (or groups of waste streams), the Agency assesses their compliance with the requirements of Sections 194.24( c)( 3) through (5). The Agency conducts inspections at each site to evaluate the use of process knowledge and the establishment of a system of characterization and controls for each waste stream or group of waste streams. The typical elements that are subject to inspection include NDA, VE and/ or Radiography, AK, and software controls to include operation and interface with the WWIS. Elements related to the control of characterization systems, such as training records and document control, are also subject to inspection. The scope of a specific inspection is dictated by the systems that are in use for a group of waste streams, how many of these systems have been previously inspected and approved by the Agency, and if the nature of the waste stream changes the performance of any elements of the characterization system. For EPA to confirm that a system of controls has been adequately executed, DOE must demonstrate that measurement techniques and other control methods can be implemented for waste streams that DOE plans to emplace in the WIPP. The number of waste streams or groupings of waste streams that can be approved is dependent upon how well the generator site systems perform for a variety of wastes. While EPA can and has approved relatively broad groupings that mirror the specific authorization being sought by sites, EPA has also restricted its approval to those waste streams it felt could be adequately characterized by the systems examined. The Agency's compliance decision is conveyed by a letter from EPA to DOE. A copy of the letter, as well as the results of the inspection( s), are placed in EPA's docket. To summarize, the approval process for site­ specific waste characterization controls is as follows (See Figure 2): a. One or more Federal Register notices for the inspection and placement of related 10 A f e d e r a l r e g i s t e r n o t i c e f o r t h e i n s p e c t i o n o f a s i t e a n d p l a c e m e n t o f r e l a t e d s i t e p r o c e d u r e s a n d r e p o r t s i n t h e d o c k e t A g e n c y p r e p a r e s f o r s i t e i n s p e c t i o n / a u d i t b y c o m p l e t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g t a s k s : ° P r e p a r a t i o n o f d r a f t c h e c k l i s t s ° R e v i e w o f s i t e p r o c e d u r e s a n d r e p o r t s ° M o d i f i c a t i o n o f c h e c k l i s t s a s n e e d e d b a s e d u p o n s i t e ­ s p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r e s C o n d u c t S i t e i g u r e 2 S i t e A p p r o v a l P r o c e s s documents in the docket; b. 30­ day public comment period on docketed information from the site to be inspected; c. Performance of site inspection based on information provided by DOE: ° Review of site procedures and other information, and modification of EPA checklists, if necessary, to incorporate site­ specific information; ° On­ site verification of the technical adequacy or qualifications of personnel, procedures, and equipment by means of interviews, demonstrations, and completion of checklists; and d. Preparation of report documenting EPA's inspection( s) and written notice to DOE of EPA's compliance decision. Under 40 CFR 194.21 and 194.24( h), EPA is authorized to perform follow­ up inspections toverifythata TRUwaste site is shippingwaste thatbelongsonlytothose wastestreams or groups of waste streams that have been characterized by the approved processes. In the event that the inspection finds that the generator/ storage site is not adequately meeting the waste characterization requirements of §§ 194.24( c)( 3) through (5), the agency will not certify the generator/ storage site until the inadequacies are resolved and the resolution verified usually through further inspection. 11 A federal register notice for the inspection of a site and placement of related site procedures and reports in the docket Agency prepares for site inspection/ audit by completing the following tasks: °Preparation of draft checklists °Review of site procedures and reports °Modification of checklists as needed based upon site­ specific procedures Has the Agency determined that the site should be certified based upon inspection results? (Y/ N) Agency grants approval for audited scope Conduct Site Inspection/ Audit Yes No Figure 2 Site Approval Process 12 II. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNICAL ELEMENTS EXAMINED DURING INSPECTIONS Specific waste characterization processes, techniques, and elements important to demonstrating 40 CFR 194.24( c) compliance are examined by EPA during inspections, including: ° Acceptable Knowledge (AK). AK is a program whereby historic process data and other data are assembled, assessed, and evaluated to calculate the radionuclide content, in terms of both overall quantity and the presence of specific isotopes. This information is typically compared to assay and other measured data to assess the viability of the AK results, but also often provides direct information used by NDA personnel in the form of a "check" for NDA, as a source of isotopic information, or as a direct replacement for NDA measurements when sites believe their AK information is preferable to that obtained through measurement. At present, sites are required to analyze all TRU waste containers to determine isotopic contents and confirm AK. ° Nondestructive Assay (NDA). NDA systems are used to detect radionuclide content, including the quantity and isotopic distribution. These systems typically involve: 1) neutron systems (e. g., Passive­ Active Neutron (PAN) system) for quantification of a plutonium isotope; and/ or 2) Segmented Gamma Scanner (SGS), or a comparable system, typically used to identify specific radioisotopes. Currently, all waste containers are assayed to quantify 10 WIPP­ tracked radionuclides. In certain properly justified cases, isotopic information was obtained from AK. ° Real­ time Radiography (RTR). RTR records continuous x­ ray of drum contents that is used to verify waste material parameters and the correctness of the waste matrix code identified by AK, as well as to quantify cellulosics, plastic, and rubbers. ° Visual Examination (VE). The process of opening a statistically determined number of waste drums and manually examining and recording their contents is called VE. VE is used as a quality control check of RTR. ° WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS). WWIS is a data tracking and validation system that includes data collection and entry at the site, and transmission to and receipt of data at the WIPP site. These techniques are discussed in more detail in the following subsections. EPA requirements and expectations for these techniques are derived both from 40 CFR 194.24 and DOE's own program requirements, as presented in the CCA and revised over time with EPA's review and approval. 13 II. A Acceptable Knowledge AK is generally defined as the use of process information or other waste generator data to determine waste content. AK is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) characterization process that has been adopted by DOE as a TRU waste characterization methodology applicable to the radioactive, as well as the hazardous, portion of the waste. To date, two guidance documents address AK (EPA 1994, EPA 1997), both of which address characterization of the hazardous, not radioactive, portion of the waste using AK. The concept has been extended by DOE to encompass the radioactive portion of TRU waste, with the TRU waste AK characterization requirements presented in attachment WAP of the CCA, as well as in the 1995 WIPP TRU Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) referenced in the CCA. In joint EPA/ NRC guidance (1997), which is primarily applicable to low­ level mixed waste, EPA recognized the use of AK to make RCRA hazardous waste determinations. The guidance does not, however, speak to the use of AK to determine radioactive component content, except to state that the NRC does not describe specific testing requirements for waste to determine if it is radioactive (10 CFR 20.2006 requires that the waste manifest include, as completely as practicable, the radionuclide identity and quantity and the total radioactivity). The 1994 and 1997 guidances both state that the use of waste knowledge by a generator and/ or treatment, storage, disposal, recycling facilities (TSDF) to characterize mixed waste is allowed – and even recommended – to eliminate unnecessary or redundant waste testing. EPA broadly interprets AK to include: ° Process knowledge, which is detailed information on waste obtained from existing published or documented waste analysis data, from a waste generator's records , or from wastes generated by processes similar to that which generated the waste; ° Available records of radionuclides analysis; or ° Combinations of both, supplemented by confirmatory analysis. II. A. 1 Overview of Technical Elements AK is used by DOE in the context of radioactive waste characterization to provide the following: ° Waste stream identification ° Radionuclide isotopic content, ° Isotopic ratios, ° Low level vs. TRU designation 14 ° Overall radioactivity based on facility records and process information ° Physical waste type ° Waste material parameter content As indicated in Section I, DOE is required to identify and quantify specific WIPP­ tracked isotopes, additional isotopic information to support waste limits presented in the CCA, as well as inventory estimates presented in Attachment BIR of the CCA. Additionally, waste material parameters require identification. AK is used to obtain available information pertaining to these required parameters, and this information is available to NDA and nondestructive evaluation (NDE) personnel to facilitate their measurement activities. Additionally, information derived via AK is compared to that obtained by NDA measurement to assess the accuracy of AK data. II. A. 2 Technical Description of System or Measurement Device( s) AK requirements are presented in the WIPP QAPjP (Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item II­ G­ 1, Reference 201), as well as Appendix WAP to the CCA. Since submission of the CCA, DOE has removed AK requirements from the QAPjP because it was redundant with the RCRA Waste Analysis Plan (WAP) with respect to AK requirements. As such, EPA uses the most recent version of the WAP as the governing document for AK requirements. AK is gathered, evaluated, and assessed following a specific process committed to by the DOE in its CCA via associated attachments and references. This process, which is examined by EPA during inspections, includes: ° Assembling AK information; ° Compiling AK documentation into an auditable record (i. e., the process should include review of AK information to determine the waste material parameters and radionuclides present, as well as source info discrepancy resolution); ° Assigning waste streams/ waste matrix codes; ° Identifying physical forms, waste material parameters, and radionuclides (including, if possible, isotopic ratios); ° Resolving data discrepancies; ° Identifying management controls for discrepant items/ containers/ waste streams; ° Confirming AK information with other analytical results by comparing AK characterization data with that obtained through NDA, NDE, and/ or visual examination, including discrepancy resolution; and ° Auditing of AK records. EPA examines these elements during inspections to ensure that the process is being followed. Specifically, EPA examines whether procedures demonstrate a logical progression from general facility information to more detailed waste stream­ specific information. 15 EPA examines whether the site's TRU waste management program has procedures to determine: ° Waste categorization schemes (e. g., consistent definitions of waste streams) and terminology, ° Breakdown of the types and quantities of TRU waste generated/ stored at the site, and ° How waste is tracked and managed at the generator site, including historical and current operations. As indicated previously, EPA is particularly concerned about the completeness and accuracy of data collection with respect to those elements critical to continued compliance. Data gathered under the AK process should support identification of radionuclides and parameters important to WIPP performance, as well as information useful when assessing the accuracy of PA inventory assumptions presented in the BIR. EPA examines the AK process to see whether radionuclide origin is documented and that information is collected for: ° 241 Am, 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, 242 Pu, 233 U, 234 U, 238 U, 90 Sr, 137 Cs, and unexpected radionuclides, ° Ferrous metals (in containers), ° Cellulosics, plastics, rubber, and ° Nonferrous metals (in containers). In addition to this information, EPA expects AK information to be properly managed and recorded by following procedures requiring that: ° AK information be compiled in an auditable record, including a road map for all applicable information. ° A reference list be provided that identifies documents, databases, QA protocols, and other sources of information that support AK information. ° The overview of the facility and TRU waste management operations in the context of the facility's mission be correlated to specific waste stream information. ° Correlations between waste streams, with regard to time of generation, waste generating processes, and site­ specific facilities be clearly described. For newly generated wastes, the rate and quantity of waste to be generated shall be defined. ° Nonconforming waste be segregated. The AK record must contain the following items: ° A map of the site that identifies the areas and facilities involved in TRU waste generation, treatment, and storage; ° Facility mission description related to TRU waste generation and management; ° Description of the operations that generate TRU waste at the site and process information, including: 16 ­ Area( s) or building( s) from which the waste stream was or is generated, ­ Estimated waste stream volume and time period of generation, ­ Waste generating process description for each building or area, ­ Process flow diagrams, if appropriate, ­ Generalized material inputs or other information that identifies the radionuclide content of the waste stream and the physical waste form; and ° Types and quantities of TRU waste generated, including historical generation through future projections. Additionally, EPA expects sites to collect additional "supplemental," or supporting information as available to bolster information included in the AK record, which may include but not be limited to historical safeguard data (for radionuclides), waste package information, shipping records, etc. As a test of AK data viability, NDE and NDA information are compared to AK data to assess AK information accuracy (this is sometimes called "confirmation"). EPA examines whether reevaluation of AK is performed, if NDE/ NDA or VE identify waste to be of a different waste matrix category (such as sludges vs. debris) or radionuclide content. The reevaluation should include, as applicable, waste reassignment to a new waste stream and repackaging, if appropriate. All of the requisite AK data are assembled in an AK Summary that compiles and summarizes information collected, including the basis for all waste stream designations. EPA examines the AK Summary for several elements, including but not limited to whether the AK Summary addresses radionuclide content of waste, how detailed this information is, the nature of supporting documentation, completeness of the AK Summary with respect to inclusion of all pertinent AK data, accuracy of process discussions within the AK Summary, traceability of AK information on a drum/ container basis, and AK accuracy calculations (which are generally included in documents outside of the AK Summary). EPA examines the AK process and the accuracy and viability of the information obtained through this process. As part of this examination, EPA performs a traceability analysis where drums are randomly selected and AK data pertinent to those drums examined. This activity includes not only historic AK information, but NDA and NDE data collected under EPA/ WIPPapproved programs, and comparison of these data to AK to demonstrate that the complete characterization process is attainable and approveable. Additionally, EPA examines the interface between NDA, NDE, and AK to see how information is shared and used between the various characterization processes. AK is intended to serve as the "starting point" from which basic waste information is assembled and examined; this information is then used to varying degrees by the NDE and NDA personnel when performing radionuclide assay or x­ rays to assess drum waste material and prohibited item contents. AK information is available to NDA operators to use when performing drum analysis as a 17 source of matrix information and radionuclide content information against which measurements are "checked." Also, NDA often relies on AK to provide isotopic information, including isotopic ratios. On a case by case basis, EPA has allowed this AK information, if demonstrated to be viable and of exceptional quality, to be used in the radionuclide characterization process. For example, EPA has allowed a site to define the isotopic distribution using AK, but has required verification of one or two isotopes in each drum to confirm the AK­ identified isotopes of a number of radionuclides. Specifically, EPA has allowed a site (RFETS) to identify weapons grade plutonium isotopic distributions for plutonium isotopes using AK, but has required measurement of two isotopes in each container to confirm the AK isotopes. II. A. 3 Effect of Waste Matrix Type on Measurement The viability of the AK process is more directly related to the adequacy of AK information available than to the waste matrix type. Generator facilities are currently assembling AK information on, and characterizing wastes with, the best available AK information. These wastes typically have a significant body of information available through site records, process information, historic assay, etc., and the resulting AK data assembly, assessment, and verification process is generally successful. However, existing wastes to be characterized in the future may have much less historic information available, which means that the AK process aspect of waste characterization could have varying degrees of success with respect to collection of mandatory and supplemental information, acquisition of radionuclide data, etc. Therefore, the AK process is not so much affected by the waste matrix, but instead by the age of the waste, the historic information available for the waste, and the success of data collection efforts by the generator sites. II. A. 4 Scope of EPA Approvals for AK EPA typically approves site AK on a Summary Waste Category basis, primarily because sites themselves limit the approvals being sought to this categorization. However, EPA's overall approval of any given site may be limited to groups within the Summary Waste Category group, depending upon the technical viability of the various characterization processes. For example, even if AK approval extends to all retrievably stored waste, overall approval could be limited if NDA approval can only be extended to a specific type of waste. EPA also approves the AK process for relatively large groups of wastes that are not necessarily restricted by Summary Waste Category Groupings. For example, wastes generated at Rocky Flats and currently in storage at INEEL tend to have relatively complete data records, regardless of the Summary Waste Category group in question. Even if there is little AK information, EPA can and has extended approval of the process if the site is able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the AK process. In short, EPA may approve whatever is appropriate given a site's ability to characterize waste using the AK process. AK approval is restricted by the quantity and quality of AK data, not by the waste type. 18 II. B Nondestructive Assay (NDA) NDA is used to identify and quantify the radioactive constituents in a container. Waste to be disposed of at WIPP is assayed on a container basis to quantify the activity of the radionuclides, particularly those identified in the transuranic waste baseline inventory report TWBIR as most important to the PA, and to demonstrate that the waste in the container meets the definition of TRU waste. II. B. 1 Overview of Technical Elements NDA examines the ten isotopes requiring quantification, as well as additional isotopes. The ten isotopes are: ° 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, and 242 Pu; ° 241 Am; ° 233 U, 234 U, and 238 U; ° 90 Sr; and ° 137 Cs. In addition to the isotopes listed as important to PA and requiring quantification, the waste characterization program also is responsible for adequately calculating the emplaced activities of the isotopes contributing to the Waste Unit (in this case, the activity of the TRU alpha emitting isotopes in Table 4­ 8 of the CCA). Section 4. 4. 1 of the CCA states, Collectively, those elements of the waste characterization program that support long­ term regulatory compliance include the determination of the radionuclide inventory (for purposes of normalizing radionuclide releases as required for comparison with 40 CFR Part 191.13( a)), the identification of the physical and chemical waste form inventories (if applicable), and the verification that no wastes are emplaced in the WIPP that exceed the disposal system's safety and/ or performance limitations. The normalization requirement in Table 1 referenced in 40 CFR Part 191.13( a) necessitates knowledge of the EPA Waste Unit, defined as the total curies divided by one million. EPA has, as part of the inspection program, also required DOE to quantify isotopes other than those identified as important in the CCA or 40 CFR Part 191. These additional isotopes are usually necessary to support the technical adequacy of the assay values for isotopes identified as important to PA. Typically, EPA may require a site to ensure that DOE identify and account for isotopes that may interfere with the assay of isotopes identified as important to PA. One example 19 of additional required isotopes is 237 Np at LANL, when LANL was employing the Fixed Energy Response Analysis using Multiple Efficiencies (FRAM) system for gamma spectroscopy. Another example is the presence of 244 Cm or 252 Cf in waste planned for assay using passive neutron methods. These special cases are documented in the EPA inspection report, and are usually specific to a given system and a given type of waste. II. B. 2 Technical Description of System or Measurement Device( s) To demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 194.24( c), DOE described general methods for accomplishing NDA in the CCA. DOE described more detailed requirements for NDA programs in Chapter 9 of the Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP), a document that has since been replaced by the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) document. Each waste generator site describes their specific NDA program, and how the program complies with the upper tier EPA and DOE requirements, in a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP). Site operating procedures for each instrument or method are then written to implement the QAPjP requirements, along with any other specific instrument or site dependent requirements. NDA systems typically include data collection and analysis software that performs quality related functions. In accordance with 40 CFR 194.22 any NDA system used to support EPA characterization requirements must adhere to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA) Requirements for Software (ASME, 1990). Radioactive components in waste to be disposed of at WIPP may be characterized by radiochemistry or NDA. NDA methods are by far the preferred techniques for performing radioassay, as they generally have greater throughput and produce lower human exposures than do radiochemistry techniques. II. B. 2.1 General NDA System Information The NDA techniques approved for use on WIPP waste containers are classified as active or passive. Passive NDA methods measure spontaneously emitted radiation produced by natural decay of the radioactive isotopes inside the waste container. Active NDA methods measure radiation produced by artificially generated reactions in the waste material. Active NDA systems used for assay of TRU waste generate reactions in the heavy metals within the waste using a low intensity beam of neutrons. Presently, most waste is characterized using passive­ active neutron (PAN) counters and gamma ray spectrometry systems. A small fraction of the waste, primarily from the production of radioisotopic thermal generators (RTG), is characterized by calorimetry instruments. The neutron counting systems being used for NDA of WIPP waste containers are designed to provide quantification of the plutonium isotopes in TRU waste. Neutrons are 20 naturally produced by only a small number of isotopes; the rate at which neutrons of certain energies are produced by the waste container provides a good measure of the quantity of these isotopes. Passive neutron counting systems detect these naturally occurring neutrons and use various computational techniques to relate their quantity to isotopic activities. Many NDA systems using neutron counting are also capable of active counting. In the active mode, a low intensity beam of neutrons is fired into the waste container. This neutron beam will produce a series of reactions in the fissionable and fissile isotopes within the waste, with the number of particles produced by the reactions being proportional to the amount of fissile and fissionable isotopes present in the waste. The external detectors then count these particles and convert the particle response to source strength. By using active NDA methods and special sensitive neutron detectors, even very small quantities of plutonium in the waste containers can be detected and quantified. The gamma ray measurement systems being used to characterize WIPP waste containers are based on two basic principals. First, almost all radioactive materials produce gamma rays. Second, the gamma ray pattern produced by any isotope is unique to that isotope; no two isotopes produce the same number of gamma rays having the same energies. Given a detector with good enough resolution to count the various gamma rays individually and a method to determine what the gamma ray energy patterns mean, it is possible to quantitatively determine the isotopes present in a waste sample. Modern radiation detectors coupled to sophisticated computer programs that solve the energy pattern for the presence of certain isotopes are capable of performing this task for a large number of isotopes. The gamma measurement systems approved for use in characterizing WIPP waste are capable of quantifying the presence of many of the isotopes defined by 40 CFR Part 191, even in the presence of potential interfering isotopes and background radiation. When the gamma and neutron NDA systems are used together, these systems provide information about the radiological content of a waste container. The information that can be produced by the WIPP waste NDA systems includes, but is not limited to, 239 Pu equivalent activity, 239 Pu fissile gram equivalent, total alpha activity, the decay heat of waste containers, and the activity of the isotopes of interest to the performance assessment and the applicable regulations. The purpose of these data relative to long­ term repository compliance with 40 CFR Parts 191 and 194 is to establish the radionuclide content emplaced in the repository. All assay systems using radiation detection methods must be calibrated using a variety of standards that simulate the various waste compositions, source distributions and interferences common to the waste streams originating from a particular generator site. AK enhances the NDA systems by providing advance information on the radiological characteristics of a waste stream, which allows the NDA systems to be made particularly sensitive to that type of waste by developing realistic calibration standards. Calibration records and expected system performance curves are compared against the actual results of the measurements performed on the waste 21 containers. II. B. 2.2 Neutron Systems Because they have no charge, and are not purely an electromagnetic packet like gamma rays, neutrons have a unique set of interactions with matter. They do not interact with the electron cloud around a nucleus, but rather with the nucleus itself. Thus, when a material absorbs neutrons, the neutrons are interacting with and changing the nuclei of the atoms in the absorbing material, which can produce a number of secondary reactions. Neutron interactions with nuclei may result in the disappearance of the neutron and its replacement by secondary radiations, or a significant change in the neutron's energy or direction. It may even result in the fragmentation of the nucleus with which it is interacting in a process known as fission. The secondary radiations produced by neutron interactions are usually heavy charged particles; it is these charged particles produced by the conversion of the neutron energy that are seen by neutron detectors, as discussed below. Generally, the type and probability of the various neutron interactions with any given type of nucleus depend strongly on the energy of the neutron. NDA systems do not require exact measures of neutron energy. For NDA purposes, neutrons can simplistically be divided into two categories based on their energy: high energy or "fast" neutrons, and low energy or "slow" neutrons, using an arbitrary energy division of approximately 0. 5 electron volts (eV). Neutrons are measured indirectly by detecting secondary particles resulting from interactions of neutrons with target nuclei. These possible interactions include: ° (n, p) or (n, ) reactions where a nucleus absorbs a neutron and emits a charged particle, which, along with the recoil product nucleus, causes ionization in the detector; $ Neutron induced fission, or (n, f) reactions, where the detector registers ionization produced by the fission fragments or the prompt or delayed neutrons and photons; and/ or $ Neutron scattering, where the recoil nucleus produces ionization in the detector. The (n, p), (n, ) and (n, f) reactions are of greatest interest for neutron detection because they produce secondary radiations (i. e., charged particles that can be detected directly). The neutron detectors most widely used in NDA systems are gas proportional detectors filled with a light isotope of helium ( 3 He). These detectors are commonly called helium tubes. A neutron detection system typically contains many helium tubes, maintained under an applied voltage, or electric field. The neutron­ helium reaction of interest is shown below: 3 He +n
3 H + p + 0.764 MeV 22 The term "cross section" is used to describe the probability of interaction. Helium is used because it has a high cross section for interaction with thermal, or low energy, neutrons, which provides a high detection efficiency and pulse height resolution. The charge liberated by the neutron­ helium interaction produces initial ionizations of helium gas. By maintaining the appropriate electric field within the gas, the number of secondary ionizations produced is proportional to those produced initially, while the number of actual ion pairs is multiplied by a factor of many thousands. The detection system collects the ion pairs as charge which, with proper calibration, is correlated with the number of neutron interactions and therefore the sample reaction rate. Because the probability of neutrons interacting with target materials is a strong inverse function of the neutron's energy, high energy neutrons produced by spontaneous or induced fission (" fast" neutrons) must be slowed before they can be efficiently detected. This occurs through multiple collisions with atoms in the materials within the detection system (i. e., polyethylene, graphite, etc.). Neutron cross sections for a given target nucleus are interaction specific (i. e., there is a different cross section for fission, elastic scattering, inelastic scattering, (n, p) reaction, etc.), and each is strongly dependent on the neutron energy. Cross sections are also material specific. Certain isotopes have large cross sections for various reactions, which may make them a preferred material for neutron detection systems. The main source of neutrons of interest to NDA result from spontaneous or induced nuclear fission, which is the disintegration of an atomic nucleus into two or more lighter fragments. In general, isotopes of plutonium and uranium have a low rate of spontaneous fission compared to the rate for other decay modes, such as alpha emission. This is particularly so for heavy radionuclides with odd numbers of neutrons and odd mass number, but these isotopes frequently have a high thermal neutron fission cross section, which means these isotopes can be made to undergo induced fission by bombardment with low energy neutrons. Examples of these isotopes are 233 U, 235 U and 239 Pu. Plutonium isotopes with even mass numbers ( 238 Pu, 240 Pu, and 242 Pu) undergo higher rates of spontaneous fission, and for 240 Pu the rates of spontaneous fission and alpha emission are close. This is important as 240 Pu is typically present as an impurity in weapons grade plutonium and is a component of TRU wastes. Assays of TRU wastes by measuring the neutrons emitted by spontaneous fission are called "passive" mode assays. Passive mode measurements count neutrons produced by isotopes with significant likelihood of decay by spontaneous fission, including 238 Pu, 240 Pu, 242 Pu, and 244 Cm. Neutrons are also emitted by TRU radionuclides in response to induced fission caused by bombardment with energetic neutrons supplied by the measurement system. Such assays measuring induced neutrons are called "active" mode assays. Active mode assays provide information for 239 Pu and 241 Pu, as well as other fissile isotopes present in the TRU waste being assayed (e. g., 235 U), that fission takes place in response to neutrons supplied by the measurement system. 23 II. B. 2.3 Passive­ Active Neutron Counters PAN counters are used to quantify the amount of a fissile or fissionable nuclide inside a container. More precisely, these systems quantify the amount of a particular radionuclide that would result in the number of counts observed. This is referred to as the effective mass. For active measurements, the 239 Pu effective mass is measured, while for passive measurements, the 240 Pu effective mass is measured. To convert the effective mass measured into the true mass of each of the radionuclides present, the ratio of each nuclide to that of the primary nuclide being measured must be known. These ratios can be measured using a gamma­ ray spectrometry system, described in the following section. To quantify the effective mass of 239 Pu or 240 Pu, fast neutrons from induced or spontaneous fissions are detected and counted. Since two or more neutrons usually result from a fission event, neutron counters are operated in coincidence mode. In coincidence mode, an event is only counted when two or more neutrons are individually detected. Most PAN counters consist of a large number of individual neutron detectors surrounding the container being assayed. The most common type of neutron detector used is a 3 He tube, which is a long cylindrical proportional gas counter filled with 3 He. Since the probability of detection in a 3 He tube is much greater for thermal neutrons than for fast neutrons, 3 He tubes are usually surrounded by a moderator. Fast neutrons lose energy through numerous collisions in the moderator until they are reduced in energy, or "thermalized." As previously described, a PAN counter in passive mode counts neutrons from spontaneously fissioning nuclides, such as 240 Pu. In active mode the PAN system counts neutrons generated in the waste container after the container is exposed to fast neutrons from an external source, which induce fissile nuclides in the waste to fission. The most common source of fast neutrons is a D­ T neutron generator, although other sources, such as 252 Cf sources can also be used. A D­ T neutron generator creates 14 MeV neutrons by accelerating deuterium ( 2 H) nuclei into a tritium( 3 H) target. Proper use and calibration of a PAN system requires tests using known sources in order to evaluate system efficiency. Additionally, the environmental neutron signal must be measured in order to remove background signals that are not contributed by the waste components. Both the efficiency and the background signal must be periodically checked in order to ensure data quality is not degraded. II. B. 2.4 Photon Emission and NDA Photons in the general sense are packets of electromagnetic energy, and are the basic constituents of any electromagnetic energy, including visible light. When these photons are generated by de­ excitation reactions in an atomic nucleus, they are often referred to as gamma 24 radiation or gamma rays. Gamma photons are essentially the same as x­ rays, but have different origins: gamma radiation is emitted during changes in the state of nuclei, while x­ rays are emitted during changes in the state of inner or more tightly bound electrons. Gamma radiation is a penetrating radiation best attenuated by dense materials like concrete, lead, etc. Gamma emissions occur at discrete energies that are characteristic of specific radionuclide transitions, enabling their identification by spectroscopic techniques, as discussed below. Gamma photon emissions range in energy from approximately one thousand electron volts (1 KeV) to almost ten million electron volts (10 MeV). For purposes of NDA isotopic measurements of plutonium, the photon emissions of interest occur between the energies of approximately 40 to 640 KeV; for uranium, the photon emissions of interest occur between approximately 100 KeV and 1 MeV in energy. Their electromagnetic nature causes photons to interact strongly with the charged electrons in the atoms of all matter. The photon gives up energy to an electron, which then is released from its parent atom and collides with other atoms, liberating more electrons. The total charge released is proportional to the photon energy, since the higher the photon energy the more energy is available to release electrons. The charge resulting from this cascade of released electrons is then collected, causing a signal indicating the presence of the gamma photon. The magnitude of the signal tells the energy of the photon since the electrical signal output to the detector is proportional to the energy deposited in the detector. After a large number of these gamma photons have been detected, a graph of the number of gamma photons measured versus the energy of the photons can be displayed. This graph, or spectrum, results in a "fingerprint" of specific radionuclides since the gamma photon energy release pattern is unique for each isotope. With the appropriate calibration, the spectrum allows identification and quantification of photon emitting radionuclides in various media. There are many types of materials suitable for use in photon detectors. The NDA systems of interest primarily use modern solid state detectors constructed from germanium, in which the charge produced by the photon interactions is collected directly. Germanium is the semiconductor material of choice for modern photon detectors due to its nearly ideal electronic characteristics that allow electrons and "electron holes" to move freely. The ionization charge resulting from the photon interaction within the detector is swept to an electrode by the high electric field in the semiconductor material produced by the voltage applied to the detector with the system's high voltage power supply. The charge is converted to a voltage pulse by a preamplifier; this voltage is then amplified and sent to a multi­ channel analyzer, which displays the spectrum of gamma counts detected versus energy. Spectroscopic evaluation, including radionuclide identification by energy peak pattern, background correction, pulse height determination, etc., can then be performed on the spectrum either manually or by computer. By applying calibration and correction factors appropriate to the waste matrix, container, and radionuclides, the spectroscopic data can be transformed into concentrations of specific photon emitting TRU radionuclides. 25 II. B. 2.5 Gamma Ray Spectrometry Systems Gamma ray spectrometry systems are used to quantify the amount of individual radionuclides, or to measure the ratio of different radionuclides, by detecting gamma­ ray emissions. Because radionuclides emit gamma rays of discrete energies, the quantity of individual radionuclides can be related to the number of gamma rays detected at a specific energy. Effective use of gamma ray spectrometry systems requires the user to define the system efficiency and resolution. These parameters must be periodically checked to ensure the system is providing consistent results. The radiological background present at the detector must also be defined in order to calculate accurate results for the radionuclide quantities present in the waste. The background gamma­ ray spectrum must be periodically measured in order to ensure that unintended errors are not introduced into the results. Most gamma­ ray spectrometry systems involve one or more high resolution detectors, with high purity germanium (HPGe) being the most common. These detectors, typically about three inches in diameter and three inches in length, are positioned alongside the container. In many systems, commonly referred to as scanners, a collimator is used so that the detector only detects gamma rays emitted from a portion of the container. The detector, or more commonly the container, is then translated until the entire container is measured. Some gamma­ ray scanners incorporate a transmission source to correct for gamma­ ray attenuation in the container. These collimated radioactive sources are positioned directly opposite of the detector. Shutters are often used to shield the source from the detector when it is not being used. II. B. 2.6 Calorimetry Instruments Calorimetry instruments are used to quantify radionuclides for waste containers that contain significant quantities of 238 Pu. The high specific activity of 238 Pu, used primarily for radioisotopic thermal generators, results in a measurable heat flux that can be correlated to the activity of the radionuclides in question. Like neutron counters, isotopic ratios must be known in order to relate the heat flux to the activities of individual radionuclides. Calorimetry has only been used in a limited number of instances, and EPA has approved its use only at Rocky Flats. II. B. 3 Effect of Waste Matrix or Waste Type on Measurement The applicability of PAN counters and gamma­ ray spectrometry systems to characterize waste to be disposed of at WIPP depends primarily on the matrix properties of the waste and the types and quantities of radionuclides present. For neutron counters, the matrix parameters of primary interest are the neutron absorption and moderating properties. Large quantities of hydrogen­ containing materials will enhance neutron moderation, making active measurements, and to a lesser extent passive measurements, more difficult. The presence of any materials that 26 enhance neutron capture will make any neutron measurements, active or passive, more difficult. Passive and active neutron counters work best with radionuclides having large cross sections for induced fission and high spontaneous fission rates, respectively. Matrix parameters that affect gamma­ ray systems are matrix density and the effective atomic number. Denser materials and materials with high atomic numbers (Z) absorb more gamma rays than less dense, lower Z number materials, resulting in increased gamma­ ray attenuation and poorer signal­ to­ source ratios. Gamma­ ray spectrometry systems are best suited to detect radionuclides that emit gamma rays at energies between about 50 keV and 1 MeV with a high probability, or branching ratio. Specific issues related to waste properties are described in the following sections for each of the neutron and gamma detection methods. II. B. 3.1 Neutron Counting Systems PAN counters typically must account for the following: $ Radionuclide source (source) heterogeneity. Most neutron systems are calibrated assuming that sources are uniformly distributed throughout the container volume. When sources are not uniformly distributed, but are instead concentrated in parts of the drum, the system will underestimate or overestimate the 239 Pu or 240 Pu effective mass. $ Matrix heterogeneity. In addition to a uniformly distributed source, most neutron calibrations are done for matrices whose neutron absorption and moderation properties are assumed to be the same throughout the volume of the container. Like non­ uniform source distributions, non­ uniform matrices can result in an underestimation or overestimation of the 239 Pu or 240 Pu effective mass. $ Source self­ shielding. If the fissile material is concentrated in a small volume (i. e., a lump) the inner material is shielded from interrogating neutron flux during an active measurement. This effect, referred to as self­ shielding, can result in an underestimation of the 239 Pu effective mass. This problem is not significant in passive mode, where the mean free path of the fast neutrons is much larger than the size of the fissile mass. $ Interfering nuclides. Any fissile or spontaneously fissioning nuclides, such as 244 Cm, not accounted for in the determination of the isotopic ratios will result in an incorrect estimation of the individual radionuclide activities and any derived quantities. Containers are often rotated during the measurement to reduce the effect of source and matrix heterogeneity on the measurement. Some neutron counters incorporate imaging algorithms to measure the spatial variations in the source distribution and the matrix properties. II. B. 3.2 Photon Measuring Systems 27 Gamma­ ray systems are affected by many of the source and matrix effects that affect neutron counters, including source heterogeneity, matrix heterogeneity, and source self­ shielding. $ Source heterogeneity. Like neutron counters, most gamma­ ray systems are calibrated for uniformly distributed sources, and nonuniform source distributions are likely to result in underestimation or overestimation of radionuclide activities. $ Matrix heterogeneity. Gamma­ ray system calibrations generally assume that gamma attenuation properties are uniform throughout the volume of the container. Spatial variations in these properties, namely the density and effective atomic number, can cause the radionuclide activities to be incorrectly estimated. $ Source self­ absorption. Concentrated masses, or lumps, of high Z materials, such as uranium and plutonium, can result in underestimation of the radionuclide activity. Unlike the self­ shielding effect in active neutron measurements, the difficulty in gamma spectrometry arises when gamma rays from the interior of the mass are absorbed before escaping the lump. $ Interfering radionuclides. Some radionuclides emit gamma rays very close in energy to those being measured. If not properly accounted for, these interfering radionuclides can result in the incorrect determination of radionuclide activities and/ or isotopic ratios. Like neutron counters, effects due to source and matrix heterogeneity can be significantly reduced by rotating the container during the measurement. Additionally, segmented gamma scanners, using transmission sources, can account for spatial variations in the source activity and matrix attenuation properties as a function of height. A number of systems also use computed tomography (CT) to measure the matrix properties and source distribution in three dimensions. II. B. 4 Scope of EPA Approvals for Nondestructive Assay EPA approves NDA methods for a waste stream or group of waste streams based on the demonstrated capability of the NDA system to quantify the radiological properties of the waste stream (s). This approach has been used because of the 194.8( b) language specifying waste stream examinations, and also because DOE generator sites most often test and qualify their NDA instruments to a given set of waste as defined by waste streams. This approach, however, has led to some problems during waste certification inspections because waste streams are generally defined by physical properties rather than by radiological properties. While there is some correlation between the effectiveness of a given NDA method and the physical properties of the waste material (e. g., a highly absorbing or moderating matrix like organic sludge), in practice this approval system has frequently resulted in limited approvals relative to the total population of waste intended for approval. A few sites, such as INEEL and LANL, currently attempt to define 28 their assay programs as a process applicable to broad ranges of wastes that are defined by their radiological and nuclear properties of interest to the assay method (e. g., moderator/ absorber index for neutron systems), rather than strictly by waste stream or Summary Waste Category Group. Other generator sites, such as Savannah River, have programs that are designed around the waste stream intended for shipment. A radioassay system should be capable of characterizing waste containers, provided the important matrix properties of the containers are within the bounds for which the system is calibrated. For neutron systems, the absorption and moderating properties of the matrix are of primary interest. Density and atomic number of the waste are of primary interest for gamma spectrometry systems. Since NDA systems, particularly neutron systems, often use different parameters to characterize the matrix properties, it is difficult to establish standard limits for matrix characteristics or to compare calibration limits from one instrument to another. II. C Visual Examination and Radiography Radiography (e. g., RTR) is a nondestructive, qualitative and quantitative technique that involves x­ ray scanning of waste container contents. It is used to identify and quantify waste material parameters important to PA, such as cellulosic, plastic, and rubber content. Radiography also is used to identify items such as liquids, pyrophorics, explosives, compressed gas cylinders, and sealed containers larger than 4 liters, which are prohibited from disposal by DOE. Unlike nondestructive assay, no radiological analysis is done with this technique. Radiography is considered to be both qualitative and quantitative because measurements are made by an operator who views a real­ time x­ ray scan of the contents of a waste container (e. g., drum or standard waste box) to estimate values for parameters of interest. For example, the operator (based on experience, on­ the­ job­ training, and drum aids) estimates the container fill percentage (i. e., the percentage of the drum filled with waste), the volume of "combustible" materials, metals, etc. Visual Examination (VE) involves opening of waste containers in glove boxes or other controlled structures and manually cataloging the contents. VE is currently used as either a confirmation of Nondestructive Examination (NDE) ­ which to date has been RTR ­ or as a replacement for NDE. Visual verification (which differs from VE in that the visual verification process is used during repackaging and no videotape records are kept) is also used. Sites are required to conduct VE on newly generated waste, on a statistically selected population of waste containers examined through radiography, and on waste containers that the site was unable to characterize using either radiography and/ or NDA due to the presence of an interfering material, such as lead shielding. The results of the VE of the statistically selected population of waste containers is used by the site to verify waste container determinations (and measurements) made through radiography. The site is required to calculate miscertification rates on an annual basis and, based on these calculations (and estimates of the number of waste containers to be radiographed in the coming year), determine the required number of waste containers to undergo 29 VE in the following year. II. C. 1 Overview of Technical Elements EPA typically views actual radiography and VE activities during inspections, as well as supporting documentation and procedures. At a minimum, radiography and VE should provide the following: ° Identification of cellulosics, plastics, and rubber, including quantities; ° Identification of prohibited items, including liquids; and ° Confirmation of Summary Waste Category Group and Waste Matrix Code. Under the CH­ TRU program, every retrievably stored container must be examined to determine the cellulosics, plastics, rubber (CPR), and prohibited item content using RTR. Alternatively, containers can be examined either visually or by a different NDE technology, such as CT or digital radiography (DR), if RTR is not possible. Newly generated wastes do not have to be examined using RTR because the packaging process would exclude the inclusion of prohibited items. II. C. 1.1 RTR Document Review EPA examines site specific documents and information related to any of the following areas during inspections: ° Replicate Scans. The sites must document that the imaging system characteristics of the monitoring system are verified on a routine basis and that independent replicate scans and replicate observations of the audio/ video output of the RTR process are performed under uniform conditions and procedures.  Independent Observations. The sites must document that independent observations of RTR scans are performed during each work shift.  System Capabilities. The site must document that its RTR system is appropriate and is capable of characterizing the typical waste configurations and parameters observed at the site.  Procedures. The site must have procedures for ensuring that the RTR system is tested, inspected, and maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions. In addition, EPA expects the site's procedures to address the following: ­ The RTR system is calibrated through observation of a test pattern at the beginning and end of each work shift (when operating). The RTR system must be 30 able to be adjusted to obtain optimum contrast and resolution using a line­ pair gauge or equivalent device. ­ Data management is sufficient to ensure that the RTR results for every waste container are documented, validated, and ultimately verified by VE of a randomly selected statistical population of waste containers. ­ The RTR examination is captured on both audio/ video and documents the following types of information necessary for WIPP WAC certification: ­­ Item description code (IDC), ­­ TRUCON code (Transuranic Package Transporter­ II Content Code), ­­ Presence or absence of free liquids, ­­ Content inventory, and ­­ Description of contents packaging materials. ­ The following types of information resulting from the RTR examination must be recorded: ­­ Waste container identification number; ­­ Date of radiography examination; ­­ TRUCON code, IDC, and Waste Matrix Code, as applicable; ­­ Any changes made to Waste Matrix Code; ­­ Presence or absence of waste container liner; ­­ Estimated inventory of waste container contents; ­­ Description of contents packaging materials, including the number of layers of packaging; ­­ Audio/ videotape identification number; ­­ Estimate of each applicable waste material parameter weight; ­­ Identification of quality control (QC) replicate; and ­­ An operator/ reviewer signature and date block. ­ Explicit guidance is included to account for materials that interfere with the RTR examination (e. g., lead liners, leaded gloves, stabilized wastes or cement, etc.). ­ Prohibited items must be identified and procedures followed to ensure that the proper steps are taken to isolate the particular waste container. ­ Appropriate measures can be taken when conditions adverse to quality occur.  Reporting. EPA examines the data reports prepared by the site. Each data report batch may not include more than 20 waste containers. The data reports must contain the 31 following types of records: ­RTRdataforms, ­ RTR reports, ­ RTR videotape, and ­ Identification of any nonconformance reports (NCRs) and variances pertinent to the data package.
Data Quality Characteristics. The site should have a procedure for correctly calculating and reporting the relative percent difference between the estimated waste material parameter weights (as determined by the RTR operator) and these same parameters as determined visually (i. e., precision). The site must also have a procedure for documenting the accuracy with which the matrix parameter category can be determined through VE of a randomly selected statistical subpopulation of waste containers. The site must prepare and validate RTR data forms and audio/ videotape for 100 percent of the waste containers examined (i. e., completeness). The site must also document the comparability of the matrix parameter category determined by RTR with the matrix parameter category determined by VE (i. e., comparability). II. C. 1.2 Additional Verification (RTR) During the course of the on­ site inspection of the radiography system and site operating procedures, the EPA inspection team both observes the radiography operation and interviews radiography operators and other DOE/ contractor personnel to assess how well the radiography process is being implemented. As part of the EPA inspection team's observation of the radiography operation, the inspection team both views videotaped recordings of previously radiographed waste containers and observes the actual operation of the radiography equipment. The EPA inspection team notes the presence of required equipment, adherence to procedures, and documentation of all activities. For example, the EPA inspection team inspects the radiography booth and asks the radiography operators to point out all of the required radiographic equipment, as described originally in the TRU QAPP (Section 10) and Methods Manual (CCA Reference No. 210), and subsequently in the WAP:  A shielded room that is properly ventilated and lighted,  An x­ ray producing device,  Controls which allow the operator to vary voltage, typically between 150­ 400 kV,  An imaging system that typically includes a fluorescent screen and a low light television camera,  An enclosure for radiation protection,  A waste container handling system (including a turntable dolly assembly), 32  An audio/ video recording system,  Safety interlocks, and  An operator control and data acquisition station. As part of the inspection activities, the radiography operator is required to demonstrate the operation of the radiography equipment, including estimation of waste materials' parameters and volumes, and data entry. The EPA inspection team also interviews the radiography operators and DOE staff/ contractors involved in certifying and tracking operator training to ensure that a formal operator's training program exists and is completely implemented. The EPA inspection team requires the training staff and radiography operators to demonstrate through actual radiography equipment operation and training file documentation that operator training includes the following, at a minimum:  Formal training ­ Project requirements, ­ State and federal regulations, ­ Basic principles of radiography, ­ Radiographic image quality, and ­ Radiographic scanning techniques.  Application techniques ­ Radiography of waste forms, ­ Standards, codes, and procedures for radiography, and ­ Site­ specific instruction.  On­ the­ job training ­ System operation, ­ Identification of packaging configurations, ­ Identification of WMPs, ­ Weight and volume estimation, and ­ Identification of prohibited items. The EPA inspection team observes the operator's examination of a radiography test drum (either in real time or by reviewing videotape) and expects to see the operator satisfactorily identify its content. The EPA inspection team reviews the contents of the radiography test drum to ensure that the following required elements are present: 33  Aerosol can with puncture,  Horsetail bag,  Pair of coveralls,  Empty bottle,  Irregular shaped pieces of wood,  Empty one gallon paint can,  Full container,  Aerosol can with fluid,  One gallon bottle with three tablespoons of fluid,  One gallon bottle with one cup of fluid (upside down),  Leaded glove or leaded apron, and  Wrench. Training drums must contain all of the required test elements. The EPA inspection team requests the radiography operator to discuss how the site has determined that the test drum contained test elements that were typical of what might be encountered at the site (both content and packaging density). EPA expects there to be a process for ensuring that the RTR operators receive standardized training and certification, recertification, retraining, and on­ the­ job training with oversight from appropriately qualified RTR operators. RTR operators must have sufficient experience to operate the RTR system. EPA expects RTR operators to be instructed in the specific waste generating practices and typical packaging configurations expected for each matrix parameter category or IDC. EPA inspectors examine the procedures for ensuring that this training occurs, as well as operator training/ experience records to ensure that the personnel operating the RTR system are qualified and appropriately trained. Inspectors also interview the RTR operators and observes their operation of the RTR system. EPA expects the generator sites to provide procedures regarding the operation of the RTR system, and RTR/ VE records (see below) that document that the required technical elements are adequately addressed by these procedures. EPA may require the generator site to provide RTR data packages and RTR/ VE comparison sheets, including calculations of miscertification rates and other information pertinent to making the determination that the generator site has a system of controls in place that adequately meets the requirements of §194.24( c)( 4). II. C. 1.3 VE Document Review EPA examines VE documents and information related to any of the following areas during inspections: 34  Documentation. The VE procedure ensures that the inventory of unopened contents includes a description and documented weight of all waste items, residual materials, poly liners, contents packaging materials, and waste material parameters.  Reference Tables. The site's VE procedure has reference tables, updated as necessary, to facilitate the development of weight estimates and assignment of wastes to waste material parameters, also updated as necessary during the process. The site must establish standard nomenclature and volumetric conversion factors.  VE Data. VE staff record a description of the location, container, and estimated volume of any detected liquid. All empty containers must be weighed and recorded, with the gross weight of each container recorded on the VE data form. The site must also record the total number of bags or packages found in each waste container. Replicate weight measurements must also be made.  Miscertification Rate. The site must have a procedure to select a random statistical sample of waste containers for VE and correctly calculate and report an annual miscertification rate. The site may use INEEL's historical miscertification rate of 2 percent to calculate the number of waste containers that must be visually examined during the first year of program activities. However, the site must also have a procedure for establishing a site­ specific miscertification rate that is based on the last 12 (or more) months of certification activities.  Radiography Check. EPA expects that site procedures require the use of data from VE to check the matrix parameter category and waste material parameter weight estimates as determined by radiography.  Replacement Containers. The facility must have a procedure for selecting replacement waste containers. The site's replacement strategy should be restricted to a waste stream or waste stream lot that, through the random selection process, happened to have container( s) identified for VE. The procedure must ensure that VE is performed on the replacement container. Once containers have been visually examined, the upper 90 percent confidence limit (UCL90 ) for the proportion miscertified must be correctly calculated. EPA expects the site to use the hypergeometric distribution for the UCL90 calculation.  Data Management. The site must have a procedure for data management that is sufficient to ensure that the VE results for every waste container examined are documented and validated.  Documentation. VE examination must be captured on both audio and video to document IDC, TRUCON code, the presence or absence of free liquids and other prohibited items, 35 content inventory, and a description of contents packaging materials.  Data Reports. The site must ensure that data reports are prepared on a per­ batch basis, which includes no more than 20 waste containers, and the data reports must contain VE data forms, VE reports, VE videotape( s), and identification of any NCRs and variances pertinent to the data package. The site's data reporting procedures should ensure that the following types of information resulting from the VE are recorded: ­ Waste container identification number, ­DateofVE, ­ TRUCON code, IDC, and Waste Matrix Code, as applicable, ­ Any changes made to the Waste Matrix Code, ­ Presence or absence of waste container liner, ­ Estimated inventory of waste container contents, ­ Description of contents packaging materials, including the number of layers of packaging, ­ Audio/ videotape identification number, ­ Estimate of each applicable waste material parameter weight, ­ Identification of QC replicate, and ­ Operator/ reviewer signature and date blocks.  Interfering Items. The site's VE procedure should provide explicit guidance on how to handle materials that interfere with the examination, such as metal containers, discolored plastic bags, stabilized wastes or cement, etc. Also, the site's VE procedure must require that prohibited items be identified and that the proper steps be taken to isolate a waste container with prohibited items.  Discrepancy Resolution. EPA expects the site to have a procedure for resolving discrepancies between VE QC checks and between RTR and VE observations, and to ensure that appropriate measures can be taken when conditions adverse to quality occur. II. C. 1.4 Additional Verification­ VE During the course of the on­ site inspection of VE activities and site operating procedures, the inspection team observes VE activities and interviews VE experts and other personnel to assess how well the VE process is being implemented. As part of the inspection team's observation of the VE, the inspection team views videotaped recordings of previously examined waste containers and observes the actual VE of waste containers (when possible). Inspectors note the presence of required equipment, adherence to procedures, and documentation of all activities. For example, the EPA inspection team inspects the VE glove box (or room) and ask the 36 VE experts to point out all of the required equipment, as described in DOE's Method Manual (CCA Reference No. 210), as listed in the following bullets:  Check weights (certified to National Institute of Standards and Technologies standards),  Scales,  Torque wrenches,  Airflow meters,  Platform scale,  Empty 55­ gallon drums,  Remote drum handler,  Knifes, scissors, platform ladder, dolly/ drum mover, leather gloves, plastic bags, tape, towels, decontamination solution, secondary containment bags, permanent markers, rubber and/ or surgical gloves,  Video camera,  Audio recording system, and  Glove box or negative pressure containment area. The EPA inspection team also interviews the VE experts and other personnel involved in certifying and tracking operator training to ensure that a formal operator's training program exists and is complete. There must be a standardized training program for visual inspection examiners that includes both formal classroom and on­ the­ job training (OJT). The program must be specific to the generator site and includes the various waste configurations generated/ stored at the site. The EPA inspection teaminterviews the VE experts to determine whether (and the extent to which) they have received training on the specific waste generating processes, typical packaging configurations, and waste material parameters expected to be found in each matrix parameter category at the site. EPA expects the VE training program to include: ° Formal training ­ Project requirements, ­ State and federal regulations, ­ Application techniques, and ­ Site­ specific instruction. ° On­ the­ job training ­ Identification of packaging configurations, ­ Identification of waste material parameters, ­ Weight and volume estimation, and ­ Identification of prohibited items. EPA expects sites to provide procedures regarding the performance of VE. EPA also 37 expects generator sites to provide VE data packages and RTR/ VE comparison sheets, including calculations of miscertification rates and other information pertinent to making the determination that the generator site has a system of controls in place that adequately meets the requirements of 194.24( c)( 4). II. C. 2 Technical Description of System or Measurement Device( s) II. C. 2.1 Radiography Radiographic systems include not only real­ time systems, but new systems that are currently being brought on­ line at DOE sites. These new systems may offer advantages over RTR with respect to system resolution, etc. Real­ Time Radiography Sites are currently conducting NDE examination of all waste containers using standard radiography techniques (i. e., an x­ ray tube, an image intensifier, and a charge coupled device camera). As part of the RTR process, the RTR operator (or drum handler) loads up to three waste containers onto a rolling sled that is then moved into the RTR vault. The drum( s) is placed on a turntable that the operator uses to rotate the drum and the x­ ray system components automatically move up and down to smoothly transition through the entire height of the drum (with every revolution the height of the x­ ray system components change to allow for an automated, complete scan of the entire container from top to bottom). Some sites do not employ a turn table that automatically moves up and down, but rely instead, on the operator to manually adjust the height of the drum manually to obtain a scan of 100 percent of the drum's height. The x­ ray­ producing device has controls that allow the operator to vary the voltage, thereby controlling image quality. It is typically possible to vary the voltage, between 150 to 430 kilovolts (KV), to provide an optimum degree of penetration through the waste. For example, high­ density material should be examined with the x­ ray device set on the maximum voltage to ensure maximum penetration through the waste container. Low­ density material should be examined at lower voltage settings to improve contrast and image definition. The imaging system typically uses a fluorescent screen and a low­ light television camera. To perform radiography, the waste container is scanned while the operator views the television screen. The RTR operator controls the entire process from a remote operator's booth and the entire exam is recorded on audio/ video tape (some sites use optical disks). The operator then records the data using data sheets; however, several sites use automated data entry systems. For example, INEEL RTR operators use an automated data entry system, which has a series of screens designed to capture the required information. The RTR examination results are used by 38 the site to verify that the physical waste form matches the waste stream description, to document the waste matrix code group, to estimate waste material parameters and drum utilization, to confirm AK, and to identify prohibited items. Sites also compare the radiography RTR examination results with those obtained through VE to calculate miscertification rates on an annual basis and, based on these calculations (and the expected number of waste drums to be processed next year) determine the required number of waste containers to undergo VE in the following year. II. C. 2.2 Visual Examination Sites are currently conducting VE on a statistically selected subpopulation of waste containers examined through radiography, and any waste container that the site was unable to characterize through radiography due to the presence of an interfering material, such as lead shielding. As part of the VE process, the VE team typically opens each waste container in a specially designed glove box that is approximately 15 feet long and operated under a negativepressure environment. At some sites, core sampling is also conducted in this glove box. Although the VE process is relatively straightforward, it is a physically demanding and intensive operation and typically consists of the VE technicians performing the following steps:  Load the waste drum at the back end of the glove box,  Remove the drum lid and empty the drum's contents in the middle portion of the glove box,  Open every individual waste package or bag, and  Manually sort and categorize waste materials for subsequent weighing and repackaging at the front end of the glove box. The entire process is conducted under the supervision of the VE expert (VEE) and is recorded on both audio/ video tape and waste container inventory sheets. The VE results are used by the site to verify waste form, confirm and/ or identify prohibited items, and verify drum utilization and waste material parameter estimates made through radiography. The VEE also assesses the need to open individual bags or packages of waste. If individual bags/ packages are not opened, estimated weights are recorded. Estimated weights are established through the use of historically derived waste weight tables and an estimation of the waste volumes. It may not be possible to see through inner bags because of discoloration, dust, or because inner containers are sealed. In these instances, documented AK can be used to identify the matrix parameter category and estimated waste material parameter weights. If AK is insufficient for individual bags/ packages, actual weights of waste items, residual materials, contents packaging materials, or waste material parameters are recorded. The sites also compare the VE data to that obtained through radiography to calculate miscertification rates on an annual basis and, based on these calculations (and the expected number of waste drums to be processed next year), determine the required number of waste containers to undergo VE in the following year. 39 II. C. 3 Effect of Waste Matrix or Waste Type on Measurement As discussed previously, the RTR operator can vary the voltage to provide an optimum degree of penetration through the waste. For example, high­ density material needs to be examined with the x­ ray device set on the maximum voltage to ensure maximum penetration through the waste container. In comparison, low­ density materials need to be examined at lower voltage settings to improve contrast and image definition. For example, containers with lead liners or containers filled with sludges or stabilized (or cemented) wastes cannot be readily penetrated by the x­ ray energy. Thus, containers with lead liners, or other containers whose contents prevent full examination, are either repackaged or examined using VE. Radiography systems also can have difficulty detecting cellulosics in lead­ lined drums because a higher energy x­ ray must be used to scan through the lead lining. The higher energy xray scans past the cellulosics as well. Similarly, sites may be unable to differentiate between cellulosics and plastics, as low density materials can appear very similar. Densely packed drums with highly heterogeneous waste materials can be difficult to characterize, as can bottles and cans that are completely filled with liquid (there is no observable meniscus during container motion). VE is a physically demanding task and densely packed drums can take a long time to be completely examined; however, as long as sufficient time and working space are available there should be no reduction in data quality. Likewise, waste containers packed with fine particles (e. g., soda ash, graphite, or incinerator residue) can present a housekeeping problem, but also can be examined as long as sufficient time and working space are available. Inner containers that are opaque or are packed with sharp metal objects are challenging and must be handled with care. Opaque containers are generally opened, unless the VEE is able to determine what the contents of the container are based on AK. The handling of waste packages containing sharp metallic objects is minimized and often times set aside for repackaging so as not to present undue risks to the VE personnel. II. C. 4 Scope of EPA Approvals for Radiography and Visual Examination All types of CH TRU wastes may be examined using RTR, except for those that are packed in lead­ lined containers or have been stabilized. Also, all types of CH TRU wastes may be examined using VE, except for those that have been stabilized. EPA's approvals with respect to RTR and VE have been limited to date by the scope of the approval sought by the sites. Reinspection would be required with the introduction of new systems (e. g., DR/ CT, VE technique), or specific wastes (e. g. RH TRU waste, lead­ lined drums). 40 II. D WIPP Waste Information System and Data Validation To ensure that the sites ship only waste that conforms with the waste component requirements established by DOE, a system of controls must be implemented that includes tracking of information about waste destined for the WIPP. For this purpose, DOE uses a computerized waste tracking system, the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS). The WWIS is a data transfer system whereby waste characterization and other information is input electronically at generator sites and is transferred to WIPP prior to waste shipment. Additionally, EPA examines the data validation and verification processes for checking data ultimately input into the WWIS. II. D. 1 Overview of Technical Elements When EPA conducts inspections to verify compliance with §194.24( c)( 4), EPA reviews the WWIS for the following items:  The total quantity of waste (volumetrically);  The quantity of the important non­ radionuclide waste components for which DOE has identified limits;  Radionuclide activity for the ten WIPP radionuclides;  Radionuclide activity uncertainty;  Radionuclide mass;  Radionuclide mass uncertainty;  TRU alpha activity;  TRU alpha activity uncertainty;  Verification data;  Verification method;  Visual examination of container;  WAC certification data;  Waste MatrixCode (WMC); and 41  General location of the waste in WIPP. II. D. 1.1 Data Validation/ Verification and WWIS Inspection Components EPA inspects the following components of the systems of control for tracking WIPP waste parameters: ° Documentation. The inspection team first reviews site documentation including, but not limited to, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Detailed Technical Procedures (DTPs), and QAPjPs. These are reviewed to ensure that technical elements are adequately addressed, that the applicable WAC and WAP technical elements and requirements are adequately addressed in site procedures or other documents, and that the technical results of procedure implementation are adequate. ° Data Collection and Entry. EPA examines the overall data collection and date entry process for consistent implementation to ensure data integrity and accuracy. Procedures are also examined to ensure that they are acceptable and allow for submitting data to WIPP via the WWIS system. ° Data Validation. EPA ensures that procedures exist and are technically adequate for reviewing/ validating waste characterization data prior to submittal to WIPP via WWIS. ° Data Requirements. The Agency also determines whether data are collected and formatted consistently with requirements of WWIS, including: ­ Container number ­ TRU alpha activity ­ Site identifier ­ TRU alpha activity uncertainty ­ Waste stream profile number ­ Matrix code ­ TRU alpha activity concentration ­ TRUCON code ­ Decay heat ­ TRU alpha activity ­ Decay heat uncertainty concentration uncertainty ­ Packaging number ­ 239 Pu equivalent activity ­ Assembly identifier ­ 239 Pu fissile gram equivalent ­ Handling code ­ 239 Pu fissile gram equivalent ­ Waste type code uncertainty ­ Radionuclide name ­ Packaging layers ­ Radionuclide activity ­ Alpha surface contamination ­ Radionuclide activity uncertainty ­ Dose rate ­ Radionuclide mass ­ Sample identifier ­ Radionuclide mass uncertainty ­ Sample type 42 ­ Waste material parameter weight ­ Sample date ­ Radioassay method ­ Analyte ­ Assay date ­ Analyte concentration ­ Characterization method ­ Analyte detection method ­ Characterization method date ­ Shipment number ° Data Security. Procedures should be in place to ensure that data in the system are secure. ° WWIS Verification. Procedures should be in place to verify data submitted to the WIPP via the WWIS system. The sites must provide any container­ specific tracking reports (e. g., WWIS Waste Container Data Reports), data validation forms, and other information as needed to determine that the site has a system of controls in place that adequately meets the requirements of §194.24( c)( 4). II. D. 1.2 Demonstration of WWIS Implementation EPA inspection team observes a demonstration of data entry and submittal to the WIPP site via the WWIS system and interviews system operators and data tracking/ validation officials to assess the extent to which the specified processes are being implemented. The inspection team observes adherence to procedures, proper documentation of required data (e. g., validation at the project level, verification of data received from the WWIP site after submittal of characterization data), and results of system operation. No specific analytical equipment is required for this process other than the WWIS itself and any other site­ specific data entry systems used to convey site information to the WWIS, including any computerized systems for implementing data validation procedures. EPA expects the sites to provide a demonstration of their data systems, the ability to transmit and receive data from the WWIS system, and the ability to verify that accurate data have been input into the WWIS system. EPA inspectors examine the data system used to collect waste characterization data to ensure that all appropriate data fields required for entry into the WWIS are accounted for and that the data are transferrable to WWIS either manually or electronically. Further, EPA evaluates the quality of the input data, by reviewing data packages at the point of project level data validation (the point at which data are input into the WWIS for submittal to WIPP). EPA expects a demonstration of the site's ability to ensure connectivity with the WWIS and that data can be transmitted via the WWIS to WIPP and received from WIPP as entered into the site's individual data system. II. D. 1.3 Personnel Qualifications EPA checks that personnel conducting validation/ review and verification and entry of 43 waste characterization data into the WWIS data system are qualified to enter data and verify accuracy of waste characterization data for wastes destined for disposal at WIPP. Specifically, EPA examines procedures for ensuring that training occurs and operator training/ experience records for: ° Initial WWIS orientation °UsingtheWIPP Waste Information System User's Manual for Use by Shippers/ Generators (DOE/ CAO­ 97­ 2273) ° Site­ specific procedures for manual or electronic data entry into WWIS. II. D. 2 Technical Description of Measurement Device As previously described, the WWIS is an electronic database that contains information related to the characterization, certification, shipment, and emplacement of TRU waste at the WIPP. The data are required to ensure that waste destined for WIPP meets applicable regulatory conditions, including radionuclide data on CH and RH TRU waste, cumulative activity of RH waste, and amount of important waste material parameters (e. g., cellulosics). Individual generator sites are responsible for inputting waste data into the WWIS system externally. Generator sites have developed their own unique systems for collecting the information needed to be transmitted to WWIS, including worksheets, electronic spreadsheets, and fully integrated electronic data systems. Regardless of the mechanism for collecting data, each generator site is responsible for verifying and validating all required data prior to submittal to WIPP via the WWIS system. In the CCA, DOE stated that the WWIS tracks waste components and associated uncertainties against their upper and lower limits and provides notification before the waste component limits are exceeded, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 194.24( e)( 1) and (2). Each site has determined its own approach for submitting TRU waste characterization data to WIPP for shipments for disposal. In some cases, sites have developed separate databases to track data generation, validation, and/ or data submittal to WIPP. At other sites, the data input system is manual, which may result in a higher degree of uncertainty in data quality. However, issues with respect to data quality may also arise at sites using electronic data collection, verification, and transmittal. For example, EPA observed during an inspection at INEEL that personnel had the ability to change data without receiving proper approval for such changes. II. D. 3 Effect of Waste Matrix or Waste Type on Measurement The WWIS and data validation programs at sites are not impacted by waste type, with the exception of RH­ TRU waste. EPA determined in its initial certification that DOE did not provide any waste characterization methods for RH­ TRU waste, nor was there discussion specific to how 44 DOE will quantify the RH­ TRU waste. All of the waste characterization discussions in Chapter 4 of the CCA concern CH­ TRU waste, except for Chapter 4, Table 4­ 13 (p. 4­ 49), which is entitled "Applicable CH­ and RH­ TRU Waste Component Characterization Methods." Furthermore, DOE provided no discussion regarding the applicability of CH­ TRU waste characterization methods to RH­ TRU waste. Therefore, the effectiveness of existing WWIS procedures and methods has yet to be demonstrated for RH­ TRU waste streams. II. D. 4 Scope of EPA Approvals for Data Validation/ Verification and the WWIS The range of waste types that EPA may approve at any given time is not affected by the WWIS or the data validation processes, with the exception of RH­ TRU waste as described in section D. 3. To date, approvals have not specifically been limited by waste type, although they may be limited due to other factors (e. g. NDA). 45 III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND LESSONS LEARNED III. A Summary of Results Implementation of the inspection process described in Sections I and II has resulted in a program whereby EPA is compelled to provide authorizations that either mirror that sought by the site (i. e., for given waste streams or Summary Waste Category Groups), or is less than that sought by a site due to system limitations. Consequently, EPA is required to revisit sites multiple times as new systems, wastes, or other elements arise. Table 2 presents inspections performed by EPA to date under the authority of § 194.8( b) and the scope of the resulting approvals. As shown in this Table, EPA has inspected 7 sites, ranging from one to 9 times each. The broadest approval given by EPA has been for specific Summary Waste Category Groups of Retrievably Stored Waste (i. e., debris waste at RFETS), while the most limited approval was for a single waste stream at the SRS, although this limited approval was all that SRS sought at the time of the inspection. DOE sites that have been authorized by EPA to ship waste to the WIPP have adequate waste characterization programs overall. In some instances, EPA was unable to complete an inspection because of the site's limited implementation of activities within the scope of the inspection. 46 Table 2 § 194.8( b) Inspections Performed by EPA as of January, 2002 Generator Site Date of Inspection Type of Inspection Inspection Scope Elements Examined Scope of EPA Approval Rocky Flats (RFETS) EPA­ RFETS­ 6.98­ 8 June 22­ 25, 1998 194.8 Contact­ handled debris waste NDA, AK, RTR, VE, WWIS/ DV Characterization program was approved, with NDA approval limited to the use of IQ­ 3 SGS and WM3100 PNC RFETS EPA­ RFETS­ 4.99­ 8 April 27­ 28, 1999 194.8 Leco crucibles and pyrochemical salt NDA, AK, VE Characterization program was approved and broadened to include Leco Crucibles and pyrochemical salt, with NDA approval expanded to include the use of calorimetry (CAL/ GAMMA) RFETS EPA RFETS­ 11.99­ 8 November 16­ 18, 1999 194.8 Wet residue, dry residue, pyrochemical salts, incinerator ash (including Leco crucibles and magnesium oxide inserts) NDA/ gravimetric techniques, AK, WWIS/ DV Characterization program was approved and broadened to include wet/ dry residue, pyrochemical salts, and incinerator ash, with NDA approval expanded to include SGS Can Counters, SGS Drum Counters, and the TGS RFETS EPA­ RFETS­ 9.00­ 8 September 18­ 21, 2000 194.8 Residues NDA Characterization program was approved, with NDA approval expanded to include NMC, two new TGS CAN Scanners, and a skid­ mounted Tomographic Gamma Can/ Drum Scanner RFETS EPA­ RFETS­ 1.01­ 8 January 29­ February 2, 2001 194. 8 Contact Handled Retrievably Stored Debris/ Solids NDA Inspection postponed by DOE RFETS EPA­ RFETS­ 5.01­ 8 May 14­ 17, 2001 194.8 Debris waste NDA, WWIS/ DV, VE, RTR Limited approval of SuperHENC, Building 569 PADC, Building 569 Tomographic Gamma Scanner. Generator Site Date of Inspection Type of Inspection Inspection Scope Elements Examined Scope of EPA Approval 47 INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 7. 98­ 8 July 28­ 30, 1998 194.8 Contact­ handled retrievably stored debris waste generated at Rocky Flats AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV Limited characterization program was approved for only inorganic solids and graphite debris waste, with NDA limited to Canberra IQ2 and SWEPP PAN INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 5. 99­ 8 May 17­ 21, 1999 Originally planned to be 194.8, revised to 194.24 Scheduled to examine solids, debris, soils, gravels. AK, NDA, RTR, WWIS/ DV Elements of system examined were inconclusive with regard to wastes examined; EPA instead verified that previously approved system was being adequately maintained INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 4. 00­ 8 April 24­ 28, 2000 194.8 Contact­ handled retrievably stored debris waste generated at Rocky Flats NDA, WWIS/ DV, VE, RTR Characterization program was approved and broadened to include all CH retrievably stored debris waste generated at Rocky Flats. NDA approval broadened to include SWEPP SGRS and PAN systems INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 12. 00­ 8 December 5­ 7, 2000 and one day follow­ up on January 8, 2001 194. 8 Contact­ handled retrievably stored homogenous solids (S3000) waste generated at Rocky Flats AK, NDA Characterization program was approved and broadened to include homogenous solids; NDA approval expanded to include SWEPP SGRS and PAN systems re­ examined for subject waste INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 7. 01­ 8 July 25­ 26, 2001 194.8 Contact­ handled retrievably stored homogenous solids and debris waste generated at Rocky Flats NDA Characterization program was approved; NDA system approval broadened to include WAGS INEEL EPA­ INEEL­ 10. 01­ 8 October 29­ 31, 2001 194. 8 Organic sludge NDA, AK Inspection postponed by DOE SRS EPA­ SRS­ 11. 00­ 8 November 6­ 17, 2000 194.8 Waste stream SR­ T001­ 221F­ HET (a contact handled debris waste) AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV Characterization program approved for one waste stream; NDA approved use of PAN and SGS systems Generator Site Date of Inspection Type of Inspection Inspection Scope Elements Examined Scope of EPA Approval 48 SRS EPA­ SRS­ 9. 01­ 8 September 24­ 26, 2001 194.8 Retrievably stored, contact­ handled debris waste generated at SRS and limited to waste streams SRW027­ 221F HET A­ HET­ E AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV Inspection postponed by DOE SRS EPA­ CCP­ 10.01­ 8 October 15­ 19, 2001 194.8 Retrievably stored, contact­ handled debris waste generated at SRS and limited to waste streams SRW027­ 221F HET A­ HET­ E AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV All elements approved for CCP systems at SRS only (i. e., CCP VE, IPAN/ GEA, RTR, WWIS). SRS EPA­ SRS­ 12. 01­ 8 December 12­ 16, 2001 194. 8 Retrievably stored, contact­ handled debris waste generated at SRS and limited to waste streams SRW027­ 221F HET A­ HET­ E AK, NDA Report pending. LANL EPA­ LANL­ 6. 99­ 8 June 14­ 18, 1999 194.8 Contact­ handled, retrievably stored debris and solidified homogenous solid wastes (S5000 and S3000) AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV All elements approved, NDA systems approved were the TGS and HENC NTS EPA­ NTS­ 6.99­ 8 June 7­ 11, 1999 194. 8 Contact­ handled debris waste AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV Waste characterization program did not adequately characterize the proposed waste; approval denied. Hanford EPA­ HAN­ 1.00­ 8 January 24­ 28, 2000 194. 8 Contact­ handled debris waste AK, NDA, VE, RTR, WWIS/ DV Characterization program was approved for contact­ handled debris waste; NDA systems approved were two GEA systems and one IPAN system Generator Site Date of Inspection Type of Inspection Inspection Scope Elements Examined Scope of EPA Approval 49 Hanford EPA­ HAN­ 12.01­ 8 December 17­ 21, 2001 194. 8 Contact­ handled debris and solid waste NDA, VE Approved to characterize CH­ debris waste using the SGSAS NDA system and CH­ solids using VE process during repackaging. AK = Acceptable Knowledge; CAL/ GAMMA = Calorimetry; CBFO = DOE Carlsbad Field Office; CCP = Centralized Characterization Project; DOE = U. S. Department of Energy; DR/ CT = Digital Radiography/ Computed Tomography; DV = Data Validation; GEA = Gamma Energy Assay; EPA = U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; HENC = High Efficiency Neutron Counter; HGPe = High Purity Germanium; INEEL = Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; IPAN = Imaging Passive Active Counter ; LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratories; LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; NDA = Nondestructive Assay; NMC = Neutron Multiplicity Counter; NTS = Nevada Test Site; PADC = Passive Active Drum Counter; RFETS = Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site; RTR = Real­ Time Radiography; SGS = Segmented Gamma Scanner; SGSAS =Segmented Gamma Scan Assay System ; SRS = Savannah River Site; SWEPP SGRS = Stored Waste Examination Pilot Plant Gamma Ray Spectrometer ; SWEPP PAN = Stored Waste Examination Pilot Plant Passive Active Neutron Counter ; TGS CAN = Tomographic Gamma Scanner; TRU = Transuranic; VE = Visual Examination; WAGS = Waste Assay Gamma Spectrometer; WIPP = Waste Isolation Pilot Plan; WWIS = WIPP Waste Information System 50 III. B Lessons Learned As a result of our site inspection experience we have identified a number of general observations, or "lessons learned," related to waste characterization activities. ° Implementation of waste characterization is not consistent across sites. Because one generator site is capable of implementing an adequate program does not mean that other sites that use the same equipment are also implementing an adequate program. For example, while EPA has approved the use of Mobile Characterization System (MCS) NDA at RFETS (Inspection EPA­ RFETS­ 6. 98­ 8; Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 4), EPA has not allowed the use of the same equipment at Nevada Test Site due to concerns regarding quality control, measurement performance, and documentation (Inspection EPA­ 6. 99­ 8; Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 9). ° Sites have not been able to characterize all of their wastes at the time of inspection, and approvals have been sought and given based on sites' own limitations. For example, Savannah River Site originally sought and was granted EPA approval for characterization of a single waste stream, and wrote procedures specific to that waste stream (Inspection EPA­ SRS­ 11. 00­ 8; Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 16). EPA may extend approvals for all waste types in some areas, but in other instances the limitation is warranted. For example, use of the WWIS for data transmittal is not conditioned on waste type, but the method of nondestructive analysis may be. INEEL initially developed procedures and characterization activities focusing only on inorganic solids and graphite debris waste (Inspection EPA­ INEEL­ 7. 98­ 8, Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 2). Consequently, a single, one­ size­ fits­ all approval typically is not possible for all waste types and processes at a site. ° AK and NDA personnel sometimes do not communicate adequately, resulting in the use of AK data by NDA personnel that the AK personnel did not know existed. For example, Hanford Site NDA personnel used AK radioassay information to help determine isotopic distribution, but this information was not provided to the AK personnel, included in the AK record, or integrated into AK Summary documentation. The AK­ NDA linkage is crucial when AK is used directly by NDA personnel, and EPA inspectors examine AKNDA interface issues as part of the evaluation of the overall characterization program. Problems with the interface reflect a loss of control over use of important data by a site. ° EPA has performed some inspections for which only limited examples of procedural implementation were provided by the site. Only a few waste containers were fully characterized, and it was difficult to determine how the system would function once the process was fully operational. For example, initial approval of the INEEL waste characterization system for solids/ solidified waste was sought based on full characterization of only a single drum of waste (Inspection EPA­ INEEL­ 12.00­ 8; Air 51 Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 15). In such instances, it is essential that rigorous application of controls be maintained after approval is given and production level characterization begins. In the case of INEEL, EPA found that this site inadvertently shipped waste characterized using an NDA system that was not yet approved by EPA, necessitating more inspections by EPA. (Inspection EPA­ INEEL­ 7. 01­ 8; Air Docket A98 49, Item II­ A4­ 17). Once EPA has given the initial approval to a site's overall program, it is useful to perform "system check" inspections on a regular basis. The frequency of inspections may lessen as the site demonstrates institutional control over the characterization process. EPA should have flexibility in scheduling inspections, and this flexibility should be independent of DOE's own inspection process. ° Often EPA inspectors arrive at a site to find that the lower­ tier procedures that they reviewed in advance have been revised by the site, in response to earlier CBFO inspections and surveillances or for other reasons. EPA has experienced this problem at every site. This situation interferes with the smooth progress of the inspection plan, because inspectors must take the time to compare the procedures and understand the changes before proceeding with the substance of the inspection. ° Consistent with 40 CFR 194.8( b), EPA's approach to site approvals has been to authorize characterization only for certain waste streams or groupings of waste streams (i. e., Summary Waste Category Groups). Consistent with its QA procedures, DOE's approach has been to certify sites' characterization programs overall and then authorize shipment only of waste streams presented by the site. This difference in approach to site approvals/ certification has been confusing for DOE sites, particularly during EPA's early inspections in 1998 and 1999. 52 IV. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON EPA INSPECTIONS This section presents several examples of the public comments that EPA has received on their inspection results. As of January 2002, we have published a total of twenty­ one Federal Register notices related to those inspections. In response to the twenty­ one notices, we have received nine sets of comments. Of the comments received, four were from the Environmental Evaluation Group (or EEG, New Mexico's independent scientific oversight organization for the WIPP) and focused specifically on documents in the docket [see Docket A­ 98­ 49, Category IIA3 Items 11, 21, 22, and 31]. EEG observers usually attend EPA inspections, and so have the opportunity to discuss their comments directly with DOE personnel during the inspection. Other than comments from EEG, we received five sets of comments. Four of these sets were requests to extend the public comment period, which we did in one instance [see Docket A98 49, Category II­ A3, Items 3, 8, 27, and 30], and the remaining set contained specific comments on documents in the docket [see Docket A­ 98­ 49, Category II­ A3, Item 29]. We respond to comments sent to the docket in our inspection reports, which are filed in Docket A98 49, Category II­ A4. Representative examples of comments are presented below. EPA­ INEEL­ 7. 01­ 8 (July 25­ 26, 2001); Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 17 EPA received two sets of comments in EPA Air Docket A­ 98­ 49 in response to our Federal Register notice of July 13, 2001. The comments are filed as (1) Item II­ A3­ 27 and (2) IIA3 29. Examples of significant comments follows. Issue A: Information provided in Docket A­ 98­ 49 was not sufficient to enable the public or EPA to reach conclusions about the compliance of the WAGS system. Therefore, EPA should extend the public comment period. 33. Based on the documents in the docket, it is impossible for EPA or the public to know how many drums were certified using the WAGS system because none of the documents in the docket describe what characterization and quality assurance (QA) procedures were used on the 1, 917 drums with waste in the 69 shipments that INEEL made to WIPP between December 7, 2000 and June 27, 2001 (INEEL shipments KN001201 and 1202, IN010031 to 010097 ­­ WIPP Waste Information System data). [1] 34. The docket provides no basis for EPA, or the public, to conclude that the WAGS System actually operated in a manner equivalent to the SGRS system for any or all of the period that it was being used as part of the waste characterization process. [1] 35. Neither EPA, nor the public, can conclude that the drums shipped to WIPP were adequately characterized, so the question of what should now be done with those drums at 53 WIPP cannot be answered based on documents currently available to the public. We believe that EPA cannot make any decision about the status of those drums without adequate documentation being made available to the public. [1] 36. Based on the documents in the docket, we cannot conclude that the WAGS system meets the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR 194.8( a). [1] 37. Based on the documents in the docket, we also cannot conclude that the WAGS system meets the waste characterization requirements of 40 CFR 194.8( b). [1] 38. The docket provides no documentation regarding how INEEL or EPA determined which drums were characterized using the WAGS system, how the WAGS system was used and how its use changed during the time period in question, as to the nature of the process knowledge documentation for those drums, or other relevant information. Thus, based on what is available in the docket, the public cannot adequately comment on the status of those drums, nor does EPA have adequate information to make its determinations. [1] 39. As specified in its Federal Register notice of July 13, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 36723), EPA is providing its normal 30­ day public comment period on "waste characterization program documents." However, the current situation is not normal, it is the most complex yet faced by EPA involving a site's waste characterization program. In such an abnormal situation, a longer public comment period is necessary, and it is clearly allowed by 40 CFR 194.8. In addition, the fact that important documents are not yet available necessitates an extension of the public comment period to allow public comment on the appropriate documentation. [1] Response to Issue A: We decided not to extend the comment period. We believe that 30 days was sufficient time to allow the public to raise questions or concerns about the WAGS system, and that the information that we docketed was appropriate, for the reasons explained below. When we open a comment period under 40 CFR 194.8, the primary purpose of the public comment period is to allow the public to provide potentially relevant information to EPA or to raise compliance concerns or questions, so that EPA is aware of those concerns and questions and can seek resolution to them prior to making a final compliance decision. Any specific processes or waste streams about which we are seeking public input are defined in the inspection notice that we provide in the Federal Register. As we explained in our May 1998 Certification Decision (see, for example, EPA Air Docket A­ 93­ 02, Item V­ C­ 1, pp. 2­ 8 to 2­ 11 and 6­ 26), EPA's compliance decision under 194.8 must be based on our independent inspections of waste characterization processes. Inspections involve review of many different documents, interviews with staff, and on­ site demonstrations, which are then summarized and made public in our 54 inspection reports. It is neither possible nor appropriate to attempt to place all information that may be relevant to the scope of our inspection in our docket before we conduct an inspection. We docketed key documents that we determined were pertinent to the proposed WAGS system. In light of the WAGS­ related nonconformance that we identified in June 2001 (see Issue B below), and in anticipation of public concern, we included additional DOE documents that directly pertained to the nonconformance. It was not our expectation that the public would be able to reach conclusions about either the WAGS system's technical adequacy or the WAGSrelated nonconformance based solely on the docketed materials. EPA makes the determination of compliance following a site inspection. With regard to comment A. 1, we obtained objective evidence during our July 2­ 3 inspection at INEEL that established the status of all drums characterized by the WAGS system and shipped to the WIPP site. This information is contained in our report for inspection no. EPAINEEL 7. 01­ 24 (Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A1­ 28). EPA­ RFETS­ 4. 99­ 8 (April 27­ 28, 1999); Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A4­ 6 EPA received one set of comments from the EEG in response to the items announced in the Federal Register on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14418). The letter from EEG, dated April 23, 1999, may be found in EPA Air Docket A­ 98­ 49, Item II­ A3­ 11. Below are some examples of significant issues raised in EEG's letter and EPA's response to those issues. EPA inspectors discussed some of the issues with DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CAO) personnel (Sam Vega, Van Bynum, and Mark Doherty) and RFETS personnel (Gerald O'Leary and Mark Castagneri) during the inspection, in the presence of Ben Walker of EEG. EEG Issue D: Sites such as RFETS must meet requirements for certain waste material parameters that have not been shown to affect the WIPP's performance. RFETS should consider the relative importance of waste material parameters. 1. The RFETS QAPjP follows the CAO's Transuranic Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Program Plan (TRU Waste QAPP, CAO­ 94­ 1010, Revision 0) in continuing to consideralloftheTWBIRwastematerialparametersequally...[ TheRFETSQAPjP], and the overall RFETS TRU waste program, should develop training and awareness of the relative importance of obtaining defensible measurements for the two types of waste material parameters [i. e., cellulosics/ plastics/ rubbers and ferrous metals] that have been shown to be important to containment of waste in the repository. EPA's Response toIssue D: This comment suggests that, by treating "all of the TWBIR waste material parameters 55 equally," RFETS (and DOE generally) may be compromising in some fashion the analysis of waste parameters that are central to compliance with EPA's disposal regulations. EPA did not find evidence during the inspection to support the claim that RFETS is not properly accounting for the important waste parameters. As for other parameters, EPA does not have a basis to require programmatic changes in the WIPP project unless they are shown to be necessary for compliance with our regulations. EEG Issue N: The docketed items were well done but may be insufficient for assessing RFETS compliance. 1. [EEG's] comments... shouldbeconsideredasdescribingdeviationsinwhat, for themost part, appears to be a very well­ planned program adequate to meet the EPA's waste characterization planning requirements specified in 40 CFR 194.8... TheEEGdoes, however, point out that documentation the EPA may need for thorough analysis of RFETS compliance with 40 CFR 194 may not be covered by the documents provided to the WIPP docket for public review. EPA's Response toIssue N: EPA agrees that the RFETS TRU Waste Management Manual and Quality Assurance Project Plan are well­ prepared documents. EPA cannot rely solely on such documents, however, to evaluate transuranic waste sites' quality assurance and waste characterization programs. As we have noted elsewhere, inspections and inspections are appropriate mechanisms for verifying compliance with Conditions 2 and 3 of our certification of the WIPP (see, for example, 63 FR 27359). Prior to, during, and after inspections EPA may review a wide variety of procedures, records, and data in order to reach a determination that the programs under review are adequately established and executed. EPA requires DOE to submit a site's top governing documents prior to an inspection to afford the public an opportunity to comment on the site's programs and to raise issues that the Agency should consider in deciding whether or not to approve those programs. 56 V. CONCLUSIONS EPA's inspection process examines the technical elements important to demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR 194.24 waste characterization systems of control. EPA inspectors examine Acceptable Knowledge (i. e., the historical documentation that provides radionuclide, waste material parameter, and other information), Nondestructive Assay (for radionuclide quantifications), Visual Examination/ Radiography (to assess physical waste contents), and data transfer and data validation. Evaluation of these technical elements is sufficiently comprehensive to assess the technical adequacy of the system of controls for waste characterization. Inspections conducted to date have demonstrated that the application of technical elements listed above varies considerably from site to site. The regulatory language governing site inspections has led EPA to respond to issues involving one or more technical elements by restricting the scope of site approval. As a result, EPA inspectors must return to an approved site if the site seeks to ship additional waste streams, use equipment not previously inspected, or make significant changes to procedures or methods for waste characterization. 57 REFERENCES EPA 1994. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Analysis at Facilities that Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Waste. EPA Office of Solid Waste. Directive Number 9938.4­ 03. April 26, 1994. EPA/ NRC 1997. U. S. Environmental Protection Agecy & U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Joint NRC/ EPA Guidance on Testing Requirements for Mixed Radioactive and Hazardous Waste. 62 FR 62079­ 62094. November 20, 1997.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.810918

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0007-0002

Supporting & Related Material

PART 194— CRITERIA FOR THE CERTIFICATION AND RE­ CERTIFICATION OF THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE 40 CFR PART 191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS § 194.2 Definitions. Acceptable knowledge means any information about the process used to generate waste, material inputs to the process, and the time period during which the waste was generated, as well as data resulting from the analysis of waste, conducted prior to or separate from the waste certification process authorized by EPA's Certification Decision, to show compliance with Condition 3 of the certification decision ( Appendix A of this part). Minor alternative provision means an alternative provision to the Compliance Criteria that clarifies a regulatory provision, or does not substantively alter the existing regulatory requirements. § 194.6 Alternative provisions. The Administrator may, by rule pursuant to 5 U. S. C. 553, substitute for any of the provisions of this part alternative provisions, or minor alternative provisions, in accordance with the following procedures: (a) Alternative provisions may be substituted after: (1) Alternative procedures have been proposed for public comment in the Federal Register together with information describing how the alternative provisions comport with the disposal regulations, the reasons why the existing provisions of this part appear inappropriate, and the costs, risks and benefits of compliance in accordance with the alternative provisions; (2) A public comment period of at least 120 days has been completed and public hearings have been held in New Mexico; (3) The public comments received have been fully considered; and (4) A notice of final rulemaking is published in the Federal Register. (b) Minor alternative provisions may be substituted after: (1) The minor alternative provisions have been proposed for public comment in the Federal Register together with information describing how the alternative minor revision or update comport with the disposal regulations, the reasons why the existing regulation of this part requires the minor revision or update, and the benefit of compliance in accordance with the alternative minor revision or update; (2) A public comment period of at least 30 days have been completed for the minor revisions or updates and the public comments received have been fully considered; (3) A notice of final rulemaking is published in the Federal Register for the minor revisions or updates. § 194.8 Approval Process for Waste Shipment from Waste Generator Sites for Disposal at the WIPP. (b) Waste Characterization Programs at Transuranic Waste Sites. The Agency will establish compliance with Condition 3 of the certification using the process set forth below. (1) DOE will implement waste characterization programs and processes in accordance with § 194.24( c)( 4) to confirm that the total amount of each waste component that will be emplaced in the disposal system will not exceed the upper limiting value or fall below the lower limiting value described in the introductory text of paragraph (c) of § 194.24. Waste characterization processes will include the collection and use of acceptable knowledge; destructive and/ or nondestructive techniques for identifying and measuring waste components; and the validation, control, and transmittal to the WIPP Waste Information System database of waste characterization data, in accordance with § 194.24( c)( 4). (2) The Agency will verify the compliance of waste characterization programs and processes identified in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section using the process set forth below. (i) DOE will notify EPA by letter that a transuranic waste site is prepared to ship waste to the WIPP and has established adequate waste characterization processes and programs. DOE also will provide the relevant waste characterization program plans and documentation. EPA may request additional information from DOE. (ii) EPA will conduct a baseline inspection at the site to verify that adequate waste characterization program plans and technical procedures have been established, and that those plans and procedures are effectively implemented. The inspection will include a demonstration or test by the site of the waste characterization processes identified in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section. If an inspection does not lead to approval, we will a send an inspection report to DOE identifying deficiencies and place the report in the public docket described in § 194.67. More than one inspection may be necessary to resolve compliance issues. (iii) The Agency will announce in the Federal Register a proposed Baseline Compliance Decision to accept the site's compliance with § 194.24( c)( 4). In the notice, we will solicit public comment on the relevant inspection report( s) and any supporting materials, which will be placed in the public docket described in § 194.67. The proposal will describe any limitations on approved waste streams or waste characterization processes and identify tier assignments for the site's reporting of changes to the approved waste characterization processes that we deem necessary in light of the site's demonstrated capabilities at the time of our inspection( s). (iv) Our written decision regarding compliance with the requirements for waste characterization programs and processes described in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section will be conveyed in a letter from the Administrator's authorized representative to DOE. EPA will not issue a compliance decision until after the end of the public comment period described in paragraph (b)( 2)( iii) of this section. EPA's compliance decision will respond to significant and timely received comments. A copy of our compliance decision will be placed in the public docket described in § 194.67. DOE will comply with any reporting requirements identified in the compliance decision and the accompanying inspection report. (3) Subsequent to any positive determination of compliance as described in paragraph (b)( 2)( iv) of this section, the Agency intends to conduct inspections, in accordance with § 194.24( h), to confirm the continued compliance of approved waste characterization programs and processes at transuranic waste sites. EPA will make the results of these inspections available to the public in the dockets described in § 194.67. (i) If the Agency determines, at a subsequent inspection of an approved transuranic waste site, that waste characterization programs or processes are not adequately established or implemented, then we may suspend shipments and disposal of affected and potentially affected waste streams, or take other action in accordance with §§ 194.4( b)( 1) and (2), until we determine that the deficiencies have been adequately resolved. (ii) [Reserved] § 194.12 Submission of compliance applications. Unless otherwise specified by the Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative, 5 copies of any compliance application( s), any accompanying materials, and any amendments thereto shall be submitted in a printed form to the Administrator's authorized representative. In addition, DOE shall submit 10 copies of the complete application in alternative format (e. g., compact disk) or other approved format, as specified by the Administrator's authorized representative. § 194.13 Submission of reference materials. Information may be included by reference into compliance applications( s), provided that the references are clear specific and that unless, otherwise specified by the Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative, 5 copies of reference information are submitted to the Administrator's authorized representative. Reference materials that are widely available in standard text books or reference books need not to be submitted. Whenever possible, DOE shall submit 10 copies of reference materials in alternative format (e. g., compact disk) or other approved format, as specified by the Administrator's authorized representative. § 194.24 Waste characterization. (c)( 3) Provide information that demonstrates that the use of acceptable knowledge to quantify components in waste for disposal conforms with the quality assurance requirements of § 194.22.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.831498

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0021-0001

Proposed Rule

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation [A-99-20-III-A-1]

Tuesday, July 30, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation; Proposed Rule VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49398 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [FRL– 7241– 6] RIN 2060– AH41 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the site remediation source category. The EPA has determined that site remediation activities can be major sources of organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (including benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, vinyl chloride, xylenes) and other volatile organic compounds (VOC). The range of potential human health effects associated with exposure to these organic HAP and VOC include cancer, aplastic anemia, upper respiratory tract irritation, liver damage, and neurotoxic effects (e. g., headache, dizziness, nausea, tremors). The proposed rule would implement section 112( d) of the CAA by requiring those affected site remediation activities to meet emissions limitations, operating limit, and work practice standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). When implemented, we estimate that the proposed rule would reduce annual regulated HAP emissions from the source category by approximately 50 percent or 570 megagrams per year (Mg/ yr) (630 tons per year (tpy)) and reduce nationwide VOC emissions by 3,680 Mg/ yr (4,050 tpy). DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before September 30, 2002. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by September 19, 2002, a public hearing will be held on August 27, 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– 99– 20, 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– 99– 20, U. S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D. C. 20460. The EPA requests 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 begin at 10: 00 a. m. and will be held at the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby. You should contact Ms. JoLynn Collins, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards Division, U. S. EPA (C439– 03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541– 5671 to request a public hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing, or to find out if a hearing will be held. Docket. Docket No. A– 99– 20 contains supporting information used in developing the standards. The docket is located at the U. S. EPA, 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. Copies of docket materials may be obtained by request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260– 7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Greg Nizich, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (C439– 03), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541– 3078, facsimile number (919) 541– 0246, electronic mail address `` nizich. greg@ epa. gov''. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e­ mail) to: `` a­ and­ r­ docket@ epa. gov. '' Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems. Comments will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A– 99– 20. 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. Greg Nizich, c/ o OAQPS Document Control Officer, U. S. EPA (C404– 02), RTP, NC 27711. The EPA 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 it is received by the EPA, 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 whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. JoLynn Collins of the EPA at (919) 541– 5671 at least 2 days before the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Collins to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed standards. Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the development of the 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 potentially affected industries 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 will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307( d)( 7)( A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to the 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. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed rule is also 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 the following address: 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. Background Information. The background information for the proposed rule is not contained in a formal background information document. Background information we used in developing the proposed rule is presented in technical memoranda that VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49399 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules we have included in Docket No. A– 99– 20. Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include: Category NAICS* Examples of regulated entities Industry ...................................... 325211 325192 325188 32411 49311 49319 48611 42269 42271 Site remediation activities at businesses at which organic materials currently are or have been in the past stored, processed, treated, or otherwise managed at the facility. These facilities include organic liquid storage terminals, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing facilities, and other manufacturing facilities with collocated site remediation activities. Federal Government .................. ................ Federal agency facilities that conduct site remediation activities. * North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Representative industrial codes at which site remediation activities have been or are currently conducted at some but not all facilities under a given code. The list is not necessarily comprehensive as to the types of facilities at which a site remediation cleanup may potentially be required either now or in the future. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. A comprehensive list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes cannot be compiled for businesses or facilities potentially regulated by the proposed rule due to the nature of activities regulated by the source category. The industrial code alone for a given facility does not determine whether the facility is or is not potentially subject to the proposed rule. The proposed rule may be applicable to any type of business or facility at which a site remediation is conducted to clean up media contaminated with organic HAP and other hazardous material. Thus, for many businesses and facilities subject to the proposed rule, the regulated sources (i. e., the site remediation activities) are not the predominant activity, process, operation, or service conducted at the facility. In these cases, the industrial code indicates a primary product produced or service provided at the facility rather than the presence of a site remediation performed to support the predominant function of the facility. For example, NAICS code classifications where site remediation activities are currently being performed at some but not all facilities include, but are not limited to, petroleum refineries (NAICS code 32411), industrial organic chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 3251xx) and plastic materials and synthetics manufacturing (NAICS code 3252xx). However, we are also aware of site remediation activities potentially subject to the proposed rule being performed at facilities listed under NAICS codes for refuse systems, waste management, business services, miscellaneous services, and nonclassifiable. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the proposed rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of the proposed rule to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Outline. The following outline is provided to assist you in reading this preamble. I. Background A. What is the source of authority for development of the proposed rule? B. What is a site remediation? C. Why is site remediation a unique NESHAP source category? D. What are the sources of organic HAP emissions from site remediation activities? E. What are the potential health effects associated with organic HAP emitted from site remediation activities? F. What is the relationship of the proposed rule to other EPA regulatory actions affecting site remediation activities? G. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. Who is affected by the proposed rule? B. What are the affected sources? C. What are the standards for process vents? D. What are the standards for remediation material management units? E. What are the standards for equipment leaks? F. What are requirements for remediation material sent off­ site? G. What are the general compliance requirements? H. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? I. What are the continuous compliance provisions? J. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? K. What are the implications of this NESHAP for Clean Air Act title V requirements? L. What are the implications of this NESHAP for Clean Air Act New Source Review Requirements? III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. What is the scope of the source category to be regulated? B. How did we select the pollutants to be regulated? C. How did we select the affected source to be regulated? D. How did we determine MACT for the affected sources? E. How did we select the format of the proposed standards? F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements? G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements? H. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts A. What are the emissions reductions? B. What are the cost impacts? C. What are the economic impacts? D. What are the non­ air quality health, environmental, and energy impacts? V. 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 VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49400 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules I. Background A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of the Proposed Rule? Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The category of major sources covered by today's proposed rule was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are defined by section 112 of the CAA to be those sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. As a supplement to the list of source categories published on July 16, 1992, the EPA developed the publication entitled `` Documentation of Developing the Initial Source Category List'' (EPA– 450/ 3– 91– 030, July 1992). This document contains descriptions of the types of activities included within each source category of major sources. This document states that future information may be used to refine the source category descriptions (EPA– 450/ 3– 91– 030, page A– 2). We included site remediation on the NESHAP source category list to address HAP emissions from technologies and work practices used to clean up or reduce chemical contamination in soils, groundwater, other types of contaminated media and other materials at those facilities that are major sources of HAP as defined by section 112( a)( 1) of the CAA. During the initial development of the proposed rule, we obtained additional information regarding the cleanup of contamination from leaking underground storage tanks at those facilities that are not associated with industrial or manufacturing facilities and where the predominant, if not only, potential source of HAP emissions is the remediation cleanup activity itself (e. g., cleanup of contaminated soil or groundwater due to a leaking underground tank at a small commercial business, farm, or private residence). Our analysis shows that the HAP emissions from a typical cleanup of contamination from the size and types of underground tanks commonly used at these facilities to store motor fuels or heating oils is significantly below the major source levels (i. e., 10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy of all HAP) (see docket A– 99– 20). Therefore, we plan to modify our initial description for the site remediation source category to exclude remediation activities at residential and farm sites, and from leaking underground storage tanks located at gasoline service stations (businesses typically associated with NAICS codes 447110 and 447190). The source category description will be revised at the next update of the source category list as required under CAA section 112( c). B. What Is a Site Remediation? A site remediation is performed in response to the release of hazardous substances into the environment (e. g., soil, groundwater, or other environmental media). It involves taking appropriate action to remove, store, treat, and/ or dispose of the hazardous substances to the extent necessary to protect human health and the environment. The term `` cleanup'' generally refers to the activities performed to address the hazardous substance contamination. This term frequently is used interchangeably with the term `` remediation. '' Site remediations can be performed to address hazardous substance contamination resulting from either past or current human activities. Examples of such activities include accidental releases of chemical substances; undetected leaks in tanks or pipelines; releases from the use of incorrectly designed or poorly maintained equipment for the management of materials containing hazardous substances; improper disposal of hazardous substances in surface impoundments, containers, waste piles, or landfills; and abandoned hazardous substances. Organic materials such as chlorinated hydrocarbons, petroleum products, polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons, and phenols are emitted into the air from site remediations. Site remediations are also performed to clean up contamination from the release of heavy metals (most commonly lead, chromium, arsenic, and cadmium) and other inorganic hazardous substances. Some site remediations address contamination resulting from management practices used at a given facility for special types of waste materials such as mixed wastes (wastes containing both radioactive and nonradioactive hazardous constituents) and low­ level radioactive wastes. The actions taken at a given contamination site to protect human health and the environment vary depending on site­ specific conditions such as the composition, physical form, and quantity of the hazardous substance and the relative degree of contamination. Typically, remediation or cleanup activities involve a contaminated media of one physical form or another (e. g., contaminated soil or groundwater). However, at some sites remediation or cleanup involves materials other than contaminated media; this might include, for example, wastes left in tanks and containers or other `` pure'' materials in the environment that do not include media (e. g., oil pumped from below ground). We use the term `` remediation material'' for both contaminated media and pure materials that are remediated. At some sites, the remediation material is left undisturbed and containment techniques are used to prevent or significantly reduce further migration of the contaminants to surrounding soils or to underlying groundwater aquifers (e. g., installation of a physical barrier or cap on the surface of a contaminated landfill). At many sites, the remediation material is treated to remove or destroy the hazardous substance, transform the hazardous substance into a nonhazardous form, or reduce the concentration of the hazardous substance below a threshold level. Treatment processes are available that allow the remediation material to be treated in place (commonly referred to as `` in situ'' treatment). Other treatment processes require first extracting the remediation material from the ground and then placing it in a treatment unit located at the site (commonly referred to as `` ex situ'' treatment). Alternatively, all of the remediation material may be extracted from the site and the remediation material sent offsite to a facility for treatment or disposal, as appropriate for the form and characteristics of the remediation material (e. g., contaminated soils trucked to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility; or contaminated groundwater discharged through a sewer system to a publicly owned treatment works). C. Why Is Site Remediation a Unique NESHAP Source Category? The development of a NESHAP for site remediation presents a unique set of considerations unlike any other source category for which we have established a NESHAP. The sole purpose of conducting a site remediation is to clean up an existing environmental problem. Any HAP emissions from site remediation are the direct result of the remedial activities or operations taken with the intent of protecting human health and the environment from exposure to hazardous substances. The HAP emissions do not result from processing or refining raw material, manufacturing a product, distributing a product to consumers, or even managing waste to avoid an environmental problem. In developing a NESHAP for site remediation, careful consideration VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49401 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules must be given to establishing a proposed rule that balances the need for effective HAP emissions control with the overall goal of removing the threat to human health and the environment posed by the hazardous substances in the remediation material. Site remediation cannot be categorized by a particular industry sector or group of industry sectors. Site remediation potentially may be conducted at any type of business or facility at which contamination has occurred due to past events or current activities at the facility. These facilities may be privately or government owned. Site remediation is also performed at facilities that have closed or have been abandoned. Implementation problems resulting from the fact that a Site Remediation NESHAP would potentially be applicable to facilities across a wide spectrum of industry sectors are not insurmountable. We have promulgated NESHAP for some source categories that also affect multiple industry sectors. For example, many types of businesses and federal facilities in the United States have operations subject to the Off­ Site Waste and Recovery Operations (OSWRO) NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD. Establishing a NESHAP for this type of broad­ based source category, however, does affect the regulatory approach and format used as well as how to evaluate the impacts of the proposed rule. For the NESHAP source categories defined in terms of a specific industrial or manufacturing sector, the facilities comprising the source category (or, in some cases, subcategories within the source category) share similar processes and emissions points. In contrast to these NESHAP source categories, the HAP emissions sources in the site remediation source category are dependent on site­ specific factors. These factors determine the remedy required for a cleanup and, thereby, the sources and level of air emissions released, if any, by implementing activities associated with the selected remedy. Another consideration is the finite period for which a site remediation is conducted. The objective of a site remediation is to mitigate a detected risk to public health or the environment by successfully completing the cleanup of the area contaminated by a hazardous substance. For NESHAP source categories associated with industrial processes or product distribution, the air emission sources typically remain in operation for many years (i. e., 10 years, 20 years, or even longer for some sources). Once an existing source reaches the end of its useful service life, it is often reconstructed or replaced with a new source. In contrast, the air emission sources associated with site remediations cease to exist once the remediation cleanup criteria are achieved. Depending on site­ specific facts such as the extent of the contamination and the type of remediation activities needed, the life span of a given site remediation may be a short period lasting several weeks to a more extended period lasting several years. Even for those site remediation activities requiring a number of years to complete, it is important to recognize that ultimately the remediation activities at a facility will be completed, and the air emission sources will no longer exist. D. What Are the Sources of Organic HAP Emissions From Site Remediation Activities? Site remediation activities may emit HAP. The levels of organic HAP emissions at any given facility at which a cleanup of remediation material is being conducted depends on sitespecific factors including the type of processes used and activities conducted; the quantity, organic HAP composition, and other characteristics of the remediation material; and the time required to complete the cleanup. The following sections briefly summarize potential types of HAP emission sources related to site remediation activities. 1. In situ Treatment Processes In situ treatment processes are available for cleanup of soils and groundwater contaminated with hazardous organic substances. The in situ processes most frequently in use at existing remediation sites physically extract volatile and semi­ volatile organics by inducing controlled air flow through the remediation material. Examples of these processes are soil vapor extraction for contaminated soil and air sparging for contaminated groundwater. If not controlled, the organic vapors extracted from the soil or aqueous media are released directly to the atmosphere. Bioremediation is another category of in situ treatment process that is commonly used to remove organic contaminants. These processes are destruction processes based on stimulating microbes in the soil or groundwater to grow using the organic contaminant compound as a food and energy source. A variety of other chemical, thermal, and physical treatment processes also have been used in limited numbers of in situ applications. Organic HAP emissions from in situ treatment processes primarily occur through a process vent. A process vent is a pipe or duct that extends above ground level through which an air or gas stream from the remediation process is exhausted to the atmosphere. Emissions occur at the point at which the organic vapor stream exits the process vent outlet into the atmosphere. Because in situ treatment allows the contaminated material to be treated in place, the primary HAP emissions points for in situ treatment processes are process vents. Avoiding the need to first extract the contaminated media eliminates potential HAP sources associated with accumulating, handling, storing, and treating the remediation material in aboveground units. 2. Ex situ Treatment Processes Ex situ treatment processes also remove, destroy, or transform the contaminants but first require the contaminated media to be extracted from the ground or water body before it can be treated. For a given site, using an ex­ situ treatment process in place of an in situ treatment process generally allows the remediation to be completed in a shorter period; it also provides greater control of the consistency of the treatment results because of the ability to mix the extracted materials and better adjust the process parameters for optimal performance. However, total remediation costs likely will be higher using an ex situ treatment because of additional costs for material extraction and handling, worker protection, treated residual disposal, and other factors. Many ex situ processes treat the extracted material in a tank, vessel, reactor, combustion unit, or similar type of contained process unit. Extracted material for some ex situ treatment processes is treated directly on the land surface or in a surface impoundment. The ex situ treatment processes frequently used at remediation sites are groundwater pump and treat, solidification/ stabilization, and incineration. Thermal desorption, bioremediation, and air stripping are also types of ex situ treatment technologies commonly used for cleanup of soils and groundwater contaminated with hazardous organic substances. Solidification/ stabilization technologies are primarily used to treat metals and other types of inorganic contaminants. In general, these technologies have limited effectiveness for treatment of organics. Solidification and stabilization processes reduce the mobility of a contaminant by physically binding or enclosing it within a VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49402 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules stabilized mass (solidification), or by chemically binding to a stabilizing agent (stabilization). Incineration can be used to destroy organics in contaminated soils and other contaminated solid wastes by combustion at high temperatures (i. e., 870 to 1,200 C (1,400 to 2,200 F)). The contaminated material is burned in a rotary, circulating­ bed, fluidized­ bed, or other type of combustor. Often an auxiliary fuel such as natural gas is also burned to initiate and sustain combustion of the contaminated material. Treatment of contaminated materials by incineration is most frequently conducted by sending the material to a permanent, off­ site incinerator facility, although mobile incinerators are available and sometimes brought on­ site. Incinerators used to treat remediation wastes are subject to existing air emission regulations. We promulgated interim standards for the NESHAP for hazardous waste combustion sources under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE with final standards to be promulgated by June 14, 2005. If the remediation wastes are classified as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle C regulations, the waste must be burned in a RCRApermitted incinerator. Incinerators required to meet the hazardous waste combustion NESHAP or RCRA standards use extensive air pollution control systems to achieve emissions limitation standards for organics, particulate matter, metals, and chloride emissions. These systems treat the incinerator exhaust gas stream to control emissions of particulate matter, acid gases, and other pollutants. Thermal desorption is another process used for treating contaminated soils. Unlike incineration, the process is not designed to destroy organics but instead to physically separate the organics from the media. The contaminated soil or other material is heated in a vessel to volatilize organic compounds. Two common vessel designs are the rotary dryer and thermal screw. The bed temperatures and residence times used for the process are at a level that will volatilize selected organic contaminants but will typically not oxidize them. A carrier gas or vacuum system is used to vent the volatilized organics from the vessel to a gas stream treatment system where the organic vapors are removed or destroyed. The organic contaminants typically are either removed through condensation followed by carbon adsorption, or they are destroyed in a secondary combustion chamber or a catalytic oxidizer. The thermal desorption process is used at site remediation activities for the separation of organics from refinery wastes, hydrocarbon­ contaminated soils, coal tar wastes, wood­ treating wastes, creosote­ contaminated soils, pesticides, and paint wastes. Many of these process units are transportable and are temporarily set up at the remediation site for the duration of the cleanup. Air stripping is a physical separation process widely used to remove volatile organics from contaminated groundwater. Air stripping involves the mass transfer of VOC from the water to air by contacting the water with an induced air flow. For groundwater remediation, the air stripping process is typically conducted by pumping the groundwater from extraction wells to a packed tower or an aeration tank. Air strippers can be operated continuously or in a batch mode where the air stripper is intermittently fed from a collection tank. Using batch mode operation improves the air stripper performance consistency and energy efficiency compared to a continuously operated unit because mixing in the storage tanks provides a uniform feed water composition. The typical packed tower air stripper uses a spray nozzle at the top of a tower to distribute the contaminated water over packing in the column. A fan or blower forces air upward from the bottom of the tower countercurrent to the water flow. A sump at the bottom of the tower collects decontaminated water while a vent on the top of the tower discharges the air/ vapor stream. Depending on the organic concentrations in the groundwater and local air permitting requirements, the vent stream may be discharged directly to the atmosphere or through an appropriate organic air emission control device such as activated carbon adsorber, catalytic vapor oxidizer, or thermal vapor oxidizer. Aeration tanks strip VOC by bubbling air into an open­ top tank through which contaminated water flows. A forced air blower and a distribution manifold are designed to provide good air­ water contact without the need for any packing materials. If the aeration tank is uncovered, the stripped VOC are emitted to the atmosphere. Bioremediation technologies are successfully used to clean up excavated soils, dredged sludges and sediments, and pumped groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, pesticides, wood preservatives, and other organic chemicals. These processes rely on indigenous or inoculated micro­ organisms (e. g., fungi, bacteria, and other microbes) to degrade organic contaminants found in the soil or groundwater by metabolism. In the presence of sufficient oxygen (aerobic conditions) and other nutrient elements, microorganisms convert many organic compounds to carbon dioxide, water, and microbial cell mass. In the absence of oxygen (anaerobic conditions), microorganisms convert the organic compounds to methane, limited amounts of carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of hydrogen gas. For ex situ biotreatment of contaminated soils and dredged sediments, the excavated material is first processed to physically separate stones and other debris. The contaminated solids are then mixed with water to a predetermined concentration dependent upon the concentration of the contaminants, the rate of biodegradation, and the physical nature of the soils. This soil slurry is placed in a reactor vessel (i. e., a bioreactor) and mixed with nutrients and, in some cases, other additives. If the process is an aerobic process, air or oxygen is blown into the reactor. When biodegradation is complete, the soil slurry is dewatered using clarifiers, pressure filters, vacuum filters, sand drying beds, or centrifuges. Use of ex situ bioreactors often is favored over using an in situ bioremediation process for heterogenous soils, low­ permeability soils, or when a shorter remediation period is required. Biodegradation processes are used at many industrial facilities to treat process wastewaters containing organics. These same processes can be used to treat contaminated groundwater containing organics. At those remediation sites where bioremediation is used to treat contaminated groundwater pumped from the ground, the common practice is to discharge the water either to the facility's existing process wastewater treatment facility or directly to a sewer for treatment at an off­ site wastewater treatment facility. As an alternative to conducting biodegradation in a bioreactor or other type of enclosed vessel, land treatment and land farming are open biodegradation processes performed on top of the ground surface. For these processes, the extracted material is applied on top of the ground in thin, lined beds or, in some cases, tilled directly back into the upper soil layer. Aerobic microbes decompose the organic compounds contained in the applied material. The material is periodically turned over or tilled to aerate the waste. Organic emissions are generated due to the volatilization of organics from the exposed surface of the VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49403 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules materials primarily during initial application and tilling. After application and tilling, organic emissions continue to occur from the material mixture, although at a decreasing rate, until nearly all of the volatile organics originally in the applied material are either emitted or biologically degraded. Like in situ treatment processes, primary sources of HAP emissions from many types of ex situ treatment processes are process vents. However, unlike in situ treatment processes, there are other potential HAP emissions sources associated with ex situ treatment processes because the contaminated media is extracted from the ground and subsequently managed at the facility as essentially a waste material. Even if treatment of the material is not performed at the facility, any tanks, containers, and other types of equipment used to handle and/ or temporarily store the material before it is shipped off­ site are potential sources of air emissions. These potential HAP emissions sources are discussed in the next section. 3. Other Extracted­ Media Sources Material extraction activities. Depending on the characteristics of the remediation material and the extraction method used, organic HAP may be emitted by the extraction activities. Soils, sludges, and sediments are frequently extracted using heavy construction equipment. Volatilization of organics from the freshly exposed surfaces of the extracted materials can release organic HAP into the atmosphere. Tanks. Tanks can be used at a facility to accumulate, temporarily store, or treat extracted materials containing organics. These tanks can either be open tanks (i. e., the surface of the waste material is exposed directly to the atmosphere) or covered tanks (i. e., the surface of the waste material is enclosed by a roof or cover). Organic HAP emissions result from the volatilization of organic­ containing materials placed in the tank, and the subsequent release of these organic vapors to the atmosphere. For open tanks, the organic vapors released from the surface of the material are dispersed immediately into the atmosphere by diffusion and wind effects. Covering a tank (referred to as a `` fixed­ roof tank'') significantly lowers organic emissions compared to open tanks. However, organic HAP emissions still occur from fixed­ roof tanks from the displacement of organic vapors that have collected in the enclosed space above the surface of the stored material through vents on the tank roof. This displacement occurs during tank filling operations when the vapors are pushed out through the tank vents by the rising level of material in the tank (commonly referred to as `` working losses'') and to a lesser extent, when the volume of the vapor in the tank is increased by fluctuations in ambient temperature or pressure (commonly referred to as `` breathing losses''.) The quantity of organic emissions from a fixed­ roof tank varies depending on volatility of the organic constituents in the extracted materials. Separators. Separators are used to separate oil or organics from water. Organic emissions from these sources are similar to those occurring from open­ top wastewater treatment tanks. Containers. Containers such as drums, dumpsters, and roll­ off boxes may be used to accumulate, store, and treat extracted materials. Organic HAP emissions from containers can result from several emission mechanisms. Organic emissions occur during loading of liquid, slurry, and sludge waste materials into containers due to the displacement of organic vapors to the atmosphere through container openings by the rising level of material in the container. Once loaded, containers that remain open to the atmosphere are an emission source when organics evaporate from the exposed surface of the material placed in the container. Surface Impoundments. Although extracted groundwater, slurries, and sludge materials are managed in tanks at most site remediations, these materials under special circumstances may be managed in surface impoundments. A surface impoundment is an earthen pit, pond, or lagoon. Organic emissions from surface impoundments occur as organics evaporate from the exposed surface of the materials placed in the impoundment. Surface impoundments containing organic­ containing materials may have high organic emissions because of the large exposed surface area and the extended residence time that materials remain in the impoundment (sometimes weeks or months). Transfer Equipment. Organic HAP emissions can potentially occur during the transfer of a material if the transfer system is open to the atmosphere. Volatilization of organics from the exposed surfaces of the extracted materials can release organic HAP into the atmosphere. Examples of such systems include individual drain systems (with all associated drains, junction boxes, and sewer lines), channels, flumes, gravity­ operated conveyors (such as a chute), and mechanically­ powered conveyors (such as a belt or screw conveyor). Equipment Leaks. Leaks from pumps, valves, and other ancillary equipment needed to operate material handling and treatment processes can be a potential source of organic HAP emissions. Organic vapors can be emitted directly to the atmosphere by flowing through small openings created in worn or defective pump and valve packings, flange gaskets, or other types of equipment seals. In addition, organic emissions occur when liquids leak outside the equipment exposing the leaked fluid to the ambient air. Emissions result when organics contained in the drip, puddle, or pool of leaked liquid evaporate into the atmosphere. Although the quantity of organic emissions from a single leak is small, when many equipment leaks occur at a facility, the total organic HAP emissions from equipment leaks can be significant. E. What Are the Potential Health Effects Associated With Organic HAP Emitted From Site Remediation Activities? The range of potential human health effects associated with exposure to organic HAP and VOC include cancer, aplastic anemia, upper respiratory tract irritation, liver damage, and neurotoxic effects (e. g., headache, dizziness, nausea, tremors). Thus, the proposed rule has the potential for providing both cancer and noncancer related health benefits. The following is a summary of the potential health effects associated with exposure to some of the primary HAP emitted from site remediation activities. 1. Benzene Acute (short­ term) inhalation exposure of humans to benzene may cause drowsiness, dizziness, and headaches, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness. Chronic longterm inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood, including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia, in occupational settings. Reproductive effects have been reported for women exposed by inhalation to high levels, and adverse effects on the developing fetus have been observed in animal tests. Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood cells) has been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene. We have classified benzene as a Group A, known human carcinogen. 2. Ethyl benzene Acute exposure to ethyl benzene in humans results in respiratory effects such as throat irritation and chest VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49404 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules constriction, irritation of the eyes, and neurological effects such as dizziness. Chronic exposure to ethyl benzene by inhalation in humans has shown conflicting results regarding its effects on the blood. Animal studies have reported effects on the blood, liver, and kidneys from chronic inhalation exposures. No information is available on the developmental or reproductive effects of ethyl benzene in humans, but animal studies have reported developmental effects, including birth defects in animals exposed via inhalation. We have classified ethyl benzene in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. 3. Toluene Humans exposed to toluene for short periods may experience irregular heartbeat and effects on the central nervous system (CNS) such as fatigue, sleepiness, headaches, and nausea. Repeated exposure to high concentrations may induce loss of coordination, tremors, decreased brain size, and involuntary eye movements, and may impair speech, hearing, and vision. Chronic exposure to toluene in humans has also been indicated to irritate the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, and to cause dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep. Children exposed to toluene before birth may suffer CNS dysfunction, attention deficits, and minor face and limb defects. Inhalation of toluene by pregnant women may increase the risk of spontaneous abortion. We have developed a reference concentration of 0.4 milligrams per cubic meters (mg/ m 3 ) for toluene. Inhalation of this concentration or less over a lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects. No data exist that suggest toluene is carcinogenic. We have classified toluene in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. 4. Vinyl Chloride Acute exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air has resulted in CNS effects such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation has resulted in liver damage to humans. Human and animal studies show adverse effects that raise a concern about potential reproductive and developmental hazards to humans from exposure to vinyl chloride. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation, as vinyl chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk of a rare form of liver cancer in humans. We have classified vinyl chloride as a Group A, known human carcinogen. 5. Xylenes Acute inhalation of mixed xylenes (a mixture of three closely related compounds) in humans may cause irritation of the nose and throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, mild transient eye irritation, and neurological effects. Chronic inhalation of xylenes in humans may result in CNS effects such as headaches, dizziness, fatigue, tremors, and incoordination. Other reported effects include labored breathing, heart palpitation, severe chest pain, abnormal electrocardiograms, and possible effects on the blood and kidneys. We have classified xylenes in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. 6. Volatile Organic Compounds By requiring facilities to reduce organic HAP emitted from site remediation activities, the proposed rule would also reduce emissions of those VOC that are not HAP but contribute to adverse human health affects. Many VOC react photochemically with nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere to form tropospheric (low­ level) ozone. A number of factors affect the degree to which VOC emission reductions will reduce ambient ozone concentrations. Human laboratory and community studies have shown that exposure to ozone levels that exceed the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) can result in various adverse health impacts such as alterations in lung capacity and aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Animal studies have shown increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and lung structure changes. The VOC emissions reductions resulting from the proposed rule will reduce low­ level ozone and have a positive impact toward minimizing these health effects. Among the welfare impacts from exposure to air that exceeds the ozone NAAQS are damage to some types of commercial timber and economic losses for commercially valuable crops such as soybeans and cotton. Studies have shown that exposure to excessive ozone can disrupt carbohydrate production and distribution in plants. This can lead in turn to reduced root growth, reduced biomass or yield, reduced plant vigor (which can cause increased susceptibility to attack from insects and disease and damage from cold), and diminished ability to successfully compete with more tolerant species. In addition, excessive ozone levels may disrupt the structure and function of forested ecosystems. F. What Is the Relationship of the Rule to Other EPA Regulatory Actions Affecting Site Remediation Activities? Existing requirements for site remediations conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) and RCRA programs are administered under the oversight of EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). A site remediation may be regulated under one of three OSWER programs. 1. Superfund Removal and Remedial Actions Remediation activities under the Superfund program are exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule. See discussion in section II. A of this preamble. 2. RCRA Corrective Actions Remediation activities under the RCRA Corrective Action program are exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule. See discussion in section II. A of this preamble. 3. Underground Storage Tanks Subtitle I of RCRA directs the EPA to establish regulatory programs to prevent, detect, and clean up releases from underground storage tanks (UST) containing petroleum or hazardous substances listed under section 101( 14) of CERCLA (petroleum is specifically excluded from this CERCLA list). The EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks is responsible for developing and implementing the UST program. Federal regulations for UST have been developed which specify requirements for tank notification, interim prohibition, new tank standards, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for existing tanks, corrective action, financial responsibility, compliance monitoring and enforcement, and approval of State programs. The technical standards are codified in 40 CFR part 280 and 40 CFR part 281 with the list of CERCLA hazardous substances in 40 CFR part 302.4. The EPA is authorized under subtitle I to delegate UST regulatory authority to approved State programs. States with delegated authority administer and enforce their own approved UST program instead of the Federal regulations. There are currently 25 States and the District of Columbia with approved UST programs. Each of the approved State UST programs is codified in 40 CFR part 282. In the other States without an approved UST program, EPA administers and enforces the Federal regulations. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49405 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules An UST is a tank having a capacity greater than 110 gallons for which the volume of the tank (including the volume of any connected underground pipes) is 10 percent or more beneath the surface of the ground. The major category of UST regulated under this program are tanks used to store petroleum and petroleum­ based substances including crude oil, motor fuels, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, lubricants, petroleum solvents, and used oils. The regulations also apply to underground tanks used to store any hazardous substance defined in section 101( 14) of CERCLA but are not regulated as a hazardous waste under RCRA subtitle C. The regulations do not apply to underground tanks used for a number of specific applications listed in the applicability and definition sections of the rules. The owners and operators of petroleum or hazardous substance UST systems must clean up any spills, leaks, or other releases from the tank into groundwater, surface water, or subsurface soils. Subpart F under 40 CFR part 280 specifies the general requirements for a release response and for corrective action. The specific requirements are determined based on the site­ specific circumstances. In cases where contamination of soil or groundwater has occurred, the site remediation may proceed according to a corrective action plan approved by the EPA or the designated State or local agency responsible for implementing the UST program at the UST site. Under the subpart F requirements, this plan must provide for adequate protection of human health and the environment as determined by the site­ specific factors including an exposure assessment. G. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing sources. 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 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 standards are set at levels that assure that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better­ controlled and lower­ emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled 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 limitations achieved by the bestperforming 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 health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. II. Summary of the Proposed Rule The proposed rule would amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new subpart GGGGG— National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Site Remediation. The following is a summary of the requirements for the proposed rule. A. Who is Affected by the Proposed Rule? 1. General Applicability The proposed rule would affect owners and operators of facilities, with certain exceptions described below, that are major sources of HAP emissions, where a MACT activity is also conducted, and at which a site remediation is performed. All three criteria must exist for the rule to apply. For the purpose of implementing the proposed rule, a site remediation is one or more activities or processes used to remove, destroy, degrade, transform, or immobilize organic HAP constituents in soils, sediments, groundwater, surface waters, or other types of solid or liquid environmental media as well as pure materials that are not mixed with environmental media. 2. Major Source Determination A major source of HAP is defined under CAA section 112 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, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year. In determining whether or not your facility is a major source, you would consider all sources of HAP emissions or potential emissions at your facility. A major source determination includes consideration of a facility's potential to emit (PTE) as well as actual emissions. The PTE is the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitations on the source to emit an air pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation, or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, is treated as part of the source's design if the limitation is enforceable by the EPA Administrator. There are a number of tools and resources available to assist an owner or operator in estimating and inventorying their facility's or source's HAP emissions. For example, our Air Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors (CHIEF) website (www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ software/ airchief) provides the public and private sector users access to air emission data specific to estimating the types and quantities of pollutants that may be emitted from a variety of sources. For those sources or emission points most typically associated with site remediation activities (such as tanks and surface impoundments), our WATER9 computer program provides an analytical model for estimating compound specific air emissions from waste and wastewater collection, storage, and treatment systems. For additional information on determining if your source is a major source, EPA policy memoranda and other guidance on major source determinations and PTE can be found on the Internet at www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg under `` OAR Policy and Guidance Information'' or on the Air Toxics Website at www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ pte/ ptepa 3. MACT Activity A `` MACT activity'' is defined as a non­ remediation activity that is covered by one of the listed major source categories. This list is compiled pursuant to CAA section 112( c) and was first published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The list is updated periodically with the most recent update published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6521). The term `` covered'' here does not mean that the nonremediation activity is necessarily subject to a MACT standard, just that the activity is included within the scope of a particular MACT source category. 4. Exemptions The proposed rule would not apply to site remediations we are specifically excluding from applicability. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49406 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules a. CERCLA Cleanups and RCRA Corrective Action The proposed rule exempts sites addressed under CERCLA authority and corrective action activities initiated under permits or orders, including such activities under authorized state programs, at RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal facilities. Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites have extensive contamination that often require many years of study to determine a permanent remedy. Superfund sites are regulated under a program created by CERCLA that was enacted in 1980 and amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act in 1986. The Superfund program is designed to protect public health and the environment while providing the flexibility to use effective and innovative remediation approaches that best suit the site­ specific conditions at each CERCLA site (CERCLA section 121). The Superfund program conducts extensive evaluation of the contamination at each NPL site (see 40 CFR 300.430). As part of the evaluation process, a decision document (i. e., Record of Decision (ROD)) is developed for response actions, documenting the extent of contamination and the cleanup method( s) to be used at the site. Under this process, a site­ specific analysis, considering the impacts to air, soil and groundwater, is conducted and an appropriate remedy is selected. During the ROD process, the general public is given the opportunity for input in the decision­ making process through public hearings and submission of written comments. The public plays an important role in identifying and characterizing site­ specific factors, such as the type of contaminants, the level and extent of contamination and other site­ specific factors. We believe this procedure results in selection of the best plan for cleaning up each site and achieving the program's goals. As implemented under the requirements of RCRA, hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDF) must obtain a permit specifying requirements for managing hazardous waste. As a condition of obtaining this permit, facilities are required to undertake corrective action addressing releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents from units at the facility which do not themselves require RCRA permits (solid waste management units) (RCRA section 3004( u)). For such designated contamination areas at TSDF, requirements for the cleanup of the contamination are included in the facility's RCRA permit, or Federal Order where applicable. Such cleanup activities are known as `` corrective actions. '' Although RCRA is a separate program from Superfund, the RCRA permitting or Federal Order process for TSDF share several significant characteristics with Superfund cleanup activities at NPL sites. First, it is also the intent of the RCRA Corrective Action program to protect public health and the environment while allowing flexibility in choosing solutions to eliminate or reduce site contamination. Second, RCRA permitting and Federal Order procedures involve the public in the decision­ making process through informal public meetings, public hearings or written comment. Finally, an extensive site­ specific evaluation is performed at the RCRA facility to evaluate the extent of the contamination, while considering appropriate remedies through a multimedia (i. e., air, soil, groundwater) perspective. We believe that requiring remediation activities at Superfund NPL sites and at permitted or Federal Order RCRA corrective action sites to meet the requirements of this proposed rule could either create incentives to avoid cleanup, or result in the selection of a remediation approach that is less desirable, protective or permanent (e. g., capping or containing the contaminated media instead of permanently removing or treating the contaminants). (Cf. Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 172 F. 3d 65, 67, 70 (D. C. Cir. 1999) (EPA lacks authority in many instances to compel excavation of wastes, so that imposition of requirements on excavated wastes discourages more protective remediations; EPA may permissibly adjust rules applicable to excavated wastes to avoid this result.)) Furthermore, we believe that these existing programs are the most appropriate, comprehensive and effective regulatory approach to address air emissions resulting from site remediation activities at sites addressed using CERCLA authority and RCRA corrective action sites and to avoid transfer from one medium to another. b. Other Exemptions The proposed rule would not apply to site remediation activities involving the cleanup of radioactive mixed waste managed in accordance with all applicable regulations under Atomic Energy Act and Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorities. Another applicability exemption is provided for those site remediations performed to clean up remediation material containing little or no organic HAP. The proposed rule would not apply to any facility for which the owner or operator demonstrates that the total annual organic HAP mass content of the remediation material to be cleaned up at the facility is less than one Mg/ yr. 5. Application of Once In, Always In Policy Due to the potential short term nature of site remediations, we have evaluated how the proposed rule fits with existing policies for CAA section 112 standards. Our current policy is that once a facility or source is subject to a MACT standard, it remains subject to that standard as long as the affected source definition or criteria are met. This is called the `` once in, always in'' policy. Because of the uniqueness of this source category and the nature of the activities that are being regulated in the proposed rule, we have evaluated how our once in, always in policy should apply relative to the site remediation source category. The existing policy may affect facilities that conduct site remediations in situations where a facility is presently an area source and the remediation activities would increase the total facility PTE such that the facility exceeds the 10/ 25 tons of HAP criteria for a major source under CAA section 112. Because the facility is now considered a major source of HAP, another operation at the facility, such as a manufacturing process, would now be subject to NESHAP for other source categories located at their facility. Furthermore, after the remediation is completed, the facility would, in terms of emissions, essentially be back to where it was as an area source (assuming no change in the facility plant operations). Under the once in, always in policy, the facility would remain subject to the NESHAP that was triggered by the short­ term change of source status from area to major brought about by the site remediation activity. In the situation described above, we believe the once in, always in policy would create an obvious disincentive for owners or operators to engage in site remediations, particularly since voluntary remediation would be affected by the proposed rule. Our intent is to not prescribe requirements that create incentives to avoid a cleanup or result in the selection of less desirable or less protective or permanent remediation approaches. Therefore, we have determined that the once in, always in policy does not apply relative to the site remediation source category for those facilities that are area sources prior to and after the cleanup activity. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49407 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules The above application of the once in, always in policy to site remediation activities addresses the issue of a facility's MACT obligation after completing a remediation activity. We believe a situation could occur, based on language in the CAA, that this policy does not address. Specifically, certain area sources for non­ remediation activities could become major sources once a remediation activity begins operation. While the facility would have no MACT obligation (Site Remediation MACT or otherwise) after completing all remediation, compliance with a nonremediation MACT standard may be required due to the increase in PTE from the remediation activity. An example of this situation would be an area source chemical processing plant not currently subject to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON), but with manufacturing operations covered by that MACT standard. After operating for many years as an area source, the facility initiates a remediation operation that increases its PTE to major source levels. Since the facility is now a major source of HAP, the facility would have to comply with the HON for the operations covered by that MACT standard. Furthermore, since the compliance dates for the various processes regulated by the HON have all passed, any controls required by the HON would have to be in place at the time the facility became a major source as specified by the HON. Prior to commencing the remediation activity, the facility may find it preferable to install federally enforceable controls on certain emission points and maintain area source status to avoid becoming subject to the industry­ relevant MACT standard. We realize this option is not achievable in every case. 6. Exemption of Short­ Duration Site Remediations The EPA is proposing to exempt sources from the requirements of the proposed rule where the contamination requiring remediation occurs within 7 days prior to the remediation activity. This exemption is intended to apply to contamination commonly caused by a spill where the cleanup is initiated soon after the spill event and is of very short duration (i. e., typically 30 days or less). The purpose of this exemption is to encourage prompt attention to remediating contaminant spills and leakages. Although the Agency is not proposing any other duration­ based exemptions in the proposed rule, it is possible that other duration­ based exemptions may be appropriate in light of the policy goal of encouraging voluntary site remediations to remove risk to human health and the environment. For example, there may be some site remediations that can be completed in the time required by this proposal to modify relevant permits; it may make sense in cases like this to complete the remediation activity as quickly as possible without waiting for paperwork modifications to be completed. The Agency requests comment on which situations, if any, might be appropriate for further duration­ based exemptions to today's proposed rule. B. What Are the Affected Sources? The proposed rule defines three groups of affected sources, (1) process vents, (2) remediation material management units, and (3) equipment leaks. The affected source for process vents is the entire group of process vents associated with both in situ and ex situ remediation activities. The affected source for remediation material management units is the entire group of tanks, surface impoundments, containers, oil/ water separators, and transfer systems used to store, transfer, treat, or otherwise manage remediation material. The affected source for equipment leaks is the entire group of remediation equipment components (pumps, valves, etc.) that contain or contact remediation material having a total organic HAP concentration equal to or greater than 10 percent by weight, and are intended to operate for 300 hours or more during a calendar year. C. What Are the Standards for Process Vents? The proposed rule would establish emission limitation and operating standards for certain process vents associated with site remediation treatment processes. The same standards would apply to both in situ and ex situ treatment processes. These standards would apply to the entire group of affected process vents associated with all of the treatment processes used for your site remediation. The standards would be the same for existing and new sources. The air emission control requirements under the proposed rule would not apply to certain process vent streams with low flow, low HAP concentration characteristics. A process vent would be exempted from the air emission control requirements of the NESHAP if the owner or operator determines the process vent stream flow rate to be less than 0.005 standard cubic meters per minute. Also exempted would be those process vent streams having a flow rate less than 6.0 standard cubic meters per minute and a total HAP concentration in the vent stream less than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This process vent exemption requires that both the process vent flow rate and the organic HAP concentration criteria be met to qualify for the exemption. A process vent would also be exempted from the air emission control requirements if the HAP concentration of the remediation material being treated by the vented process is less than 10 parts per million by weight (ppmw). Under the proposed rule, you would have two compliance options for the affected process vents. The first option would be to reduce the total organic HAP emissions from all affected process vents at the facility to a level less than 1.4 kilograms per hour (kg/ h) (approximately 3.0 pounds per hour) and 2.8 Mg/ yr (approximately 3.1 tpy). You would have to achieve both of these mass emission limitations to comply with this option under the proposed rule. If the total organic HAP emissions from all affected process vents associated with your site remediation exceed either the hourly or annual mass emission limitation then you would need to use appropriate controls to reduce the emission levels to comply with the emission limitations. If you can meet both of the total organic HAP mass emission limitations using no controls or the existing controls you already have in place to meet federally­ enforceable organic emission standards, then no additional controls would be required under the proposed rule for your affected process vents. As an alternative to complying with the mass emission limits, a second option proposed under the proposed rule would be to reduce the total organic HAP emissions from all of the affected process vents by at least 95 weight percent. At sites with multiple affected process vent streams, you may comply with this option by a combination of controlled and uncontrolled process vent streams that achieve the 95 percent reduction standard on an overall massweighted average. For those process vent streams controlled by venting to a control device, the closed vent system and control device would need to meet certain requirements specified in the proposed rule. D. What Are the Standards for Remediation Material Management Units? The proposed rule would establish emissions limitation and operating standards for certain remediation management units (i. e., units associated with the management of remediation materials). For those remediation material management units required to VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49408 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules use air emission controls, the proposed rule would establish by source type (i. e., tanks, oil­ water separators, containers, surface impoundments, transfer systems) separate sets of emission limitation, operating limit, and work practice standards as appropriate for each source type. The standards would be the same for existing and new sources. Air emission controls would be required on a remediation material management unit used to manage remediation material having an organic HAP (VOHAP) concentration equal to or greater than 500 ppmw. Remediation material with a VOHAP concentration of less than 500 ppmw is not required to be managed in controlled units. The proposed rule also provides an exemption that would allow an owner or operator to selectively designate, on a site­ specific basis, certain individual units to be exempt from the air emission control requirements regardless of the VOHAP concentration of the remediation material placed in the unit. Application of this discretionary exemption by the owner or operator would be limited based on remediation material organic HAP content. Under this provision, the total annual organic HAP mass content of the regulated remediation material placed in all of the units designated by the owner or operator as exempt units could not exceed 1 Mg/ yr as determined in accordance with the procedures specified in the proposed rule. Determination of VOHAP concentration can be made by either direct measurement of samples of the remediation material or through use of knowledge of the remediation material (i. e., application of owner/ operator expertise using appropriate information regarding the remediation material). In using direct measurement, the VOHAP concentration of the collected samples would be measured using Method 305 in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. As an alternative to using Method 305, you would be allowed to determine the organic HAP concentration using any one of the several alternative test methods, as applicable to the remediation material stream, and then adjust the test results using factors specified in the proposed rule to determined the VOHAP concentration. The VOHAP determination using direct measurement for a given remediation material unit would be based on samples collected prior to placing the remediation material in the unit at any point you choose before the organic constituents in the material have the potential to volatilize and be released to the atmosphere. For example, you may sample the remediation material stream at the point where it is extracted from the ground (`` point­ of­ extraction'' as defined in the proposed rule). Alternatively, you may choose to sample the remediation material stream within the remediation material unit (provided that organic constituents in the material have not been allowed to volatilize and be released to the atmosphere, as specified in the proposed rule). Allowing the use of knowledge to determine the VOHAP concentration of a remediation material provides flexibility for the owner or operator to use any appropriate information to determine VOHAP concentration of a remediation material. The basis for knowledge of the remediation material could include existing information collected by the owner or operator for other purposes or new information collected specifically for the VOHAP remediation material determination. For remediation material management units downstream of the contaminated area in particular, it is important to note that the determination of the VOHAP concentration is made within each remediation material management unit. This approach simplifies the determination process for varying treatment processes and addresses both the situation of management of a single remediation stream or management of two or more material streams combined (either remediation or non­ remediation, or both). If a single material stream, or combination of streams, have a VOHAP concentration of 500 ppmw or greater in the management unit, then the unit is subject to the air emission control requirements for the particular unit as specified in the proposed rule. Once the VOHAP concentration falls below the 500 ppmw action level, the material need not be managed in controlled units. If the HAP concentration is increased to 500 ppmw or more in a downstream unit, that unit will need control. For example, a facility remediation project involves a pump and treat system that generates groundwater with more than 500 ppmw VOHAP, measured as it exits the groundwater pumping/ piping system. It is initially pumped into a holding tank managing the single remediation stream. The remediation material, the groundwater in this case, has a VOHAP concentration greater than 500 ppmw, and, therefore, the holding tank would be subject to the tank standards under the proposed rule. From the holding tank, the groundwater is sent to a larger mixing tank where the groundwater is mixed with other wastewater streams, where the combined VOHAP concentration is less than 500 ppmw, and the resultant mixture is treated to adjust the pH of the mixture. Because the VOHAP concentration of the combined streams is below 500 ppmw, the mixing tank would not be subject to the tank standards under the proposed rule. Following this mixing operation, the combined wastewater is sent to an onsite wastewater treatment system. Since the mixture leaving the mixing tank has a VOHAP concentration of less than 500 ppmw, all downstream processes and management units (e. g., tanks, surface impoundments, containers or transfer systems) would not be subject to the control requirements for remediation material management units unless the concentration is increased to 500 ppmw or greater through phase separation or other method. In general, we expect remediation streams to be managed separately so a stream would be managed in controlled units until it is treated to reduce the concentration below 500 ppmw. We believe, however, that in some cases a remediation stream may be combined with one or more streams and treated downstream from the mixing point. Mixing merely for the purposes of dilution is not allowed, but if mixing occurs to facilitate treatment (i. e., to treat all streams in a centralized operation), and the resulting stream has a VOHAP concentration below 500 ppmw, then that stream does not have to be managed in controlled units. We realize this approach deviates somewhat from other rules regulating wastewater­ type management or treatment units that require air emission controls after the VOHAP concentration falls below 500 ppmw due to mixing. For site remediation operations, this is an appropriate approach since we believe remediation activities are typically of a limited duration, relatively low­ flow in comparison to facilitywide wastewater management operations, and often treated effectively in a facility­ wide treatment system. We do not want to create obstacles that could inhibit overall treatment effectiveness. Moreover, we believe remediation streams would get some level of HAP reduction, and, thus, emission reduction, through biological treatment within a facility's wastewater treatment system. 1. Tanks The proposed rule would establish emission limitation and work practice standards to control organic HAP emissions from those tanks managing remediation material having an average VOHAP concentration equal to or greater than the 500 ppmw action level. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49409 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules For those tanks required to meet the air emission control requirements, you would need to achieve one of two levels of control. The required level of control would be determined by the tank design capacity and the maximum HAP vapor pressure of the extracted material in the tank. For each tank required to use Level 1 controls, you would be required to comply with the existing 40 CFR part 63, subpart OO— National Emission Standards for Tanks— Level 1. For these tanks, you could also comply with the proposed rule by using Level 2 controls if you choose to do so. For each tank required to use Level 2 controls, you would have five compliance options under the proposed rule. The compliance alternatives provided under the proposed rule would allow you to either: (1) Use a fixed­ roof tank with an internal floating roof; (2) use an external floating roof tank; (3) vent the tank through a closed vent system to a control device that meets the requirements specified in the proposed rule; (4) locate an open tank inside an enclosure vented through a closed­ vent system to a control device that meets the requirements specified in the proposed rule; or (5) use a pressurized tank that operates as a closed system during normal operations. The specific technical requirements for each of these alternatives are implemented under the proposed rule by cross­ referencing the existing Tank Level 2 control standards in 40 CFR 63.685( d) of the OSWRO NESHAP. 2. Containers The proposed rule would establish emission limitation and work practice standards to control organic HAP emissions from containers having a design capacity greater than 0.1 cubic meters (approximately 26 gallons) used to manage remediation material having a VOHAP concentration of 500 ppmw or more. For those containers required to use air emission controls, you would need to achieve one of three levels of control that would be determined by the container design capacity, the organic content of the extracted material in the container, and whether the container is used for a waste stabilization process. You would be required to comply with the specified requirements for the applicable control level in the existing 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP— National Emission Standards for Containers. Except for containers used for waste stabilization, these standards would require that you manage the extracted material in containers that use covers according to the requirements specified in the proposed rule. Should affected containers be used for a waste stabilization process, containers would be required to be vented to a control device. Application of the container standards and the various levels of control is illustrated in the following example. In the situation where contaminated soil (i. e., the remediation material in this case) is excavated and placed in a dump truck (i. e., a container under the definitions used in the proposed rule), the truck containing the soil would be required to meet Level 1 controls if the VOHAP concentration is equal to or greater than 500 ppmw and the criteria for Level 2 controls is not met. If this were the case, as it likely would be in most remediation situations, then a cover such as tarp covering the remediation material would be adequate to meet the Level 1 control requirements. If the vapor pressure and VOHAP concentration were such that Level 2 controls were required then a more strenuous set of controls would apply. 3. Surface Impoundments For each surface impoundment required to use air emission controls, you would be required to comply with the existing 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQ— National Emission Standards for Surface Impoundments. Under this subpart, you must meet one of two options: (1) Use a cover over the surface impoundment and vent through a closed­ vent system to a control device; or (2) use a floating membrane cover designed and operated according to requirements specified in the proposed rule. 4. Oil­ Water and Organic­ Water Separators For each oil­ water or organic­ water separator required to use air emission controls, you would be required to comply with the existing 40 CFR part 63, subpart VV— National Emission Standards for Oil­ Water and OrganicWater Separators. Under this subpart, you must meet one of three options: (1) Use a floating roof on the separator; (2) use a cover over the separator that is vented through a closed­ vent system to a control device; or (3) use a pressurized separator designed and operated according to requirements specified in the proposed rule. 5. Material Transfer Systems For each individual drain system required to use air emission controls, you would be required to comply with the existing 40 CFR part 63, subpart RR— National Emission Standards for Individual Drain Systems. For transfer systems required to use air emission controls other than individual drain systems, you would be required to comply with one of three options: (1) Use covers; (2) use continuous hardpiping or (3) use an enclosure vented to a control device. E. What are the Standards for Equipment Leaks? The proposed rule would establish work practice and equipment standards to control organic HAP emissions from leaks in pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open­ ended valves or lines, valves, flanges and other connectors, and product accumulator vessels that either contain or contact a regulated material that is a fluid (liquid or gas) and has a total organic HAP concentration equal to or greater than 10 percent by weight. These work practice and equipment standards would not apply to equipment that operates less than 300 hours per calendar year. You would have the option of complying with the provisions of either 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU— National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks— Control Level 1 or 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU— National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks— Control Level 2. Both of these subparts require you to implement a leak detection and repair program (LDAR) and to make certain equipment modifications. F. What Are the Requirements for Remediation Material Sent Off­ Site? Under the proposed rule, if you transfer remediation material containing organic HAP to another party, another facility, or receive it from another facility, this material would need to be managed according to the provisions of this subpart. In other words, if the material has a VOHAP concentration of 500 ppmw or more, as determined according to the procedure in the proposed rule, then at the new facility this material would need to be managed in units that meet the air emission control requirements under the Site Remediation NESHAP for the applicable remediation material management unit type (i. e., tank, containers, etc.). Similarly, any treatment process used for the transferred remediation material would need to meet the process vent control requirements. G. What Are the General Compliance Requirements? Under the proposed rule, you would be required to meet each applicable emission limitation and work practice standard in the proposed rule at all VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49410 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for your site remediation according to the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6( e)( 3). Also with regard to compliance, it is important to note that under the provisions of the proposed rule, if an affected source (i. e., a remediation management or treatment unit) is subject to and complying with the control requirements under another part 61 or part 63 standard (e. g., has either installed air emission controls or has taken other actions to reduce HAP emissions to levels dictated by the other part 61 or part 63 standards) then the affected source is exempt from the control requirements of the proposed rule in 40 CFR 63.7883 through 40 CFR 63.7933. However, the source must be controlling air emissions under the other rule; the exemption under the proposed rule does not apply if the source is merely exempt from the control requirements of the other rule and has not taken action to limit HAP emissions. H. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? Initial compliance for process vents would be demonstrating that either: (1) The total organic HAP emissions from all affected process vents is less than 1.4 kg/ h and 2.8 Mg/ yr; or (2) the total organic HAP emissions from all of the affected process vents is reduced by at least 95 weight percent. Initial compliance for remediation material units would be demonstrating that either: (1) The VOHAP concentration of the remediation material managed in the unit is below the 500 ppmw action level; or (2) the unit meets all applicable air emission control requirements for the unit. If a control device is used, initial compliance is determined by either: (1) Performing a performance test according to 40 CFR 63.7 of the general provisions and using specific EPA reference test methods; or (2) performing a design evaluation according to procedures specified in the proposed rule. You also must establish your operating limits for the control device based on the values measured during the performance test or determined by the design evaluation. I. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions? To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission limitations and work practice standards under the proposed rule, you would perform periodic inspections and continuous monitoring of certain types of air pollution control equipment you use to comply with the proposed rule. In those situations when a deviation from the operating limits specified for a control device is indicated by the monitoring system or when a damaged or defective component is detected during an inspection, you must implement the appropriate corrective measures. To demonstrate continuous compliance with an emission limitation for a given source, you would continuously monitor air emissions or operating parameters appropriate to the type of control device you are using to comply with the standard, and keep a record of the monitoring data. Compliance is demonstrated by maintaining each of the applicable parameter values within the operating limits established during the initial compliance demonstration for the control device. There are different requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance with the work practice standards, depending on which standards are applicable to a given emission source. To ensure that the control equipment used to meet an applicable work practice standard is properly operated and maintained, the proposed rule would require that you periodically inspect and monitor this equipment. When a cover is used to comply with a work practice standard, you must visually inspect the cover periodically and keep records of the inspections. In addition, for external floating roofs, seal gap measurements must be performed on the secondary seal once per year and on the primary seal every 5 years. Leak detection monitoring using Method 21 would be required for certain types of covers to ensure gaskets and seals are in good condition, and for closed­ vent systems to ensure all fittings remain leak­ tight. In general, annual inspection and leak detection monitoring of covers is proposed. Annual inspection and leak detection monitoring would be required for closed­ vent systems. Any defects or conditions causing failures detected by an inspection or monitoring need to be promptly repaired and records of the repairs kept. You would be allowed to use an alternative to the monitoring required by these proposed standards. If you choose to do so, you would be required to request approval for alternative monitoring according to the procedures in 40 CFR 63.8 of the General Provisions. J. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? The proposed rule would require you to keep records and file reports consistent with the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. Two basic types of reports are required: initial notification and semiannual compliance reports. The initial notification report advises the regulatory authority of applicability for existing sources or of construction for new sources. The initial compliance report demonstrates that compliance has been achieved. This report contains the results of the initial performance test or design evaluation, which includes the determination of the reference operating parameter values or range and a list of the processes and equipment subject to the standards. Subsequent compliance reports describe any deviations of monitored parameters from reference values; failures to comply with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) for control devices; and results of LDAR monitoring and control equipment inspections. Records required under the proposed standards must be kept for 5 years, with at least 2 of these years being on the facility premises. These records include copies of all reports that you have submitted to the responsible authority, control equipment inspection records, and monitoring data from control devices demonstrating that operating limits are being maintained. Records from the LDAR program and storage vessel inspections, and records of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of each control device are needed to ensure that the controls in place are continuing to be effective. K. What Are the Implications of This NESHAP for Clean Air Act Title V Requirements? 1. What is the title V Program? This program is a permit program established under title V of the CAA in 1990. A title V permit is intended to consolidate all of the air pollution control requirements into a single operating permit for a source's air pollution activities. 2. Under what circumstances am I required to obtain a title V permit for my remediation activity? Title V requires all major sources to obtain permits (see 40 CFR 70.3, or 40 CFR 71.3). Major source status is triggered for a source under title V when actual emissions or potential to emit meets or exceeds certain major source VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49411 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules thresholds (see definition of major source at 40 CFR 70.2, or 40 CFR 71.2). Although a source subject to the Site Remediation MACT will be major for title V purposes based on emissions of HAP, title V also requires permits for sources that are major for other air pollutants, (e. g., the criteria pollutants). Sources that are subject to the Site Remediation MACT, by virtue of being major sources, will typically have to obtain an operating permit, if they don't already have one, or modify their existing permit under title V (either 40 CFR part 70 or 71). An option for avoiding major source status under title V for some sources that are not major prior to the remediation activity is voluntarily requesting practicallyenforceable limitations (often operation or emissions­ related) to reduce their potential to emit or actual emissions to levels below the major source thresholds. This option should be pursued through your permitting authority. 3. Who is responsible for obtaining the title V permit for a remediation activity? Typically the party responsible for obtaining the title V major source permit will be either: (1) The owner or operator of the site remediation equipment or activities, or (2) the owner or operator of the source already existing at the facility that is covered by another MACT source category activity (the other collocated source). The decision as to who should apply for the permit in any specific case will be made on a case­ by­ case basis (site­ dependent) and should be evaluated in consultation with the permitting authority, however, normal practice will be to issue the permit to the entity that has common control of all activities at the facility. Under the definition of major source used for HAP in 40 CFR part 70 or 71, all activities within a contiguous area under common control will be aggregated (grouped) together as a single source to determine major source status. While the source is ultimately responsible for making these determinations, permitting authorities will commonly assist sources in this task. Also note that the question of who may be required to apply for the permit will likely be affected by the way that pre­ construction review permits (also referred to as New Source Review or NSR permits) were issued to such sources. Initial NSR permits are required prior to the commencement of construction activities, while initial title V operating permits are required generally after commencement of operations. Thus, permitting authorities are likely to follow decisions made in issuing NSR permits when looking at this question for title V purposes. 4. If I already have a title V permit, is a modification required for my remediation activity? When there is a major source in a MACT source category that already has a title V operating permit, and a site remediation activity commences operation at the same facility and all activities at the facility are considered part of the same source (i. e., under common ownership and control), permitting authorities will require the previously issued operating permit to either be reopened or revised to reflect the new applicable requirements of the Site Remediation MACT. Permit reopening under 40 CFR 70.7( f), or 40 CFR 71.7( f), is required when a major source has a permit, there are 3 years or more left on the term of the permit, and we promulgate a new MACT standard (or other applicable requirement) that applies to the source. For such sources, if less than 3 years is left on the permit term, the State may generally wait until renewal to update the permit. On the other hand, modifications under 40 CFR 70.7( e), or 40 CFR 71.7( e), are required when a source has a permit and the source becomes subject to the MACT standard after the standard is promulgated (in most cases, these will be significant modifications under 40 CFR 70.7( e)( 4), or 40 CFR 71.7( e)( 3), but in some circumstances other permit modification procedures may apply). 5. If I have an existing title V permit, do I have to wait for completion of the permit modification before I begin the remediation activity? In general, when site remediation activities are not addressed or prohibited by your existing operating permit, you may commence such activities at any time prior to the finalization of any formal title V permit modification procedures. However, when permit modification is required due to a new remediation activity and the new activity conflicts with (or is expressly prohibited by) the existing permit terms or conditions, the permit must be formally revised prior to commencing operation of such activities or you will be in violation of the permit prior to their revision. 6. The increase in potential­ to­ emit from a remediation activity will make my facility a major source overall, but only for a limited time. Am I required to get a title V permit? What activities can occur before my title V permit is issued? All major sources are required by 40 CFR 70.5( a)( 1), or 40 CFR 71.5( a)( 2) to submit their permit application no later than 12 months after they commence operation, but State law could require it sooner. After that, 40 CFR 70.7( a)( 2), or 40 CFR 71.7( a)( 2), allows permitting authorities up to 18 months to issue the final permit, but State law may also require issuance sooner. Major sources that expect to operate for 12 months or more obviously must submit a permit application in all cases. Sources that expect to operate less than 12 months (or whatever deadline the State sets) may decide not to prepare a permit application, at the risk of operating past that deadline without submitting the required application. Also note that policies concerning the permitting of such sources may vary from State to State; so it is also a good idea to contact your permitting authority concerning the steps necessary to fulfill your obligations under the operating permit program. 7. What are the requirements for remediation equipment that moves from one facility to another after completing each remediation activity? Permitting authorities will decide how to permit such sources on a caseby case basis, taking into account the particular circumstances known to them at that time. Many permitting authorities have policies or specific rules to address the permitting of portable sources, or other activities of short­ duration, which are usually those expected to operate less than 1 or 2 years at any one location, and which are expected to operate in more than one location during a typical 5­ year permit term. In addition, 40 CFR 70.6( e), or 40 CFR 71.6( e), addressing temporary sources, allows permitting authorities to issue a single operating permit for a major source that will operate in multiple locations during its 5­ year permit term. 8. My facility's current operations are covered by an existing title V permit, do I have the option of obtaining a separate title V permit for a new remediation activity? In some cases, permitting authorities have authority to issue multiple operating permits to a single source, and if this is the case, they may agree to issue a separate permit for the remediation activities. Although title V permits are typically thought of as a single permit that covers all the applicable requirements and all emissions units at a single source, the CAA allows permitting authorities to issue multiple permits to a single source. Such issuance would be consistent with title V as long as the assemblage of permits for a single major source addresses all applicable requirements at all subject emission VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49412 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, DC. units (in the same way that a single major source permit would). L. What Are the Implications for This NESHAP for Clean Air Act New Source Review Requirements? This NESHAP does not change any of the existing requirements under the NSR program. The questions and answers within this section summarize the NSR program and a source's general requirements under this program. 1. How is the NSR program structured? The NSR program is divided into three parts: Nonattainment NSR for major sources, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for major sources, and minor source NSR. The term `` NSR'' is used to refer to both the overall program, and to the requirements that apply in nonattainment areas (e. g., nonattainment NSR). Nonattainment NSR applies to large facilities (major sources) located in areas where air quality is unhealthy to breathe —i. e. where the NAAQS for a CAA pollutant is not being met. These areas are called nonattainment areas. Note: The term major source as it applies to the NSR program is discussed in detail in the July 23, 1996 Federal Register (61 FR 38429)). Nonattainment NSR for major sources of certain pollutants also applies in the federally designated ozone transport region (OTR), which consists of eleven northeastern states. 1 Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) applies to major sources located in areas where air quality is currently acceptable— i. e. where the NAAQS for a CAA pollutant is being met. These are called attainment areas. Minor NSR applies to smaller sources and modifications that contribute to air pollution throughout the country. 2. Who runs the NSR and PSD programs? The NSR program is administered by State and local air pollution permitting authorities, who are responsible for issuing all permits. Each state or local permitting authority is required to incorporate NSR and PSD requirements into its State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is the State's plan to ensure progress toward, or maintenance of, attainment of all NAAQS. A State's PSD program may be SIP­ approved or delegated. If the State designs its own program, EPA may approve it so long as it meets the criteria listed in Federal PSD regulations. Otherwise, the State may take delegation of the Federal PSD program, as it is written in the Federal PSD regulations. A State's nonattainment NSR program must be a SIP­ approved program meeting the criteria listed in Federal NSR regulations. 3. Who is subject to major NSR and PSD requirements? No one may begin constructing a new major stationary source or undertake a major modification at an existing stationary source without obtaining an NSR or PSD permit from the permitting authority. The new major source would not need an NSR or PSD permit unless it had new potential emissions that qualify as major. Moreover, an existing major source that undertakes a major modification is subject to NSR or PSD only if there is a significant increase in emissions. 4. Do sources always need an NSR permit for a construction project? Sources may avoid major NSR or PSD altogether by not increasing their emissions (e. g., by making changes that do not increase emissions, by installing controls on one part of the facility to offset increases at another part of the facility, or by agreeing to emission limits in their permit). Alternatively, facilities may comply with NSR by including modern controls in conjunction with an upgrade project or a new facility. 5. How long does the process take to complete? The EPA estimates that the average time it takes to get a major NSR or PSD permit is about 7 months from receipt of the permit application. 6. When NSR or PSD applies, what must sources do? a. Major Nonattainment NSR in Nonattainment Areas New and existing major sources undertaking major modifications subject to nonattainment NSR must apply state of the art emission controls that meet the lowest achievable emissions rate (referred to as LAER). The LAER is based on the most stringent emission limitation in any State's SIP, or achieved in practice by the source category under review. To get a permit, the applicant must also offset its emission increase by securing emissions reductions offsets from other sources in the area. The amount of the offset must be as great or greater than the new increase, and is based on the severity of the area's nonattainment classification. The more polluted the air is where the source is locating or expanding, the greater the emissions reductions required to offset the proposed increase. Offsets must be real reductions in emissions, not otherwise required by the CAA, and must be enforceable by the EPA. Each applicant must also conduct an analysis of `` alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental control techniques * * * (that) demonstrates that benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs of its location, construction, or modification. '' The applicant must also certify that all other sources operating within the State are operating in compliance with the CAA and SIP requirements. Finally, the public must be given adequate notice and opportunity to comment on each permit application. b. Prevention of Significant Deterioration in Attainment Areas New major sources and existing sources that undertake major modifications that are subject to PSD must apply best available control technology (BACT). The BACT determination ultimately made by the permitting authority allows for a consideration of energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs on a case­ by­ case basis that is specific to the facility's situation. The permitting authority then specifies an emission limit for the source that represents BACT. Each PSD applicant must also perform an air quality analysis to demonstrate that the new emission increase will not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS or result in a significant deterioration of the air quality. Finally, each applicant must also conduct an analysis to ensure that the increase does not result in adverse impact on air quality related values, including visibility, that affect designated Class I areas, such as wilderness areas and national parks. c. Minor NSR For sources not otherwise covered by major PSD or NSR, the CAA requires permitting authorities to regulate construction and modifications to ensure that the NAAQS are achieved. State programs have widely varying requirements. Some are comprehensive, while others provide numerous exclusions. Some require a technology review, in addition to air quality modeling. III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. What Is the Scope of the Source Category To Be Regulated? As we discussed in section I. A of this preamble, site remediation is one of the approximately 170 categories of sources included on the NESHAP source category list. The facilities included VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49413 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules within the scope of this source category include sites at which the cleanup is required to comply with requirements under a State regulatory program as well as sites at which cleanups are performed on a voluntary basis. In section II. A of this preamble, we discuss how statutory directives under RCRA and CERCLA direct us to address the control of air emissions from certain site remediations and that those activities under the RCRA Corrective Action and CERCLA authorities are exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule. B. How Did We Select the Pollutants To Be Regulated? The specific chemicals, compounds, or groups of compounds designated by Congress to be HAP are listed in CAA section 112( b). Included on the list are organic and inorganic chemicals. From this list of HAP, we selected the specific HAP to be regulated under this NESHAP for site remediations. 1. Organic HAP Organic HAP potentially can be emitted from site remediations at many different types of facilities. We considered but decided not to select all of the organic HAP listed under section 112( b) for regulation in the Site Remediation NESHAP. Instead, we decided to be consistent with the approach we used for the OSWRO NESHAP as well as other NESHAP promulgated for source categories with large diversity in the organic chemical constituents present in the materials managed at any given facility and instead regulate on the basis of a surrogate that reasonably ensures MACT control of the organic HAP present. See National Lime v. EPA, 238 F. 3d, (D. C. Cir. 2000, upholding use of surrogates in establishing MACT standards). When we developed the organic HAP list for the OSWRO NESHAP, we evaluated each organic chemical or chemical group listed as a HAP in CAA section 112( b) with respect to its potential to be emitted from a waste management or recovery operation. The criteria used to characterize and evaluate emission potential was based on a chemical constituent's Henry's law constant, evaluation of the aqueous and organic volatility characteristics of the chemical, and the ability of the analytical test methods to quantitate the chemical. Based on our evaluation, we selected 98 specific organic HAP compounds or compound groups to be regulated under the proposed rule (Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD.). Although the OSWRO NESHAP, by an exclusion under the rule applicability, does not apply to units managing wastes from site remediations, the data base that we used to select the list of organic HAP for the OSWRO NESHAP included remediation wastes sent to hazardous waste TSDF. We believe that this data base is also representative of the range of organic HAP chemicals having the potential to be emitted from the sites requiring cleanup of media contaminated with volatile or semivolatile organics and other remediation material. Therefore, we are proposing that same list of organic HAP used for the OSWRO NESHAP also be used for the Site Remediation NESHAP. This list is presented in Table 1 to proposed Subpart GGGGG. We request comment on the proposal to use this list of organic HAP for the Site Remediation NESHAP. 2. Inorganic HAP The types of inorganic compounds listed as HAP in CAA section 112( b) that are most likely to be in contaminated media requiring remediation are heavy metals (i. e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium). A widely used remediation approach for cleanup of soils, sludges, or sediments contaminated with heavy metals involves excavating the contaminated media, treating the remediation material in a solidification or stabilization process, and disposing of the treated material in an appropriate landfill (which may be on­ site or an off­ site facility). Metals in the contaminated soil are immobilized by the added binder material used for the fixation process. In situations where groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals, site remediation typically involves extracting the groundwater by pumping it to the surface and then removing the metals by a physical or chemical process (e. g., precipitation, ion exchange). The metals remain in the wet precipitate or other extraction media and are not released to the atmosphere. For some site remediations involving the cleanup of media containing both metals and organic contaminates, the extracted remediation waste is burned in an incinerator or other combustion device. Metal HAP contained in the remediation waste vaporize at high combustion temperatures or become airborne as fine particles and can remain in combustion gases in either a gaseous or particulate form. Any metal HAP contained in the combustion gases that is not captured and removed by a control device is emitted to the atmosphere. Based on our information regarding the cleanup of media contaminated with metals or other inorganic HAP, many of the remediation techniques used do not release the inorganic HAP to the atmosphere. In cases where remediation material containing inorganic HAP is burned in an incinerator, the incinerator used must already meet air standards under the CAA and RCRA that limit organic, particulate matter, metals, and chloride emissions. (See, e. g. 40 CFR part 263, subpart EEE (MACT standards for hazardous waste combustion sources).) Therefore, we are proposing that metals and other inorganic compounds listed as HAP in CAA section 112( b) not be regulated by this Site Remediation NESHAP. We are specifically requesting comment on this proposal and, in particular, would appreciate receiving data regarding the sources and quantity of inorganic HAP emissions from site remediations and available control technologies applicable to the sources in order to either support or revise our decision not to regulate inorganic HAP emissions under this NESHAP. C. How Did We Select the Affected Source To Be Regulated? For the purpose of implementing a NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63, `` affected source'' is defined to mean the stationary source, or portion of a stationary source that is regulated by a relevant standard or other requirement established pursuant to section 112 of the CAA. Each relevant standard is to designate the affected source for the purposes of that standard. Within a source category, we must decide which of the sources of HAP emissions (i. e., emission points or groupings of emission points) to which the proposed rule applies. One option for the Site Remediation NESHAP is to define the affected source as the entire set of activities performed for a given site remediation such as the cleanup of contaminated soil or the cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The affected source would consist of the mix of emission points for the sequence of activities in which the contaminated media or other remediation material is extracted (if needed), stored, conveyed, treated, or, otherwise handled at the facility. Under this broad definition option, a separate emission limitation for MACT would be determined for the entire group of emission points associated with a site remediation to clean up the contaminated soil. Another emission limitation for MACT would be determined for the entire group of emission points associated with a site remediation to clean up the contaminated groundwater. Unlike the NESHAP source categories that can be VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49414 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules readily characterized by one or several standardized process configurations which are used throughout the industrial segment representing the source category, the operations used for all contaminated soil or contaminated groundwater remediations cannot. The activities, equipment configurations, and sequencing of operations used are not consistent from site remediation to site remediation. Therefore, we concluded that this option is not an appropriate approach for defining the affected sources for the Site Remediation NESHAP. Another option we considered is to define the affected source in terms of common groupings of processes and equipment used for management and cleanup of contaminated media and other remediation materials (i. e., tanks, containers, process vents, and equipment leaks). Under this option, MACT is determined for each emission source group. We believe that this option is an appropriate way to define the affected source for the Site Remediation NESHAP. Designating the affected source to be a group of similar emission point types ensures that air emission controls of equivalent performance are applied at the same time to all of the units used to manage a remediation material stream. Also, this approach to defining sources is consistent with other NESHAP for related waste management operations (e. g., the OSWRO NESHAP). Therefore, for the Site Remediation NESHAP, we determined separate MACT for common groups of emission point sources. The first group of common emission points designated to be an affected source for the Site Remediation NESHAP is the group of pipes, stacks, or ducts that allow the passage of gases, vapors, or fumes containing organic HAP to the atmosphere from any treatment process used at the facility to remove, destroy, or otherwise transform the hazardous substances in remediation material. These pipes, stacks, and ducts are collectively referred to as process vents in the proposed rule. The process vent may be either associated with an in situ process (e. g., soil vapor extraction used to treat contaminated soil) or ex situ process (e. g., air stripper used to treat contaminated ground water, or thermal desorption unit used to treat contaminated soil). For the purposes of applying the standards, a process vent is neither a vent that operates as a safety device nor a stack or duct used to exhaust combustion products from a boiler, furnace, incinerator, or other enclosed combustion device that is being used to treat a remediation waste or material. If these combustion devices are being used as an air pollution control device to control air emissions then the vent could be subject to the standards. The next group of common emission points designated to be an affected source for the Site Remediation NESHAP is the group of units used at the facility which handle, temporarily store, or otherwise manage the remediation material once it has been extracted from the ground. This group of sources includes units that treat extracted contaminated media but do not use a process vent (e. g., a tank used for biological degradation treatment of contaminated groundwater). These units are tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil­ water and organicwater separators, individual drain systems, and other stationary transfer or conveyance. The units regulated under this affected source designation are collectively referred to as remediation material management units in the propose rule. A third group of common emission points designated to be an affected source for the Site Remediation NESHAP is the group of equipment components prone to emitting organic HAP as a result of liquid or vapor leaks. This group of equipment consists of pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices, sampling connection systems, open­ ended valves and lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems that contain or contact remediation material once it has been extracted from the ground. We have identified two other types of remediation activities that may emit organic HAP but do not belong in any of the above three affected source groups. These activities are the excavation of contaminated soil and land treatment process for contaminated soils, sediments, and sludges. Excavation of contaminated soil involves the use of heavy machinery to dig up the soil. The excavated material is then either placed directly into dump trucks for transport offsite or moved to another location at the facility for storage or treatment. Land treatment processes are open biodegradation processes in which the contaminated soil, sediment, or sludge is excavated, re­ applied in shallow layers on the ground surface, and periodically turned over or tilled to aerate the applied material. The organic contaminants are neutralized, destroyed or transformed by biological actions of microbes in the materials. Our information indicates that there are no add­ on controls currently in use to control organic emissions from these activities, nor are we aware of any practical work practices or process modification that can be implemented to reduce organic HAP emissions from these activities. Therefore, we are proposing not to develop standards under this NESHAP for either excavation operations or land treatment activities. We specifically request comment on the technical and practical feasibility of controlling HAP emissions from these remediation activities, actual HAP emissions rates that occur, and the costs of applying any applicable controls. D. How Did We Determine MACT for the Affected Sources? Section 112( d)( 3) of the CAA specifies that the MACT standards for existing sources cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best­ performing 12 percent of existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources. There are many more than 30 site remediations being conducted nationwide. Therefore, the MACT floor for existing sources at site remediations is established by the best­ performing 12 percent of existing sources. We reviewed our information for site remediations to find an approach for identifying the best­ performing 12 percent of existing sources, arraying the data for each category of emission point. Our data includes individual existing sites where remediation activities use add­ on air emission controls (e. g., venting air strippers through carbon adsorbers, management of remediation wastes in covered tanks). However, there are remediation sites in our data base at which no air emission controls are used. The use of air emission controls at a given location depends on a combination of factors including, but not limited to, the type and extent of contamination requiring cleanup, the nature of the site remediation activities used for the cleanup, and the requirements imposed by the agency having oversight of the site remediation. Determining a MACT floor based on use of control measures other than addon controls (e. g., fuel switching, material substitution or reformulation, process modification, material recycling within the process) is not technically appropriate for, or applicable to, the site remediation source category. This source category addresses HAP emissions that are released from the cleanup of pre­ existing environmental contamination problems. By the time the need for site remediation has been identified, the opportunity has passed for applying any pollution prevention or source reduction techniques. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49415 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules The use of add­ on air emission controls by some existing site remediation activities indicates that the average emission limitation being achieved by the best performing 12 percent of these sources is at some level above applying no controls (i. e., the emission limitation achieved by best performing 12 percent of the sources is greater than zero). The difficulty we are presented with is not having the information to determine average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources at site remediations nationwide. We do not have comprehensive nationwide facility survey data by which we can state, with a reasonable level of confidence, that the sources for which we do have air emission control data do indeed represent the top 12 percent of the best performing existing sources nationwide. These sources may represent well more than the top 12 percent but there also is the possibility that the sources represent less than the top 12 percent. We do not have the data needed to definitively calculate the statistical distribution of air emission controls used at existing remediation sites nationwide. Obtaining nationwide counts of existing site remediation activities is not a trivial task given the uniqueness of the site remediation source category. Many site remediations are voluntary actions and are not reported for inclusion in existing EPA site remediation data bases. Furthermore, some existing site remediations are performed to address a unique contamination situation and may not be relevant to site remediations that are performed in the future. A comprehensive information collection survey to collect the needed data would require very significant time and resource commitments by both us and the survey respondents, and would not necessarily provide us with all of the information we need. In addition, it is not clear that on­ going remediation activities have the available data needed to adequately characterize the source category. Given the uniqueness of the site remediation source category, the extent of information currently available to us, and the complexities of gathering additional meaningful information, we decided to forgo statistically computing an emission limitation or identifying a specific control technology that represents the MACT floor for site remediations. The MACT floor for existing affected sources is some level of air emission control beyond no controls. Because the provisions of section 112 allow us to select MACT for a source category that is more stringent than the MACT floor (provided that the control level selected is technically achievable and that we consider the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non­ air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements associated with the selected control level (CAA section 112( d)( 2)), we chose to select the MACT technology directly. To select a MACT technology from alternatives beyond the MACT floor for each affected source, we looked at the types of air emission controls required under national air standards for sources similar to those sources that potentially may be associated with site remediations. These air standards are NESHAP for other source categories, particularly the OSWRO NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD, and the air standards for RCRA hazardous waste treatment, disposal, and facilities under subparts AA, BB, and CC in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 (RCRA Air Rules). The control levels established by the emission limitation and work practices we are proposing here are being implemented at existing sources subject to these similar rules; this demonstrates that the control levels are technically achievable. As stated in the previous paragraph, these control requirements and action levels already exist in either the RCRA Air Rules or the OSWRO NESHAP, or both. Given that these existing rules specify control requirements for sources similar to those comprising the affected source group for the Site Remediation NESHAP, and that sources already regulated by these existing standards will likely manage and/ or treat remediation material regulated by the Site remediation NESHAP also, we believe that the requirements within these existing rules represent industry practice for remediation activities and therefore MACT for the Site Remediation NESHAP. Nevertheless, we recognize that the existing standards were designed for controlling emissions from ongoing industrial activities that would continue for many years, rather than for limited­ duration activities such as site remediations. The Agency requests comment on the appropriateness of using the existing standards for limited­ duration site remediations. E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Standards? The proposed standards for the Site Remediation NESHAP consist of a combination of several formats: numerical emission limits and operating limits, equipment standards, and work practice standards. We selected the formats for each of the proposed standards to be consistent with the formats used in other NESHAP for similar organic HAP sources. F. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? The Site Remediation NESHAP would control three different groups of emission points: process vents, remediation material management units, and equipment leaks. The control technologies and work practices used to control these emission point groups would have different testing and initial compliance requirements. The methods proposed for testing and for demonstrating initial compliance with the proposed standards are consistent with those in other NESHAP that require using these same control technologies and work practices. We selected the performance testing requirements to demonstrate compliance with the control device emission limits based on the use of the applicable EPA test methods. We propose in the proposed rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, 4, 9, 18 (total organic HAP or total organic compounds), 22, 25, 25A, 305 and 316 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and SW 846 9095A. Consistent with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), we conducted searches to identify potential voluntary consensus standards that could be used in place of these EPA methods. As discussed further in section V. H of this preamble, no applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified as practical alternatives to the EPA Methods included in the proposed rule. G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements? Continuous monitoring is required under each NESHAP so that we can determine whether a source remains in compliance following the initial compliance determination. When determining appropriate monitoring options, we considered the availability and feasibility of a number of monitoring strategies ranging from continuous emission monitoring to process and control device parameter monitoring. Monitoring of control device operating parameters is considered most appropriate for many other similar emission sources and, therefore, we have included this as the primary monitoring approach in these proposed standards. We selected operating parameters for the following types of control devices that are reliable indicators of control device performance: thermal and catalytic VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49416 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2 Value reported in $2000. For the economic impact analysis, EPA adjusted this estimate to $1997 using a cost factor (0.9753) developed from the Chemical Engineering Composite Plant Cost Index. Thus, the total annual compliance costs in $1997 is $7.96 million. oxidizers, flares, adsorbers, condensers, boilers, incinerators, and process heaters. In general, we are proposing selected parameters and monitoring provisions that were included in the OSWRO NESHAP. Sources would monitor these parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits and operating limits. H. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? The required notifications and other reporting are based on the General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. The initial notification and the semiannual compliance reports include information on the remediation material and affected site remediation activities, and they require any changes to this information to be reported in subsequent reports. Similarly, records are required that will enable an inspector to verify the facility's compliance status. Due to the nature of control devices that would be installed on site remediation processes and the emissions being controlled, we have determined that control device parameter monitoring is appropriate in this circumstance. The required records and reports are necessary to allow the regulatory authority to verify that the source is continuing to comply with the standards. IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts A. What Are the Emissions Reductions? We estimated nationwide organic HAP emissions from the site remediations potentially subject to the proposed rule based on the information available to us including remediation waste quantity and treatment practice data for the year 1997 and earlier. Nationwide organic HAP emissions from regulated sources are estimated to be approximately 1,140 Mg/ yr. Nationwide VOC emissions from regulated sources are estimated to be approximately 7,360 Mg/ yr. (Although not all VOC are organic HAP, we may permissibly note the air benefits from controlling non­ HAP pollutants such as VOC when considering a MACT standard. (See S. Rep. 101– 228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. 172) We estimate that implementation of the proposed rule would reduce these nationwide air emissions by approximately 50 percent to 570 Mg/ yr of HAP and 3,680 Mg/ yr of VOC. B. What Are the Cost Impacts? The nationwide total capital investment cost and the annual operating cost of the control equipment required to meet the proposed standards are estimated to be $17.6 million and $5.8 million per year, respectively. When fully implemented, the proposed rule is estimated to result in a total annual cost of $8.2 million per year. C. What Are the Economic Impacts? The proposed rule would affect owners and operators of facilities, subject to the exceptions described in section I. A of this preamble, that are major sources of HAP emissions and at which a site remediation is conducted to clean up media or other material contaminated with any of the organic HAP substances listed in the proposed rule. Because of the nature of activities regulated by the source category, a comprehensive list of NAICS codes cannot be compiled for businesses or facilities potentially regulated by this action. As a result, the economic impact analyses focused on a set of industries from the 1997 Biennial Reporting System (BRS) database that were known to be large quantity generators of hazardous waste and who were remediating hazardous waste as part of a site remediation. We believe that the data provides an adequate overview of the potential impacts of the proposed rule. However we recognize that the actual industries directly impacted by the proposed rule in the year the proposed rule is implemented and the costs incurred by these industries may differ somewhat from the set of industries identified in the 1997 BRS data and the costs assigned to these industries for the purposes of the economic analysis. In general, we did not find evidence of significant impacts at the industry level. From the BRS data, over 80 industries were predicted to have annual compliance costs as a result of the proposed rule, and 15 industries accounted for 91 percent of the national compliance cost estimate of $8.16 million 2 . We employed an engineering or financial analysis to estimate impacts, which takes the form of the ratio of compliance costs to the value of sales (cost­ to­ sales ratio (CSR)). We calculated CSR for 12 industries and found all had CSR below 0.02 percent. The CSR are less than the lower quartile return on sales for all industries with profitability data available. We did not compute CSR for the remaining three industries because revenue data were not available. The CSR will likely overstate the impact on firms and understate the impact on consumers. The CSR assumes that there are no changes in the market as a result of the higher costs of production faced by the firms and that the firms continue to produce the same quantities, sell at the same price and absorb the full amount of the compliance costs. Small business impacts were particularly difficult to assess because of the uncertainty over the facilities that will actually be impacted by the proposed rule. As a result, we concluded that sufficient data and related information did not exist to conduct a small business screening analysis. D. What Are the Non­ Air Quality Environmental and Energy Impacts? Compliance with the standards in the proposed rule requires using types of control equipment commonly in use to control organic emissions from process sources at many of the industrial facilities at which site remediations are most likely to occur. The non­ air environmental and energy impacts associated with implementing the requirements of the proposed rule primarily are expected to result from the operation of these control devices. No significant adverse water, solid waste, or energy impacts are expected as a result of the proposed rule. V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the 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, VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49417 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that the proposed rule is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review. B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires the 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. '' Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule. 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 the 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. '' Under section 5( b) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 5( c) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications and that preempts tribal law, unless the Agency consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA has concluded that the proposed rule may have tribal implications since site remediation activities could be conducted on tribal lands. We do not have any information identifying specific remediation activities being conducted at this time. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt State law. Thus, the requirements of sections 5( b) and 5( c) of the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless has made attempts to invite tribal representatives to participate in the rulemaking activities early in the process of developing this proposed rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. We have contacted tribal representatives and groups directly to notify them of this proposed rule development activity and to solicit their participation. Despite these efforts, EPA has not been contacted by tribal representatives to participate in the rulemaking process to date. In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule from tribal officials. 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 the EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the proposed rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA. The EPA interprets 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. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, the proposed rule has been determined not to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866. E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (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, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49418 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective 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 the EPA 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 of why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has determined that the 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. The maximum total annual cost of the proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be about $23.4 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. 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. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Agency must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis unless the Administrator certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Courts consistently have held that the provisions of the RFA apply only with respect to small entities that are subject to the proposed rule. The proposed rule sets minimum standards to be met when parties engage in future site remediation activities, but it does not itself require any party to undertake such activities. States may choose to direct a party to undertake site remediation, or parties may undertake remediation activities voluntarily. Today's action places no requirement on any party to initiate site remediation activities. The EPA anticipates that parties that undertake site remediation activities generally will do so voluntarily and that the impact of the proposed rule on those parties would not be significant. Further, because States and other parties will decide whether to undertake site remediation activities, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict how many or what types of small entities will undertake such activities. In addition, the proposed rule is structured to avoid impacts on small businesses. The proposed rule specifically excludes from its scope remediation activities conducted at gasoline stations, farm sites and residential sites (on the ground that these remediation activities would not exceed the threshold for major sources). Moreover, the proposed rule would apply only to remediation sites located at a facility that is a major source under the CAA and engages in a `` MACT activity'' (defined as a nonremediation activity covered in the MACT list of major source categories pursuant to CAA section 112( c)). Such sources tend to be large businesses. The proposed rule also contains emissions thresholds that are not likely to apply to small businesses. For example, the proposed rule exempts sources where the total annual quantity of HAP contained in all extracted remediation material at the facility is less than 1 Mg/ yr. For these reasons, I certify that the rule, if promulgated, will not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. H. Paperwork Reduction Act We will submit the information collection requirements in the proposed rule 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 by EPA (ICR No. 2062.01) and you may obtain a copy from Susan Auby by mail at U. S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling (202) 566– 1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U. S. C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the control devices but would not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by the General Provisions in subpart A to 40 CFR part 63. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden to affected sources for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the promulgated rule) is estimated to be 341,737 labor­ hours per year, with a total annual cost of $17.7 million per year. These estimates include a one­ time performance test and report (with repeat tests where needed), one­ time submission of an SSMP with semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed, semiannual compliance reports, maintenance inspections, notifications, and recordkeeping. 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 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 VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49419 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Comments are requested on 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. By U. S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA (2822T), 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''.; or by courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA (2822T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6143, Washington, DC 20460 (202) 566– 1700. Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after July 30, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 29, 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 Under section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Public Law No. 104– 113, all Federal agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) 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 requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable VCS. The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA proposes in the proposed rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3, 4, 9, 18 (total organic HAP or total organic compounds), 22, 25, 25A, 305 and 316 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and Method 9095A in SW 846, `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods. '' Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods included in the proposed rule. The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 12 VCS as potential alternatives to the EPA methods specified in the proposed rule. Following further evaluation, the EPA determined that ten of these 12 standards identified for measuring emissions of HAP or surrogates subject to emissions standards in the proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rule. Therefore, the EPA does not intend to adopt these standards. The reasons for the determinations of these nine methods are discussed below. The standard ISO 10780: 1994, `` Stationary Source Emissions— Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas Streams in Ducts, '' is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 in the proposed rule. This standard, ISO 10780: 1994, recommends the use of L­ shaped pitots, which historically have not been recommended by EPA because the Stype design has large openings which are less likely to plug up with dust. The standard ASTM D3464– 96, `` Standard Test Method Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer, '' is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 for the purposes of the proposed rule primarily because applicability specifications are not clearly defined, (e. g., range of gas composition, temperature limits). Also, the lack of supporting quality assurance data for the calibration procedures and specifications, and certain variability issues that are not adequately addressed by the ASTM standard limit EPA's ability to make a definitive comparison of the method in these areas. The VCS ASTM D6060 (in review 2000), `` Practice for Sampling of Process Vents with a Portable Gas Chromatograph, '' is an impractical alternative for EPA Method 18 for the purposes of the proposed rule because it lacks acceptance criteria for calibration, details on using other collection media (e. g., solid sorbents), and reporting/ documentation requirements that are included in EPA Method 18. The VCS ASTM D6420– 99, `` Standard Testing Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography­ Mass Spectrometry (GC/ MS), '' also is an impractical alternative for EPA Method 18 for the purposes of the proposed rule. This method only detects 25 of the 98 specific organic HAP constituents subject to regulation by the proposed rule. The specific organic HAP composition of the remediation material to be cleaned up is often unknown and using a method to determine compliance with total organic HAP emissions limitations that only detects a narrow subset of the entire group of 98 organic HAP compounds subject to the proposed rule is not appropriate. Method 18 is the only method currently available to ensure that all 98 HAP compounds regulated by the proposed rule are accounted for in the computation of the total organic HAP emissions from an affected source. We request comment on our decision not to include ASTM method D6420– 99. Two VCS, EN 12619: 1999 `` Stationary Source Emissions­ Determination of the Mass Concentration of Total Gaseous Organic Carbon at Low Concentrations in Flue Gases— Continuous Flame Ionization Detector Method'' and ISO 14965: 2000( E) `` Air QualityDetermination of Total Nonmethane Organic Compounds­ Cryogenic Preconcentration and Direct Flame Ionization Method, '' are impractical alternatives to EPA Method 25A for the purposes of this rulemaking because the standards do not apply to solvent process vapors in concentrations greater than 40 ppm for EN 12619 and 10 ppm carbon for ISO 14965. Methods with whose upper limits are this low are too limited to be useful in measuring source emissions, which are expected to be much higher. Four of the nine VCS are impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rule because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently detailed to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM D3796– 90 (Reapproved 1996), `` Standard Practice for Calibration of Type S Pitot Tubes, '' for EPA Method 2; ASME C00031 or PTC 19– 10– 1981— Part 10, `` Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, '' for EPA Method 3; ASTM E337– 84 (Reapproved 1996), `` Standard Test Method for Measuring Humidity with a Psychrometer (the Measurement of Wet­ and Dry­ Bulb Temperatures), '' for EPA Method 4; and ASTM D3154– 91, `` Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method), '' for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, and 4. Two of the 11 VCS identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of the proposed rule because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/ BSR MFC 13M, `` Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse, '' for EPA Method 1 (and possibly 2); and ASME/ BSR MFC 12M, `` Flow in Closed Conduits Using VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49420 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters, '' for EPA Method 2. While we are not proposing to include these two VCS in today's proposed rule, the EPA will consider the standards when they are finalized. The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements in the proposed rule and specifically invites the public to identify potentially­ applicable VCS. The commenter should also explain why this regulation should adopt these VCS in lieu of or in addition to EPA's standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method (if a method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A was used). Section 63.2406 and Table 5 of the proposed subpart GGGGG list the EPA testing methods and performance standards included in the proposed rule. Most of the standards have been used by States and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under § 63.7( f) of subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, the proposed rule also allows any State or source to apply to the EPA for permission to use an alternative method in place of any of the EPA testing methods or performance standards listed in the proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 3, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 63—[ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401, et seq. 2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart GGGGG to read as follows: Subpart GGGGG— National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Site Remediation What This Subpart Covers Sec. 63.7880 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.7881 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.7882 What activities at my facility does this subpart cover? 63.7883 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emissions Limitations and Work Practice Standards 63.7890 What emissions limitations and work practice standards must I meet? General Compliance Requirements 63.7900 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.7901 What requirements must I meet if I transfer remediation material to another party, another facility, or receive remediation material from another facility? Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements 63.7910 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.7911 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.7912 What tests, design evaluations, and other procedures must I use? 63.7913 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.7914 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations and work practice standards? Continuous Compliance Requirements 63.7920 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.7921 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions limitations and work practice standards? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.7930 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.7931 What reports must I submit and when? 63.7932 What records must I keep? 63.7933 In what form and how long must I keep my records? Other Requirements and Information 63.7940 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.7941 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.7942 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Hazardous Air Pollutants Table 2 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Emissions Limitations for Process Vent Affected Sources Table 3 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Emissions Limitations for Remediation Material Management Unit Affected Sources Table 4 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Operating Limits and Associated Work Practices for Control Devices Table 5 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Work Practice Standards Table 6 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Requirements for Performance Tests Table 7 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Initial Compliance With Emissions Limitations Table 8 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Initial Compliance with Work Practice Standards Table 9 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Continuous Compliance with Emissions Limitations Table 10 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Continuous Compliance with Operating Limits Table 11 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Continuous Compliance with Work Practice Standards Table 12 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Requirements for Reports Table 13 to Subpart GGGGG of Part 63— Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart GGGGG Subpart GGGGG— National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants— Site Remediation What This Subpart Covers § 63.7880 What is the purpose of this subpart? This subpart establishes national emissions limitations and work practice standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from site remediation activities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emissions limitations and work practice standards. § 63.7881 Am I subject to this subpart? (a) This subpart covers remediation activities within the site remediation source category, which excludes remediation at gasoline stations, farm sites and residential sites. (b) This subpart applies to you if you meet all of the criteria listed in paragraphs (b)( 1) and (2) of this section: (1) You own or operate a site remediation activity that is collocated within a facility with other sources that are individually or collectively a major source of HAP emissions; and (2) A MACT activity, as defined in § 63.7942, is performed at the facility. (c) Remediation means the cleanup of remediation material. For the purposes of this subpart, monitoring or measuring contamination levels through wells, or by sampling, is not considered to be remediation. (d) A major source of HAP is 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 any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year. A source that is not a major source is an area source. (e) You are not subject to the requirements of this subpart if any of the criteria in paragraphs (d)( 1) through (7) of this section apply. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49421 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules (1) Your facility is an area source; or (2) A MACT activity is not performed at your facility; or (3) You are not conducting a remediation activity at your facility; or (4) You do not have an affected source involved in any remediation activity conducted at the facility; or (5) Your facility is a research and development facility, consistent with section 112( b)( 7) of the CAA. (6) The remediation is performed under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act. (7) Your remediation activity is a corrective action: (i) At a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Treatment, Storage and Disposal facility (TSDF) permitted either by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or under a state program authorized by EPA under RCRA section 3006; (ii) At an interim status TSDF conducted under an order imposed by EPA or a state program authorized for corrective action under RCRA section 3006; or (iii) at any facility as required by orders authorized under RCRA section 7003. (f) You are not subject to the requirements of this subpart, except for the recordkeeping requirements in § 63.7933, if all remediation activities at your facility subject to this subpart are completed and you have notified the Administrator in writing that all remediation activities subject to this subpart are completed. All future remediation activity meeting the applicability criteria in paragraph (b) of this section must comply with the requirements of this subpart. § 63.7882 What activities at my facility does this subpart cover? (a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing remediation affected source. The emissions sources listed in paragraphs (b)( 1) through (3) of this section located at a facility meeting the criteria specified in § 63.7881( a) constitute the affected source: (b)( 1) Process vents. The affected source is the entire group of process vents associated with both in situ and ex situ remediation. (2) Remediation material management units. The affected source is the entire group of tanks, surface impoundments, containers, oil/ water separators, organic/ water separators and transfer systems involved in remediation. For the purpose of implementing the standards under this subpart, a unit that meets the definition of a tank or container that is also equipped with a vent that serves as a process vent for processes including, but not limited to, air stripping and solvent extraction, as defined in § 63.7942, is not a remediation material management unit, but instead is a process vent and is to be included in the appropriate affected source group under paragraph (b)( 1) of this section. (3) Equipment leaks. The affected source is the entire group of equipment components (pumps, valves, etc.) involved in remediation, meeting both of the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)( 3)( i) and (ii) of this section. If either of these conditions do not apply to an equipment component, then that component is not part of the affected source for equipment leaks. (i) The equipment component contains or contacts remediation material having a total HAP concentration equal to or greater than 10 percent by weight; and (ii) The equipment component is intended to operate for 300 hours or more during a calendar year in remediation material service, as defined in § 63.7942. (c) Exceptions. (1) Facility­ wide exemption. You are exempt from the requirements of this subpart where the total annual quantity of HAP contained in all extracted remediation material at the facility (including HAP emitted from process vents) is less than 1 megagram per year. For your facility to be exempt under the provisions of this paragraph, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)( 1)( i) through (iii) of this section. (i) You must prepare an initial determination of the total annual HAP quantity in the extracted remediation material at the facility. This determination is based on the total quantity of HAP in Table 1 of this subpart as determined at the point­ ofextraction for each remediation material component. The quantity of HAP contained in vent streams from in situ remediation operations must be included in the determination of the total annual organic HAP quantity in Table 1 of this subpart. The HAP quantity in the vent streams must be determined prior to any control devices. (ii) You must prepare a new determination whenever the extent of changes to the quantity or composition of the remediation material extracted at the facility could cause the total annual HAP quantity in Table 1 of this subpart in the extracted remediation material to exceed 1 megagram per year. (iii) You must maintain documentation to support your determination of the total annual HAP quantity in the extracted remediation material. This documentation must include the basis and data used for determining the HAP content of the extracted remediation material. (2) Affected source exemption. Any affected source that is also subject to another subpart under 40 CFR part 61 or 40 CFR part 63, where you are controlling the HAP in Table 1 of this subpart that are emitted from the source in compliance with the provisions specified in the other applicable subpart under part 61 or 63, is exempt from the requirements of §§ 63.7883 through 63.7933. (3) Process vents. You are exempt from the requirements of §§ 63.7890 through 63.7933 for process vents if any of the criteria listed in paragraphs (c)( 3)( i) through (iv) of this section are met, except that the records of the determination of these criteria must be maintained as required in § 63.7932( a)( 4): (i) Affected process vents where the emissions of HAP in Table 1 of this subpart from all vents at the facility involved in remediation are below 1.4 kilograms per hour (3 pounds per hour) and 2.8 megagrams per year (3.1 tons per year) as determined by the procedures specified in § 63.7912( f). (ii) Individual process vents associated with ex situ remediation operations that manage remediation material with a Table 1 (of this subpart) HAP concentration less than 10 parts per million by weight (ppmw). The HAP concentration must be determined in accordance with the procedures specified in § 63.7912( a). Documentation must be prepared by the owner or operator and maintained at the facility to support the determination of the remediation material concentration. This documentation must include identification of each process vent exempted under this paragraph and any test results used to determine the HAP concentration. (iii) Individual process vents where you determine that the process vent stream flow rate is less than 6.0 cubic meters per minute (m 3 /min) at standard conditions (as defined in 40 CFR 63.2) and the total HAP concentration is less than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv). The process vent stream flow rate and total HAP concentration must be determined in accordance with the procedures specified in § 63.694( m). For the purposes of this subpart, when you read the term `` HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart'' in 40 CFR Subpart DD, you should refer to Table 1 of this Subpart. Documentation must be prepared by the owner or operator and maintained at the facility to support the VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49422 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules determination of the process vent stream flow rate and total HAP concentration. This documentation must include identification of each process vent exempted under this paragraph and the test results used to determine the process vent stream flow rate and total HAP concentration. You must perform a new determination of the process vent stream flow rate and total HAP concentration when the extent of changes to operation of the unit on which the process vent is used could cause either the process vent stream flow rate to exceed the limit of 6.0 m 3 /min or the total HAP concentration to exceed the limit of 20 ppmv. (iv) Individual process vents where you determine that the process vent stream flow rate is less than 0.005 m 3 / min at standard conditions (as defined in 40 CFR 63.2). The process vent stream flow rate must be determined in accordance with the procedures specified in § 63.694( m). Documentation must be prepared by the owner or operator and maintained at the facility to support the determination of the process vent stream flow rate. This documentation must include identification of each process vent exempted under this paragraph and the test results used to determine the process vent stream flow rate. (4) Remediation material management units. You are exempt from the requirements of §§ 63.7890 through 63.7932 for units where any of the criteria listed in paragraphs (c)( 4)( i) or (ii) of this section are met, except that the records of the determination of these criteria must be maintained as required in § 63.7932( a)( 4): (i) The volatile organic HAP (VOHAP) concentration of the remediation material managed in the unit is less than 500 ppmw. You must follow the requirements in § 63.7912( a) to demonstrate that the VOHAP concentration of the remediation material is less than 500 ppmw. Once the VOHAP concentration has been determined to be less than 500 ppmw, all management units downstream from the point of determination are exempt from the control requirements of this subpart unless a remediation process is used that concentrates all, or part of, the remediation material being managed in the unit such that the VOHAP concentration equals or exceeds 500 ppmw (e. g., free­ product separation). (ii) At your discretion, one or a combination of remediation material management units may be exempted from the requirements in this subpart when the quantity of total annual HAP in Table 1 of this subpart placed in the units exempted under this paragraph is less than 1 megagram per year. For the units to be exempted from the requirements of this subpart, you must meet the requirements in § 63.683( b)( 2)( ii)( A) and (B). You may change the units selected to be exempted under this paragraph by preparing a new designation for the exempt units as required by § 63.683( b)( 2)( ii)( A) and performing a new determination as required by § 63.683( b)( 2)( ii)( B). (5) Tanks and surface impoundments. You are exempt from the requirements of §§ 63.7890 (excluding § 63.7890( a)) through 63.7932 for any tank or surface impoundment used for biological treatment processes where the requirements of § 63.683( b)( 2)( iii)( A) or (B) and monitored in accordance with § 63.684( e)( 4) are met, except that the records of the determination of these criteria must be maintained as required in § 63.7932( a)( 4). (6) Cleanup of any contamination where removal or treatment of the material begins within seven days from the time that the contamination occurs. The cleanup process should be continuous (i. e., performed every workday) and typically completed in 30 days or less. (7) Radioactive mixed waste managed in accordance with all applicable regulations under the Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorities. (d) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced construction of the affected source after July 30, 2002 and you meet the applicability criteria in § 63.7881 at the time you commenced construction. (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in § 63.2 of subpart A of this part. (f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed. § 63.7883 When do I have to comply with this subpart? (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to the guidance in paragraphs (a)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) If you startup your affected source before the effective date of the subpart, then you must comply with the emissions limitations and work practice standards in this subpart no later than the effective date of the subpart. If you startup your affected source before the effective date of the subpart, but the affected source will not operate on or after the effective date of the subpart, then that affected source is not subject to any of the requirements contained in this subpart. (2) If you startup your affected source after the effective date of the subpart, then you must comply with the emissions limitation and work practice standards in this subpart upon startup of your affected source. (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with the emissions limitations and work practice standards for existing sources no later than 3 years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. If you have an existing affected source that will not be in operation on or after 3 years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then the affected source is not subject to any of the requirements contained in this subpart. (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, paragraphs (c)( 1) and (2) of this section apply: (1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this subpart upon startup. (2) All other parts of the source must be in compliance with this subpart by no later than 3 years after it becomes a major source. (d) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.7931( a) according to the schedule in § 63.7931( b) and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with the emissions limitations and work practice standards in this subpart. Emissions Limitations and Work Practice Standards § 63.7890 What emissions limitations and work practice standards must I meet? (a) You must meet each emissions limitation for process vent affected sources in Table 2 of this subpart that applies to you. (b) You must meet each emissions limitation for remediation material management unit affected sources in Table 3 of this subpart that applies to you. (c) You must meet each operating limit in Table 4 of this subpart that applies to you. In lieu of the operating limits in Table 4 of this subpart, you may choose to establish an operating limit based on total organic or HAP emissions concentration using a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS). In this case, the average outlet total organic or HAP VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49423 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules concentration in any 24­ hour period must not exceed the average concentration established during the performance test (see § 63.7913( f)). (d) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 5 of this subpart that applies to you. (e) As provided in § 63.6( g), you may request approval from the EPA to use an alternative to the work practice standards in this section. If you apply for permission to use an alternative to the work practice standards in this section, you must submit the information described in § 63.6( g)( 2). General Compliance Requirements § 63.7900 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) You must be in compliance with the emissions limitations (including operating limits) and the work practice standards in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 1)( i). (c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3). (d) For each monitoring system required in this section, you must develop and make available for inspection by the permitting authority, upon request, a site­ specific monitoring plan that addresses the following: (1) Installation of the continuous monitoring system (CMS) sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e. g., on or downstream of the last control device); (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system; and (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria (e. g., calibrations). (e) In your site­ specific monitoring plan, you must also address the following: (1) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8( c)( 1), (3), (4)( ii), (7), and (8); (2) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8( d); and (3) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.10( c), (e)( 1), and (e)( 2)( i). (f) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in accordance with your site­ specific monitoring plan. (g) You must operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation according to the site­ specific monitoring plan. § 63.7901 What requirements must I meet if I transfer remediation material to another party, another facility or receive remediation material from another facility? (a) You may elect to transfer remediation material to an on­ site remediation operation not owned or operated by the owner or operator of the remediation material, or to an off­ site treatment operation. If you manage remediation material meeting the criteria in § 63.7882 you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)( 1) through (4) of this section. (1) The owner or operator transferring the remediation material must: (i) Comply with the provisions specified in §§ 63.7890 through 63.7933 of this subpart for each affected source that manages remediation material prior to shipment or transport. (ii) Include a notice with the shipment or transport of each remediation material item. The notice must state that the remediation material contains organic HAP that are to be treated in accordance with the provisions of this subpart. When the transport is continuous or ongoing (for example, discharge to a publicly owned treatment works), the notice must be submitted to the treatment operator initially and whenever there is a change in the required treatment. (2) You may not transfer the remediation material unless the transferee has submitted to the EPA a written certification that the transferee will manage and treat the remediation material received from a source subject to the requirements of this subpart in accordance with the requirements of §§ 63.7890 through 63.7933. The certifying entity may revoke the written certification by sending a written statement to the EPA and the owner or operator providing at least 90 days notice that the certifying entity is rescinding acceptance of responsibility for compliance with the regulatory provisions listed in this paragraph. Upon expiration of the notice period, you may not transfer the remediation material to the treatment operation. (3) By providing this written certification to the EPA, the certifying entity accepts responsibility for compliance with the regulatory provisions listed in paragraph (a)( 2) of this section with respect to any shipment of remediation material covered by the written certification. Failure to abide by any of those provisions with respect to such shipments may result in enforcement action by the EPA against the certifying entity in accordance with the enforcement provisions applicable to violations of these provisions by owners or operators of sources. (4) Written certifications and revocation statements to the EPA from the transferees of remediation material must be signed by the responsible official of the certifying entity, provide the name and address of the certifying entity, and be sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office at the addresses listed in 40 CFR 63.13. Such written certifications are not transferable by the treater. Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements § 63.7910 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations? (a) For existing sources, you must conduct performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.7883( b). (b) For new sources, you must conduct initial performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations according to the provisions in § 63.7( a)( 2)( i) and (ii). § 63.7911 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? For non­ flare control devices, you must conduct the performance testing required in Table 6 of this subpart at any time the EPA requires you to in accordance with section 114 of the CAA. § 63.7912 What tests, design evaluations, and other procedures must I use? (a) Determination of average VOHAP concentration of material prior to, or at, the point of management or treatment. This section specifies the testing methods and procedures required for determining the average VOHAP concentration for remediation material. (1) These methods may be used to determine the average VOHAP concentration of any material listed in (a)( 1)( i) through (iii) of this section. (i) A single remediation material stream; or (ii) Two or more remediation material streams that are combined prior to, or within, a management or treatment unit or operation; or (iii) Remediation material that is combined with one or more nonVerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49424 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules remediation material streams prior to, or within, a management or treatment operation or unit. (2) The average VOHAP concentration of a material must be determined using either direct measurement as specified in paragraph (a)( 3) of this section or by knowledge as specified in paragraph (a)( 4) of this section. (3) Direct measurement to determine VOHAP concentration. (i) Sampling. Samples of each material stream must be collected from the container, pipeline, or other device used to deliver each material stream prior to entering the treatment or management unit in a manner such that volatilization of organics contained in the sample is minimized and an adequately representative sample is collected and maintained for analysis by the selected method. (A) The averaging period to be used for determining the average VOHAP concentration for the material stream on a mass­ weighted average basis must be designated and recorded. The averaging period can represent any time interval that the owner or operator determines is appropriate for the material stream but must not exceed 1 year. For streams that are combined, an averaging period representative for all streams must be selected. (B) No less than four samples must be collected to represent the complete range of HAP compositions and HAP quantities that occur in each material stream during the entire averaging period due to normal variations in the material stream( s). Examples of such normal variations are variation of material HAP concentration within a contamination area or seasonal variations in non­ remediation material quantity. (C) All samples must be collected and handled in accordance with written procedures prepared by the owner or operator and documented in a site sampling plan. This plan must describe the procedure by which representative samples of the material stream( s) are collected such that a minimum loss of organics occurs throughout the sample collection and handling process and by which sample integrity is maintained. A copy of the written sampling plan must be maintained on site in the facility operating records. An example of an acceptable sampling plan includes a plan incorporating sample collection and handling procedures in accordance with the requirements specified in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication No. SW– 846 or Method 25D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. (ii) Analysis. Each collected sample must be prepared and analyzed in accordance with either one of the methods listed in § 63.694( b)( 2)( ii), or any current EPA Contracts Lab Program method (or future revisions) capable of identifying all the HAP in Table 1 of this subpart. (iii) Calculations. The average VOHAP concentration C on a massweighted basis must be calculated by using the results for all samples analyzed in accordance with paragraph (a)( 3)( ii) of this section and Equation 1 of this section as follows: C Q Q C T i i n = × × ( ) i= 1 1 (Eq. 1) where: C = Average VOHAP concentration of the material on a mass­ weighted basis, ppmw. i= Individual sample `` i'' of the material. n = Total number of samples of the material collected (at least 4 per stream) for the averaging period (not to exceed 1 year). Qi = Mass quantity of material stream represented by Ci, kilograms per hour (kg/ hr). QT = Total mass quantity of all material during the averaging period, kg/ hr. Ci = Measured VOHAP concentration of sample `` i'' as determined in accordance with the requirements of (a)( 3)( ii) of this section, ppmw. (4) Knowledge of the material to determine VOHAP concentration. (i) Documentation must be prepared that presents the information used as the basis for the owner's or operator's knowledge of the material stream's average VOHAP concentration. Examples of information that may be used as the basis for knowledge include: material balances for the source( s) generating each material stream; species­ specific chemical test data for the material stream from previous testing that are still applicable to the current material stream; test data for material from the contamination area( s) being remediated; or other knowledge based on information included in manifests, shipping papers, or waste certification notices. (ii) If test data are used as the basis for knowledge, then the owner or operator must document the test method, sampling protocol, and the means by which sampling variability and analytical variability are accounted for in the determination of the average VOHAP concentration. For example, an owner or operator may use HAP concentration test data for the material stream that are validated in accordance with Method 301 in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A of this part as the basis for knowledge of the material. This information must be provided for each material stream where streams are combined. (iii) An owner or operator using species­ specific chemical concentration test data as the basis for knowledge of the material may adjust the test data to the corresponding average VOHAP concentration value which would be obtained had the material samples been analyzed using Method 305. To adjust these data, the measured concentration for each individual HAP chemical species contained in the material is multiplied by the appropriate species specific adjustment factor (fm305) listed in Table 1 of this subpart. (iv) In the event that the Administrator and the owner or operator disagree on a determination of the average VOHAP concentration for a material stream using knowledge, then the results from a determination of VOHAP concentration using direct measurement as specified in paragraph (a)( 3) of this section must be used to establish compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart. The Administrator may perform or request that the owner or operator perform this determination using direct measurement. (b) You must conduct either each performance test in Table 6 of this subpart that applies to you or each design analysis specified in § 63.693( d)( 2)( ii), (e)( 2)( ii), (f)( 2)( ii), or (g)( 2)( i)( B) that applies to you. (c) You must conduct each performance test according to the requirements in § 63.7( e)( 1) and under the specific conditions that this subpart specifies in Table 6 of this subpart. (d) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. During the performance test conducted according to this section, you must collect the appropriate operating parameter monitoring system data (see Table 4 of this subpart), average the operating parameter data over each test run, and set operating limits, whether a minimum or maximum value, based on the average of values for each of the three test runs. If you use a control device design analysis to demonstrate control device performance, then the minimum or maximum operating parameter value must be established based on the control device design analysis and supplemented, as necessary, by the control device manufacturer VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 EP30JY02.000</ MATH> 49425 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules recommendations or other applicable information. (e) Compliance with control device percent reduction requirement. You must use Equations 2, 3 and 4 of this section to determine initial and ongoing compliance with the control device percent reduction limit in Table 2 of this subpart for the combination of all affected process vents at the facility. You must use Equations 2, 3 and 5 of this section to determine initial and ongoing compliance with the control device percent reduction limit in Table 3 of this subpart for remediation material management units, except that the references to uncontrolled vents for Equations 2 and 3 of this section do not apply. (1) To calculate control device inlet and outlet concentrations use Equations 2 and 3 as follows: E K CMQ i ijij n i = j= 2 1 (Eq. 2) E K CMQ o ojoj n o = j= 2 1 (Eq. 3) Where: Cij, Coj = Concentration of sample component j of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, dry basis, parts per million by volume. For uncontrolled vents, Cij = Coj and equal the concentration exiting the vent; Ei, Eo = Mass rate of total organic compounds (TOC) (minus methane and ethane) or total HAP, from Table 1 of this subpart, at the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, dry basis, kilogram per hour. For uncontrolled vents, Ei = Eo and equal the concentration exiting the vent; Mij, Moj = Molecular weight of sample component j of the gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, gram/ gram mole. For uncontrolled vents, Mij = Moj and equal the gas stream molecular weight exiting the vent; Qi, Qo = Flowrate of gas stream at the inlet and outlet of the control device, respectively, dry standard cubic meters per minute (dscm/ min). For uncontrolled vents, Qi = Qo and equals the flowrate exiting the vent; K2 = Constant, 2.494 × 10 ¥ 6 (parts per million) ¥ 1 (gram­ mole per standard cubic meter)( kilogram/ gram) (minute/ hour, where standard temperature (gram­ mole per standard cubic meter) is 20C; n = the number of components in the sample. (2) To calculate control device emissions reductions for process vents use Equation 4 of this section as follows: R E E E V i n o n i n = × j= j= j= 1 1 1 100 (Eq. 4) Where: Rv = Overall emissions reduction for all affected process vents, percent Ei = Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total HAP, from Table 1 of this subpart, at the inlet to the control device, or exiting the vent for uncontrolled vents, as calculated in this section, kilograms TOC per hour or kilograms HAP per hour; Eo = Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total HAP, from Table 1 of this subpart, at the outlet to the control device, or exiting the vent for uncontrolled vents, as calculated in this section, kilograms TOC per hour or kilograms HAP per hour. For vents without a control device, Eo = Ei; n = number of affected source process vents. (3) To calculate control device emissions reductions for remediation material management units use Equation 5 of this section as follows: R E E E cd i o i = × 100 (Eq. 5) Where: Rcd = Control efficiency of control device, percent. Ei = Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total HAP at the inlet to the control device as calculated under paragraph (e)( 1) of this section, kilograms TOC per hour or kilograms HAP per hour. Eo = Mass rate of TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total HAP at the outlet of the control device, as calculated under paragraph (e)( 1) of this section, kilograms TOC per hour or kilograms HAP per hour. (4) If the vent stream entering a boiler or process heater is introduced with the combustion air or as a secondary fuel, the weight­ percent reduction of total HAP or TOC (minus methane and ethane) across the device must be determined by comparing the TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total HAP in all combusted vent streams and primary and secondary fuels with the TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total HAP exiting the device, respectively. (f) Compliance with the total organic mass emissions rate. (1) The requirements of paragraphs (f)( 2) through (4) of this section must be used to determine compliance with the emissions rate limits in Table 2 of this subpart. (2) Initial and ongoing compliance with the total organic mass flow rates specified in Table 2 of this subpart must be determined using Equation 6 of this section as follows: E Q CMW h sd ii n = [ ] [ ] i= 1 6 10 0.0416 (Eq. 6) Where: Eh = Total organic mass flow rate, kg/ h; Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting control device (or exiting the process vent if no control device is used), as determined by Method 2, dscm/ h; n= Number of organic compounds in the vent gas; Ci = Organic concentration in ppm, dry basis, of compound i in the vent gas, as determined by Method 18; MWi = Molecular weight of organic compound i in the vent gas, kg/ kg mol; 0.0416 = Conversion from molar volume, kg­ mol/ m 3 (@ 293 K and 760 mm Hg); 10 ¥ 6 = Conversion from ppm, ppm ¥ 1 . (3) Ongoing compliance with the annual total organic emissions rate specified in Table 2 of this subpart must be determined using Equation 7 of this section as follows: E EH A h = ( ) ( ) (Eq. 7) Where: EA = Total organic mass emissions rate, kilograms per year; VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 EP30JY02.001</ MATH> EP30JY02.002</ MATH> EP30JY02.003</ MATH> EP30JY02.004</ MATH> EP30JY02.005</ MATH> EP30JY02.006</ MATH> 49426 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules Eh = Total organic mass flow rate for the process vent, kg/ h; H = Total annual hours of operation for the affected unit, h. (4) Ongoing compliance with the total organic emissions limit from all affected process vents at the facility in Table 2 of this subpart must be determined by: (1) summing the total hourly organic mass emissions rates (Eh as determined in Equation 6 of this section); and (ii) summing the total annual organic mass emissions rates (EA, as determined in Equation 7 of this section) for all affected process vents at the facility. (g) Compliance with HAP concentration limit. (1) To determine compliance with the enclosed combustion device total HAP concentration limits specified in Table 2 of this subpart, you must use either Method 18, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or Method 25A, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to measure either TOC (minus methane and ethane) or total HAP. Alternatively, any other method or data that have been validated according to Method 301 of appendix A of this part, may be used. The following procedures must be used to calculate ppmv concentration, corrected to 3 percent oxygen: (2) The minimum sampling time for each run must be 1 hour, in which either an integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples must be taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples must be taken at approximately equal intervals in time, such as 15­ minute intervals during the run. (3) The TOC concentration or total HAP concentration must be calculated according to paragraph (g)( 3)( i) or (ii) of this section. (i) The TOC concentration is the sum of the concentrations of the individual components and must be computed for each run using Equation 8 of this section as follows: C C X TOC ji n x = i= i= 1 1 (Eq. 8) Where: CTOC = Concentration of total organic compounds minus methane and ethane, dry basis, parts per million by volume. Cji = Concentration of sample component j of sample i, dry basis, parts per million by volume. n = Number of components in the sample. X = Number of samples in the sample run. (ii) The total HAP concentration must be computed according to Equation 8 in paragraph (g)( 3)( i) of this section, except that only HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart must be summed. (4) The TOC concentration or total HAP concentration must be corrected to 3 percent oxygen according to paragraphs (g)( 4)( i) and (ii) of this section. (i) The emissions rate correction factor or excess air, integrated sampling and analysis procedures of Method 3B, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used to determine the oxygen concentration. The samples must be taken during the same time that the samples are taken for determining TOC concentration or total HAP concentration. (ii) The TOC and HAP concentration must be corrected for percent oxygen by using Equation 9 of this section as follows: C C O c m = 9 2d 17.9 20.% (Eq. 9) Where: Cc = TOC concentration or total HAP concentration corrected to 3 percent oxygen, dry basis, parts per million by volume. Cm = TOC concentration or total HAP concentration, dry basis, parts per million by volume. %O2d = Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percent by volume. (h) You must conduct each design evaluation of a control device according to the specific requirements for the control device in § 63.693( c) through (h). For the purposes of this subpart, when you read the term `` HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart'' in 40 CFR Subpart DD, you should refer to Table 1 of this subpart. (i) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 1). (j) When conducting testing to comply with a HAP or TOC reduction efficiency limit, you must conduct simultaneous sampling at the inlet and outlet of the control device. You must conduct inlet sampling after the final product recovery device. If a vent stream is introduced with the combustion air or as an auxiliary fuel into a boiler or process heater, the location of the inlet sampling sites must be selected to ensure that the measurement of total HAP concentration or TOC concentration includes all vent streams and primary and secondary fuels introduced into the boiler or process heater. (k) When complying with the emissions rate limit in row (1)( b) of Table 2 of this subpart or a HAP or TOC emissions concentration limit in Table 3 of this subpart, you must conduct sampling at the outlet of the control device. (l) If you use Method 18, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, either an integrated sample or a minimum of four grab samples must be taken. If you use grab sampling, then you must take the grab samples at approximately equal intervals in time (such as 15 minutes) during the run. Also, you must first determine which HAP are present in the inlet gas stream using knowledge of the remediation material or the screening procedure described in Method 18, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, quantify the emissions for all HAP identified as present in the inlet gas stream for both the inlet and outlet gas streams of the control device. (m) If you use Method 25A, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, you must calibrate the instrument in accordance with the monitoring plan of § 63.7900 using the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by volume of the emissions. The Method 25A, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, results are acceptable if: (1) the response from the high level calibration gas is at least 20 times the standard deviation of the response from the zero calibration gas when the instrument is zeroed on its most sensitive scale, and (2) the span value of the analyzer must be less than 100 ppmv. (n) You must conduct each CMS performance evaluation according to the requirements in § 63.8( e). § 63.7913 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS according to the requirements in § 63.695( a) through (d), (e)( 1) and (e)( 2). In addition, you must collect and analyze temperature, flow, pressure, or pH data according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)( 1) through (4) of this section: (1) To calculate a valid hourly value, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at least two, if that condition is included to allow for periodic calibration checks) for that hour from a CMS that is not out of control according to the monitoring plan referenced in § 63.7900. (2) To calculate the average emissions for each averaging period, you must have at least 75 percent of the hourly averages for that period using only block hourly average values that are based on valid data (i. e., not from out­ of­ control periods). VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 EP30JY02.007</ MATH> EP30JY02.008</ MATH> 49427 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules (3) Determine the hourly average of all recorded readings. (4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. (b) For each temperature monitoring device, you must meet the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and also meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)( 1) through (8) of this section: (1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a representative temperature. (2) For a noncryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2.2 C or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger. (3) For a cryogenic temperature range, use a temperature sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2.2 C or 2 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger. (4) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic interference and chemical contaminants. (5) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the minor division of at least 20 F. (6) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading within 16.7 C of the process temperature sensor's reading. (7) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor. (8) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion. (c) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)( 1) through (4) and paragraphs (c)( 1) through (5) of this section: (1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow. (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the flow rate. (3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. (4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semi­ annually. (5) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (d) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraph (a)( 1) through (4) and paragraphs (d)( 1) through (7) of this section. (1) Locate the pressure sensor( s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure. (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. (3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range. (4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (e) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraph (a)( 1) through (4) and paragraphs (e)( 1) through (4) of this section: (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of pH. (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured. (3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8 hours of process operation. (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity. (f) Alternative to parametric monitoring for any control device. As an alternative to the parametric monitoring required in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, you may install, calibrate, and operate a CEMS to measure the control device outlet total organic emissions or organic HAP emissions concentration. The CEMS used on combustion control devices must include a diluent gas monitoring system (for O2 or CO2) with the pollutant monitoring system in order to correct for dilution (e. g., to 0 percent excess air). You must verify the performance of the CEMS initially according to the procedures in Performance Specification 8 (for a total organic emissions CEMS) or Performance Specification 9 (for a HAP emissions CEMS) and Performance Specification 3 (for an O2 or CO2 CEMS) of appendix B of 40 CFR part 60. The relative accuracy provision of Performance specification 8, sections 2.4 and 3 need not be conducted. You must prepare a sitespecific monitoring plan for operating, calibrating, and verifying the operation of your CEMS in accordance with the requirements in §§ 63.8( c), (d), and (e). You must establish the emissions concentration operating limit according to paragraphs (f)( 1),( 2), and (3) of this section. (1) During the performance test required by § 63.7912, you must monitor and record the total organic or HAP emissions concentration at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. (2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average total organic or HAP emissions concentration maintained during the performance test. The average total organic or HAP emissions concentration, corrected for dilution as appropriate, is the maximum operating limit for your control device. (3) Use the CEMS data to verify that the daily (24­ hour) average total organic or HAP emissions concentration remain below the established operating limit. § 63.7914 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations and work practice standards? (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emissions limitation and work practice standard that applies to you according to Tables 7 and 8 of this subpart. (b) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 4 of this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in § 63.7912 and Table 6 of this subpart. (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.7931( e). Continuous Compliance Requirements § 63.7920 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section and the monitoring plan of § 63.7900. (b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49428 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out of control periods and required quality assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used to report emissions or operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system. § 63.7921 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions limitations, operating limits and work practice standards? (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emissions limitation, operating limit and work practice standard in Tables 2 through 5 of this subpart that applies to you according to methods specified in Tables 9, 10, and 11 of this subpart. (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emissions limitation and each operating limit in Tables 9 and 10 of this Subpart that apply to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must also report each instance in which you did not meet the requirements in Table 11 of this subpart that apply to you. These instances are deviations from the emissions limitations and work practice standards in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.7931. (c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. (d) Consistent with §§ 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. We will determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e). Notification, Reports, and Records § 63.7930 What notifications must I submit and when? (a) You must submit all of the notifications in §§ 63.7( b) and (c), 63.8( e), 63.8( f)( 4) and (6), and 63.9( b) through (h) that apply to you. (b) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 2), if you start up your affected source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. (c) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 3), if you start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after the effective date, you must submit an Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after initial startup. (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as required in § 63.7( b)( 1). (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design evaluation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 6, 7, or 8 of this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to § 63.9( h)( 2)( ii). (1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Tables 7 or 8 of this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the initial compliance demonstration. (2) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Tables 6, 7 or 8 of this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 6 of this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test according to § 63.10( d)( 2). § 63.7931 What reports must I submit and when? (a) You must submit each report in Table 12 of this subpart that applies to you. (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10( a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 12 of this subpart and according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)( 1) through (5) of this section: (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.7883 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.7883. (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.7883. (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period. (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)( 1) through (4) of this section. (c) The compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)( 1) through (7) of this section: (1) Company name and address. (2) Statement by a responsible official, including that official's name, title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy and completeness of the content of the report. (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. (4) Any changes to the information listed in paragraph (d) of this section that have occurred since the last report. (5) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10( d)( 5)( i). (6) If there are no deviations from any emissions limitations (emissions limit or operating limit) that applies to you and there are no deviations from the requirements for work practice standards in Table 11 of this subpart, a statement that there were no deviations from the emissions limitations or work practice standards during the reporting period. (7) If there were no periods during which the CMS and operating parameter monitoring systems were out­ of­ control as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), a statement that there were no periods during the which the CMS was out­ of­ control during the reporting period. (d) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (emissions limit, VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49429 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules operating limit) and for each deviation from the requirements for work practice standards in Table 11 of this subpart that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emissions limitations or work practice standards in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information in (c)( 1) through (4) of this section, and paragraphs (d)( 1) and (2) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the action taken to correct the cause of the deviation. (e) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (emissions limit, operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS in accordance with the monitoring plan of § 63.7900 to comply with the emissions limitation in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)( 1) through (4), and paragraphs (e)( 1) through (12) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped. (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero lowlevel and high­ level checks. (3) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out­ of­ control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. (8) An identification of each hazardous air pollutant that was monitored at the affected source. (9) A brief description of the process units. (10) A brief description of the CMS. (11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. (12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls since the last reporting period. (f) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A). If an affected source submits a compliance report pursuant to Table 12 of this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emissions limitation( including any operating limit), or work practice requirement in this subpart, submission of the compliance report must be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance report must not otherwise affect any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority. § 63.7932 What records must I keep? (a) You must keep 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, according to the requirements in § 63.10( b)( 1) and (b)( 2)( xiv). (2) The records in § 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through (v) related to startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. (3) Results of performance tests. (4) The records of initial and ongoing determinations for affected sources that are exempt from control requirements under this subpart. (b) For each CMS, you must keep the records as described in paragraphs (b)( 1) and (2) of this section: (1) Records described in § 63.10( b)( 2)( vi) through (xi) that apply to your CMS. (2) Performance evaluation plans, including previous (i. e., superseded) versions of the plan as required in § 63.8( d)( 3). (c) You must keep the records required in Tables 9, 10, and 11 of this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emissions limitation and work practice standard that applies to you. § 63.7933 In what form and how long must I keep my records? (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). (b) As specified in § 63.10( b)( 1), you must keep your files of all information (including all reports and notifications) for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, action taken to correct the cause of a deviation, report, or record. (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). You can keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. (d) If, after the remediation activity is completed, there is no other remediation activity at the facility, and you are no longer the owner of the facility, you may keep all records for the completed remediation activity at an offsite location provided you notify the Administrator in writing of the name, address and contact person for the offsite location. Other Requirements and Information § 63.7940 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 13 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in § 63.1–§ 63.15 apply to you. § 63.7941 Who implements and enforces this subpart? (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office (see list in § 63.13) to find out if 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 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 non­ opacity emissions limitations and VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49430 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules work practice standards in § 63.7890( a) through (d) under § 63.6( g). (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under § 63.7( e)( 2)( ii) and (f) and as defined in § 63.90. (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under § 63.8( f) and as defined in § 63.90. (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10( f) and as defined in § 63.90. § 63.7942 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in 40 CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this section. If the same term is defined in another subpart and in this section, it will have the meaning given in this section for purposes of this subpart. Air stripping means a desorption operation employed to transfer one or more volatile components from a liquid mixture into a gas (air) either with or without the application of heat to the liquid. Packed towers, spray towers and bubble­ cap, sieve, or valve­ type plate towers are among the process configuration used for contacting the air and a liquid. Boiler means an enclosed combustion device that extracts useful energy in the form of steam and is not an incinerator or a process heater. Closed­ vent system means a system that is not open to the atmosphere and is composed of hard­ piping, ductwork, connections, and, if necessary, fans, blowers, or other flow­ inducing device that conveys gas or vapor from an emissions point to a control device. Closure device means a cap, hatch, lid, plug, seal, valve, or other type of fitting that prevents or reduces air pollutant emissions to the atmosphere by blocking an opening in a cover when the device is secured in the closed position. Closure devices include devices that are detachable from the cover (e. g., a sampling port cap), manually operated (e. g., a hinged access lid or hatch), or automatically operated (e. g., a spring­ loaded pressure relief valve). Container means a portable unit used to hold material. Examples of containers include, but are not limited to drums, dumpsters, roll­ off boxes, bulk cargo containers commonly known as portable tanks or totes, cargo tank trucks, dump trucks and tank rail cars. Continuous record means documentation of data values measured at least once every 15 minutes and recorded at the frequency specified in this subpart. Continuous recorder means a data recording device that either records an instantaneous data value at least once every 15 minutes or records 15­ minutes or more frequent block averages. Continuous seal means a seal that forms a continuous closure that completely covers the space between the edge of the floating roof and the wall of a tank. A continuous seal may be a vapor­ mounted seal, liquid­ mounted seal, or metallic shoe seal. A continuous seal may be constructed of fastened segments so as to form a continuous seal. Control device means equipment used for recovering or oxidizing organic vapors. Examples of such equipment include but are not limited to carbon adsorbers, condensers, vapor incinerators, flares, boilers, and process heaters. Cover means a device that prevents or reduces air pollutant emissions to the atmosphere by forming a continuous barrier over the remediation material managed in a unit. A cover may have openings (such as access hatches, sampling ports, gauge wells) that are necessary for operation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the unit on which the cover is used. A cover may be a separate piece of equipment which can be detached and removed from the unit (such as a tarp) or a cover may be formed by structural features permanently integrated into the design of the unit. 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 emissions limitation (including any operating limit), or work practice standard; (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 (3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation, (including any operating limit), or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. Emissions limitation means any emissions limit, opacity limit, operating limit, or visible emissions limit. Emissions point means an individual tank, surface impoundment, container, oil/ water, organic/ water separator, transfer system, vent, or enclosure. Enclosure means a structure that surrounds a tank or container, captures organic vapors emitted from the tank or container, and vents the captured vapor through a closed vent system to a control device. Equipment means each pump, pressure relief device, sampling connection system, valve, and connector used in remediation material service at a facility. External floating roof means a pontoon­ type or double­ deck type cover that rests on the liquid surface in a tank with no fixed roof. Facility means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under common control including properties that are separated only by a road or other public right­ of­ way. Common control includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination thereof. A unit or group of units within a contiguous property that are not under common control (e. g., a wastewater treatment unit located at the facility but is owned by a different company) is a different facility. Fixed roof means a cover that is mounted on a unit in a stationary position and does not move with fluctuations in the level of the liquid managed in the unit. Flame zone means the portion of the combustion chamber in a boiler or process heater occupied by the flame envelope. Floating roof means a cover consisting of a double deck, pontoon single deck, or internal floating cover which rests upon and is supported by the liquid being contained, and is equipped with a continuous seal. HAP means hazardous air pollutants. Hard­ piping means pipe or tubing that is manufactured and properly installed in accordance with relevant standards and good engineering practices. Individual drain system means a stationary system used to convey wastewater streams or residuals to a remediation material management unit or to discharge or disposal. The term includes hard­ piping, all drains and junction boxes, together with their associated sewer lines and other junction boxes (e. g., manholes, sumps, and lift stations) conveying wastewater streams or residuals. For the purpose of this subpart, an individual drain system is not a drain and collection system that is designed and operated for the sole purpose of collecting rainfall runoff (e. g., stormwater sewer system) and is segregated from all other individual drain systems. Internal floating roof means a cover that rests or floats on the liquid surface (but not necessarily in complete contact with it inside a tank that has a fixed roof). VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49431 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules Light­ material service means the container is used to manage remediation material for which both of the following conditions apply: the vapor pressure of one or more of the organic constituents in the remediation material is greater than 0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20 C and the total concentration of the pure organic constituents having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kPa at 20 C is equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight. Liquid­ mounted seal means a foam­ or liquid­ filled continuous seal mounted in contact with the liquid in a unit. MACT activity means a nonremediation activity that is covered by a category of major sources listed pursuant to section 112( c) of the CAA. An activity is a MACT activity whether or not it is subject to the control requirements of its appropriate MACT standard( s). Maximum HAP vapor pressure means the sum of the individual HAP equilibrium partial pressure exerted by remediation material at the temperature equal to either: the monthly average temperature as reported by the National Weather Service when the remediation material is stored or treated at ambient temperature; or the highest calendarmonth average temperature of the remediation material when the remediation material is stored at temperatures above the ambient temperature or when the remediation material is stored or treated at temperatures below the ambient temperature. For the purpose of this subpart, maximum HAP vapor pressure is determined using the procedures specified in § 63.694( j). For the purpose of this subpart, when you read the term `` Table 3 or Table 4 of this subpart'' in § 63.694( j) you should refer to Table 3 of this subpart. Media means materials found in the natural environment such as soil, ground water, surface water, and sediments, or a mixture of such materials with liquids, sludges, or solids which is inseparable by simple mechanical removal processes and is made up primarily of media. This definition does not include debris (as defined in 40 CFR 268.2). Metallic shoe seal means a continuous seal that is constructed of metal sheets which are held vertically against the wall of the tank by springs, weighted levers, or other mechanisms and is connected to the floating roof by braces or other means. A flexible coated fabric (envelope) spans the annular space between the metal sheet and the floating roof. No detectable organic emissions means no escape of organics to the atmosphere as determined using the procedure specified in 63.694( k). Oil/ water separator means a separator as defined for this subpart that is used to separate oil from water. Operating parameter value means a minimum or maximum value established for a control device or treatment process parameter which, if achieved by itself or in combination with one or more other operating parameter values, determines that an owner or operator has complied with an applicable emissions limitation or standard. Organic/ water separator means a separator as defined for this subpart that is used to separate organics from water. Point­ of­ extraction means the point where you first extract the remediation material prior to placing the remediation material in a management unit or other unit, but before the first point where the organic constituents in the remediation material have the potential to volatilize and be released to the atmosphere. For the purpose of applying this definition to this subpart, the first point where the organic constituents in the remediation material have the potential to volatilize and be released to the atmosphere is not a fugitive emissions point due to an equipment leak from any of the following equipment components: pumps, compressors, valves, connectors, instrumentation systems, or safety devices. Process heater means an enclosed combustion device that transfers heat released by burning fuel directly to process streams or to heat transfer liquids other than water. Process vent means any open­ ended pipe, stack, duct, or other opening intended to allow the passage of gases, vapors, or fumes to the atmosphere and this passage is caused by mechanical means (such as compressors, vacuumproducing systems or fans) or by process­ related means (such as volatilization produced by heating). For the purposes of this subpart, a process vent is neither a safety device (as defined in this section) nor a stack, duct or other opening used to exhaust combustion products from a boiler, furnace, heater, incinerator, or other combustion device. Remediation material means material, including contaminated media, which is managed as a result of implementing remedial activities required under Federal, State or local authorities, or voluntary remediation activity. Remediation material management unit means a tank, container, surface impoundment, oil/ water separator, organic/ water separator or transfer system used to manage remediation material. Remediation material service means any time when a pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling connection system, open­ ended valve or line, valve, connector, or instrumentation system contains or contacts remediation material. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Safety device means a closure device such as a pressure relief valve, frangible disc, fusible plug, or any other type of device which functions exclusively to prevent physical damage or permanent deformation to a unit or its air emissions control equipment by venting gases or vapors directly to the atmosphere during unsafe conditions resulting from an unplanned, accidental, or emergency event. For the purpose of this subpart, a safety device is not used for routine venting of gases or vapors from the vapor headspace underneath a cover such as during filling of the unit or to adjust the pressure in this vapor headspace in response to normal daily diurnal ambient temperature fluctuations. A safety device is designed to remain in a closed position during normal operations and open only when the internal pressure, or another relevant parameter, exceeds the device threshold setting applicable to the air emissions control equipment as determined by the owner or operator based on manufacturer recommendations, applicable regulations, fire protection and prevention codes, standard engineering codes and practices, or other requirements for the safe handling of flammable, combustible, explosive, reactive, or hazardous materials. Separator means a remediation material management unit, generally a tank, used to separate oil or organics from water. A separator consists of not only the separation unit but also the forebay and other separator basins, skimmers, weirs, grit chambers, sludge hoppers, and bar screens that are located directly after the individual drain system and prior to any additional treatment units such as an air flotation unit clarifier or biological treatment unit. Examples of a separator include, but are not limited to, an API separator, parallel­ plate interceptor, and corrugated­ plate interceptor with the associated ancillary equipment. Single­ seal system means a floating roof having one continuous seal. This seal may be vapor­ mounted, liquidmounted or a metallic shoe seal. Sludge means sludge as defined in § 260.10 of this chapter. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49432 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules Soil means unconsolidated earth material composing the superficial geologic strata (material overlying bedrock), consisting of clay, silt, sand, or gravel size particles (sizes as classified by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service), or a mixture of such materials with liquids, sludges, or solids which is inseparable by simple mechanical removal processes and is made up primarily of soil. Solvent extraction means an operation or method of separation in which a solid or solution is contacted with a liquid solvent (the two being mutually insoluble) to preferentially dissolve and transfer one or more components into the solvent. Stabilization process means any physical or chemical process used to either reduce the mobility of contaminants in media or eliminate free liquids as determined by Test Method 9095— Paint Filter Liquids Test in `` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' EPA Publication No. SW– 846, Third Edition, September 1986, as amended by Update I, November 15, 1992. (As an alternative, you may use any more recent, updated version of Method 9095 approved by the EPA). A stabilization process includes mixing remediation material with binders or other materials, and curing the resulting remediation material and binder mixture. Other synonymous terms used to refer to this process are fixation or solidification. A stabilization process does not include the adding of absorbent materials to the surface of remediation material, without mixing, agitation, or subsequent curing, to absorb free liquid. Surface impoundment means a unit that is a natural topographical depression, man­ made excavation, or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials (although it may be lined with man­ made materials), which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquids. Examples of surface impoundments include holding, storage, settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and lagoons. Tank means a stationary unit that is constructed primarily of nonearthen materials (such as wood, concrete, steel, fiberglass, or plastic) which provide structural support and is designed to hold an accumulation of liquids or other materials. Temperature monitoring device means a piece of equipment used to monitor temperature and having an accuracy of ± 1 percent of the temperature being monitored expressed in degrees Celsius ( C) or ± 1.2 degrees ° C, whichever value is greater. Transfer system means a stationary system for which the predominant function is to convey liquids or solid materials from one point to another point within waste management operation or recovery operation. For the purpose of this subpart, the conveyance of material using a container (as defined of this subpart) or self­ propelled vehicle (e. g., a front­ end loader) is not a transfer system. Examples of a transfer system include but are not limited to a pipeline, an individual drain system, a gravityoperated conveyor (such as a chute), and a mechanically­ powered conveyor (such as a belt or screw conveyor). Treatment process means a process in which remediation material is physically, chemically, thermally, or biologically treated to destroy, degrade, or remove hazardous air pollutants contained in the material. A treatment process can be composed of a single unit (e. g., a steam stripper) or a series of units (e. g., a wastewater treatment system). A treatment process can be used to treat one or more remediation material streams at the same time. Vapor­ mounted seal means a continuous seal that is mounted such that there is a vapor space between the liquid in the unit and the bottom of the seal. Volatile organic hazardous air pollutant concentration or VOHAP concentration means the fraction by weight of the HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart that are contained in the remediation material as measured using Method 305, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A and expressed in terms of parts per million (ppm). As an alternative to using Method 305, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, you may determine the HAP concentration of the remediation material using any one of the other test methods specified in § 63.694( b)( 2)( ii). When a test method specified in § 63.694( b)( 2)( ii) other than Method 305 in appendix A of this part is used to determine the speciated HAP concentration of the contaminated material, the individual compound concentration may be adjusted by the corresponding fm305 listed in Table 1 of this subpart to determine a VOHAP concentration. Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112( h) of the CAA. As stated in §§ 63.7882 (c)( 1)( i) and (ii), (c)( 2), (c)( 3)( i) through (iii); 63.7912( a)( 3)( ii), (g)( 3)( ii), (h); and 63.7942; you must use the information in the following table to determine the total annual HAP quantity in the extracted remediation material at the facility: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63— HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS CAS No. a Compound Name fm 305 75070 ......................................... Acetaldehyde ................................................................................................................................. 1.000 75058 ......................................... Acetonitrile ..................................................................................................................................... 0.989 98862 ......................................... Acetophenone ................................................................................................................................ 0.314 107028 ....................................... Acrolein .......................................................................................................................................... 1.000 107131 ....................................... Acrylonitrile .................................................................................................................................... 0.999 107051 ....................................... Allyl chloride ................................................................................................................................... 1.000 71432 ......................................... Benzene (includes benzene in gasoline) ...................................................................................... 1.000 98077 ......................................... Benzotrichloride (isomers and mixture) ......................................................................................... 0.958 100447 ....................................... Benzyl chloride .............................................................................................................................. 1.000 92524 ......................................... Biphenyl ......................................................................................................................................... 0.864 542881 ....................................... Bis( chloromethyl) ether b .................................................................................................................. 0.999 75252 ......................................... Bromoform ..................................................................................................................................... 0.998 106990 ....................................... 1,3­ Butadiene ................................................................................................................................. 1.000 75150 ......................................... Carbon disulfide ............................................................................................................................. 1.000 56235 ......................................... Carbon Tetrachloride ..................................................................................................................... 1.000 43581 ......................................... Carbonyl sulfide ............................................................................................................................. 1.000 133904 ....................................... Chloramben ................................................................................................................................... 0.633 108907 ....................................... Chlorobenzene ............................................................................................................................... 1.000 67663 ......................................... Chloroform ..................................................................................................................................... 1.000 107302 ....................................... Chloromethyl methyl ether b ........................................................................................................... 1.000 VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49433 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63— HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS— Continued CAS No. a Compound Name fm 305 126998 ....................................... Chloroprene ................................................................................................................................... 1.000 98828 ......................................... Cumene ......................................................................................................................................... 1.000 94757 ......................................... 2,4­ D, salts and esters .................................................................................................................. 0.167 334883 ....................................... Diazomethane c ............................................................................................................................... 0.999 132649 ....................................... Dibenzofurans ................................................................................................................................ 0.967 96128 ......................................... 1,2­ Dibromo­ 3­ chloropropane ........................................................................................................ 1.000 106467 ....................................... 1,4­ Dichlorobenzene( p) ................................................................................................................. 1.000 107062 ....................................... Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride) ............................................................................................. 1.000 111444 ....................................... Dichloroethyl ether (Bis( 2­ chloroethyl ether) ................................................................................. 0.757 542756 ....................................... 1,3­ Dichloropropene ...................................................................................................................... 1.000 79447 ......................................... Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride c ........................................................................................................ 0.150 57147 ......................................... 1,1­ Dimethyl hydrazine. 64675 ......................................... Diethyl sulfate ................................................................................................................................ 0.0025 77781 ......................................... Dimethyl sulfate ............................................................................................................................. 0.086 121697 ....................................... N, N­ Dimethylaniline ....................................................................................................................... 0.0008 51285 ......................................... 2,4­ Dinitrophenol ............................................................................................................................ 0.0077 121142 ....................................... 2,4­ Dinitrotoluene ........................................................................................................................... 0.0848 123911 ....................................... 1,4­ Dioxane (1,4­ Diethyleneoxide) ................................................................................................ 0.869 106898 ....................................... Epichlorohydrin (1­ Chloro­ 2,3­ epoxypropane) ............................................................................... 0.939 106887 ....................................... 1,2­ Epoxybutane ............................................................................................................................ 1.000 140885 ....................................... Ethyl acrylate ................................................................................................................................. 1.000 100414 ....................................... Ethyl benzene ................................................................................................................................ 1.000 75003 ......................................... Ethyl chloride (Chloroethane) ........................................................................................................ 1.000 106934 ....................................... Ethylene dibromide (Dibromoethane) ............................................................................................ 0.999 107062 ....................................... Ethylene dichloride (1,2­ Dichloroethane) ...................................................................................... 1.000 151564 ....................................... Ethylene imine (Aziridine) .............................................................................................................. 0.867 75218 ......................................... Ethylene oxide ............................................................................................................................... 1.000 75343 ......................................... Ethylidene dichloride (1,1­ Dichloroethane) .................................................................................... Glycol ethers d that have a Henry's Law constant value equal to or greater than 0.1 Y/ X( 1.8 X 10– 6 atm/ gm­ mole/ m 3 ) at 25 C. 1.000 [e] 118741 ....................................... Hexachlorobenzene ....................................................................................................................... 0.97 87683 ......................................... Hexachlorobutadiene ..................................................................................................................... 0.88 67721 ......................................... Hexachloroethane .......................................................................................................................... 0.499 110543 ....................................... Hexane ........................................................................................................................................... 1.000 78591 ......................................... Isophorone ..................................................................................................................................... 0.506 58899 ......................................... Lindane (all isomers) ..................................................................................................................... 1.000 67561 ......................................... Methanol ........................................................................................................................................ 0.855 74839 ......................................... Methyl bromide (Bromomethane) .................................................................................................. 1.000 74873 ......................................... Methyl chloride (Choromethane) ................................................................................................... 1.000 71556 ......................................... Methyl chloroform (1,1,1­ Trichloroethane) .................................................................................... 1.000 78933 ......................................... Methyl ethyl ketone (2­ Butanone) ................................................................................................. 0.990 74884 ......................................... Methyl iodide (Iodomethane) ......................................................................................................... 1.000 108101 ....................................... Methyl isobutyl ketone (Hexone) ................................................................................................... 0.979 624839 ....................................... Methyl isocyanate .......................................................................................................................... 1.000 80626 ......................................... Methyl methacrylate ....................................................................................................................... 0.999 1634044 ..................................... Methyl tert butyl ether .................................................................................................................... 1.000 75092 ......................................... Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) .......................................................................................... 1.000 91203 ......................................... Naphthalene ................................................................................................................................... 0.994 98953 ......................................... Nitrobenzene .................................................................................................................................. 0.394 79469 ......................................... 2­ Nitropropane ............................................................................................................................... 0.989 82688 ......................................... Pentachloronitrobenzene (Quintobenzene) ................................................................................... 0.839 87865 ......................................... Pentachlorophenol ......................................................................................................................... 0.0898 75445 ......................................... Phosgene c ...................................................................................................................................... 1.000 123386 ....................................... Propionaldehyde ............................................................................................................................ 0.999 78875 ......................................... Propylene dichloride (1,2­ Dichloropropane) .................................................................................. 1.000 75569 ......................................... Propylene oxide ............................................................................................................................. 1.000 75558 ......................................... 1,2­ Propylenimine (2­ Methyl aziridine) .......................................................................................... 0.945 100425 ....................................... Styrene ........................................................................................................................................... 1.000 96093 ......................................... Styrene oxide ................................................................................................................................. 0.830 79345 ......................................... 1,1,2,2­ Tetrachloroethane .............................................................................................................. 0.999 127184 ....................................... Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) ....................................................................................... 1.000 108883 ....................................... Toluene .......................................................................................................................................... 1.000 95534 ......................................... o­ Toluidine ..................................................................................................................................... 0.152 120821 ....................................... 1,2,4­ Trichlorobenzene .................................................................................................................. 1.000 71556 ......................................... 1,1,1­ Trichloroethane (Methyl chlorform) ...................................................................................... 1.000 79005 ......................................... 1,1,2­ Trichloroethane (Vinyl trichloride) ......................................................................................... 1.000 79016 ......................................... Trichloroethylene ........................................................................................................................... 1.000 95954 ......................................... 2,4,5­ Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................... 0.108 88062 ......................................... 2,4,6­ Trichlorophenol ..................................................................................................................... 0.132 121448 ....................................... Triethylamine ................................................................................................................................. 1.000 540841 ....................................... 2,2,4­ Trimethylpentane .................................................................................................................. 1.000 108054 ....................................... Vinyl acetate .................................................................................................................................. 1.000 VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49434 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63— HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS— Continued CAS No. a Compound Name fm 305 593602 ....................................... Vinyl bromide ................................................................................................................................. 1.000 75014 ......................................... Vinyl chloride ................................................................................................................................. 1.000 75354 ......................................... Vinylidene chloride (1,1­ Dichloroethylene) .................................................................................... 1.000 1330207 ..................................... Xylenes (isomers and mixture) ...................................................................................................... 1.000 95476 ......................................... o­ Xylenes ....................................................................................................................................... 1.000 108383 ....................................... m­ Xylenes ...................................................................................................................................... 1.000 106423 ....................................... p­ Xylenes ....................................................................................................................................... 1.000 Notes: fm 305 = Fraction measure factor in Method 305, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A of this part. a CAS numbers refer to the Chemical Abstracts Services registry number assigned to specific compounds, isomers, or mixtures of compounds. b Denotes a HAP that hydrolyzes quickly in water, but the hydrolysis products are also HAP chemicals. c Denotes a HAP that may react violently with water. d Denotes a HAP that hydrolyzes slowly in water. e The fm 305 factors for some of the more common glycol ethers can be obtained by contacting the Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. As stated in §§ 63.7890( a) and 63.7912( e), (f)( 1) through (4), (g)( 1), and (k), you must meet each emissions limitation for process vent affected sources in the following table that applies to you: TABLE 2 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS FOR PROCESS VENT AFFECTED SOURCES For . . . You must meet the following emissions limitation . . . 1. All new and existing affected source process vents associated with remediation activities. a. For each 24­ hour period, reduce emissions of HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, or TOC (minus methane and ethane) from all affected process vents by 95 weight­ percent by venting emissions through a closed­ vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of § 63.693. Instead of achieving the performance specifications listed in § 63.693( d) through (g), you must meet a performance level for each control device necessary to achieve the 95% control level for all process vents combined; or b) For each period specified, reduce emissions of TOC (minus methane and ethane) from all affected source process vents at the facility below 1.4 kg/ h (3.0 lb/ h) and b. 8 mg/ yr (3.1 tons/ yr). Instead of achieving the performance specifications listed in § 63.693( d) through (g), you must meet a performance level for each control device necessary to achieve the overall emissions rate limit for all process vents (whether controlled or uncontrolled) combined. As stated in §§ 63.7890( b), 63.7912 (e) and (k), and 63.7942, you must meet each emissions limitation for remediation material management unit affected sources in the following table that applies to you: TABLE 3 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS FOR REMEDIATION MATERIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT AFFECTED SOURCES For each . . . Where . . . Then you must . . . 1. New and existing tank that is an affected source with a design capacity less than 38 cubic meters (m 3 ) (10,000 gallons). a. The maximum HAP vapor pressure of the remediation material in the tank is less than 76.6 kilopascals (kPa) (11.1 psia). i. For each 24­ hour period, reduce emissions of HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, or TOC (minus methane and ethane) by 95 weight­ percent (or, for combustion devices, to an exhaust concentration of 20 parts per million by volume, on a dry basis, corrected to 3% oxygen) by venting emissions through a closed­ vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of § 63.693; or ii. Comply with one of the work practice standards (control level 1 or 2) specified in Table 5, item 1 of this subpart. 2. New and existing tank that is an affected source with a design capacity greater than or equal to 38 m 3 and less than 151 m 3 (40,000 gallons). a. The maximum HAP vapor pressure of the remediation material in the tank is less than 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia). Same as Table 3, items 1( a) of this subpart; 3. New and existing tank that is an affected source with a design capacity greater than or equal to 38 m 3 and less than 151 m 3 (40,000 gallons). a. The maximum HAP vapor pressure of the remediation material in the tank is greater than or equal to 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia). i. Same as Table 3, item 1( a) of this subpart; or ii. Comply with the work practice standards (for control level 2) specified in Table 5, item 2 of this subpart. 4. New and existing tank that is an affected source with a design capacity greater than or equal to 151 m 3 . a. The maximum HAP vapor pressure of the remediation material in the tank is less than 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia). Same as Table 3, item 1( a) of this subpart. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49435 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS FOR REMEDIATION MATERIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT AFFECTED SOURCES— Continued For each . . . Where . . . Then you must . . . 5. New and existing tank that is an affected source with a design capacity greater than or equal to 151 m 3 . a. The maximum HAP vapor pressure of the remediation material in the tank is greater than or equal to 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia). i. Same as Table 3, item 1( a) of this subpart; or ii. Comply with the work practice standards (for control level 2) specified in Table 5, item 2 of this subpart. 6. New and existing container that is an affected source. a. The design capacity is greater than 0.1 m 3 (26 gallons) and less than or equal to 0.46 m 3 (119 gallons). i. Same as Table 3, item 1( a) of this subpart; or ii. Comply with one of the work practice standards (control level 1, 2 or 3) specified in Table 5, items 3 or 4 of this subpart. 7. New and existing container that is an affected source. a. The design capacity is greater than 0.46 m 3 and the container is not in light­ material service as defined in § 63.7942. i. Same as Table 3, item 1( a) of this subpart; or ii. Comply with one of the work practice standards (control level 1, 2 or 3) specified in Table 5, item 3 or 4 of this subpart. 8. New and existing container that is an affected source. a. The design capacity is greater than 0.46 m 3 and the container is in light­ material service as defined in § 63.7942. i. Same as Table 3, item 1( a) of this subpart; or ii. Comply with one of the work practice standards (control level 2 or 3) specified in Table 5, item 4 or 5 of this subpart. 9. New and existing container that is an affected source. a. The design capacity is greater than 0.1 m 3 and the container is used for a stabilization process. i. Comply with one of the following whenever the remediation material is exposed to the atmosphere: (1) The requirements of Table 3, item 1( a) of this subpart; or (2) The work practice standards (for control level 3) specified in Table 5, item 4 of this subpart. 10. New and existing surface impoundment that is an affected source. i. Same as Table 3, item 1( a) of this subpart; or. ii. Comply with one of the work practice standards specified in Table 5, items 6 or 7 of this subpart. 11. New and existing oil/ water separator and organic/ water separator. i. Same as Table 3, item 1( a) of this subpart, or. ii. Comply with one of the work practice standards specified in Table 5, items 8 or 9 of this subpart. As stated in §§ 63.7890( c), 63.7912( d), 63.7914( b) and 63.7942, you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you: TABLE 4 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— OPERATING LIMITS AND ASSOCIATED WORK PRACTICES FOR CONTROL DEVICES For . . . You must . . . 1. Each existing and each new affected source using a thermal incinerator to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 and 3 of this subpart a. Maintain the daily average firebox temperature greater than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. b. Maintain the daily average total organic or HAP concentration at the outlet less than or equal to the concentration established during the performance test (applies for CEMS only). 2. Each existing and each new affected source using a catalytic incinerator to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 and 3 of this subpart a. replace the existing catalyst bed with a bed that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the bed exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test; and b. Maintain the daily average temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. c. Maintain the daily average total organic or HAP concentration at the outlet less than or equal to the concentration established during the performance test (applies for CEMS only). VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49436 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— OPERATING LIMITS AND ASSOCIATED WORK PRACTICES FOR CONTROL DEVICES— Continued For . . . You must . . . 3. Each existing and each new affected source using a condenser to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 and 3 of this subpart. a. Maintain the daily average condenser exit temperature less than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. b. Maintain the daily average total organic or HAP concentration at the outlet less than or equal to the concentration established during the performance test (applies for CEMS only). 4. Each existing and each new affected source using a carbon adsorption system with adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 and 3 of this subpart. a. Replace the existing adsorbent in each segment of the bed with an adsorbent that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test in accordance with § 63.693( d)( 2) through (4); and b. Maintain the frequency of regeneration greater than or equal to the frequency established during the design evaluation or performance test in accordance with § 63.693( d)( 2) through (4); and c. Maintain the 1­ hour average total regeneration stream mass flow during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle greater than or equal to the stream mass flow established during the design evaluation or performance test in accordance with § 63.693( d)( 2) through (4); and d. Maintain the 1­ hour average temperature of the adsorption bed during regeneration (except during the cooling cycle) greater than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test in accordance with § 63.693( d)( 2) through (4); and e. Maintain the 1­ hour average temperature of the adsorption bed after regeneration (and within 15 minutes after completing any cooling cycle) less than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test in accordance with § 63.693( d)( 2) through (4). f. Maintain the daily average total organic or HAP concentration at the outlet less than or equal to the concentration established during the performance test in accordance with § 63.693( d)( 2) (applies for CEMS only). 5. Each existing and each new affected source using a carbon adsorption system without adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 and 3 of this subpart. a. Replace the existing adsorbent in each segment of the bed with an adsorbent that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test in accordance with § 63.693( d)( 2); and b. Maintain the 1­ hour average temperature of the adsorption bed less than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test in accordance with § 63.693( d)( 2). c. Maintain the daily average total organic or HAP concentration at the outlet less than or equal to the concentration established during the performance test (applies for CEMS only). 6. Each existing and each new affected source using a boiler or process heater to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 and 3 of this subpart. a. Maintain the daily average firebox temperature within the operating level established during the performance test. b. Maintain the daily average total organic or HAP concentration at the outlet less than or equal to the concentration established during the performance test (applies for CEMS only). 7. Each existing and each new affected source using a flare to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 and 3 of this subpart. a. Operate the flare at all times when emissions may be vented to it and with no visible emissions in accordance with § 63.11( b)( 4); and b. Maintain the presence of a flame at all times inaccordance with § 63.11( b)( 5); and c. Meet the heat content specification in § 63.11( b)( 6)( ii) and the maximum tip velocity specifications in § 63.11( b)( 8) or (7), or meet the requirements in § 63.11( b)( 6)( i). d. Maintain the daily average total organic or HAP concentration at the outlet less than or equal to the concentration established during the performance test (applies for CEMS only). As stated in § 63.7890( d), you must meet each work practice standard in the following table that applies to you: VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4706 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49437 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS For each . . . You must . . . 1. New or existing tank that is an affected source meeting any set of capacity and vapor pressure limits specified in Table 3, items 1, 2 or 4 of this subpart. a. As an alternative to the emissions limit in Table 3 of this subpart, comply with the requirements of subpart OO (control level 1) of this part; or b. Comply with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. 2. New or existing tank that is an affected source meeting any set of capacity and vapor pressure limits specified in Table 3, items 3 or 5 of this subpart. As an alternative to the emissions limit in Table 3 of this subpart, comply with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. 3. New or existing container that is an affected source { meeting any set of capacity limits specified in Table 3, items 6 or 7 of this subpart that is not vented to a control device. a. As an alternative to the emissions limit in Table 3 of this subpart, comply with the requirements of § 63.922 (control level 1); or b. Comply with the requirements of § 63.923 (control level 2). 4. New or existing container that is an affected source { meeting any set of capacity limits specified in Table 3, items 6, 7, 8 or 9 of this subpart that is vented to a control device. As an alternative to the emissions limit in Table 3 of this subpart, comply with the requirements of § 63.924 (control level 3). 5. New or existing container that is an affected source { meeting the capacity limits specified in Table 3, item 8 of this subpart that is not vented to a control device. As an alternative to the emissions limit in Table 3 of this subpart, comply with the requirements of § 63.923 (control level 2). 6. New or existing surface impoundment that is an affected source that is not vented to a control device. Install a floating membrane cover designed to meet specifications in § 63.942( a) through (c). The membrane must float on the surface at all times during normal operations. 7. New or existing surface impoundment that is an affected source that is vented through a closed vent system to a control device. a. Install a cover meeting the requirements in § 63.943( b) and (c); and b. Design and operate the closed vent system in accordance with the requirements of § 63.693. 8. New and existing oil/ water separator, or organic/ water separator that is an affected source that is not vented to a control device. Follow the requirements of §§ 63.1042 (fixed roof), 63.1043 (floating roof), or 63.1045 (pressurized roof), as appropriate. 9. New and existing oil/ water separator, or organic/ water separator that is an affected source that is vented through a closed vent system to a control device. a. Follow the requirements of § 63.1044; and b. design and operate the closed vent system in accordance with the requirements of § 63.693. 10. New and existing equipment component that is an affected source Comply with the requirements of subpart TT (control level 1); or subpart WW (control level 2). 11. New and existing transfer system that is an affected source ............ a. For individual drain systems, as defined in this subpart, comply with the requirements of subpart RR; and b. For transfer systems, other than individual drain systems, comply with the requirements of § 63.689( c). As stated in §§ 63.7911( a), 63.7912( b) and (c), 63.7914( b), and 63.7930( e)( 2), you must conduct the performance testing required in the following table at any time the EPA requires for non­ flare control devices in accordance with section 114 of the CAA: TABLE 6 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 1. New and existing affected source process vents, tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil/ water separators, and organic/ water separators complying with a HAP or TOC reduction efficiency limit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart, an emissions rate limit in Table 2 of this subpart, or an emissions concentration limit in Table 3 of this subpart. Select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A of § 63.7( d)( 1)( i). Sampling sites must be located at the inlet (if emissions reduction or destruction efficiency testing is required) and outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere 2. New and existing affected source process vents, tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil/ water separators, and organic/ water separators complying with a HAP or TOC reduction efficiency limit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart or an emissions rate limit in Table 2 of this subpart. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. For HAP or TOC reduction efficiency or emissions rate testing; not necessary for determining compliance with 20 ppmv concentration limit. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49438 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 6 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS— Continued For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 3. New and existing affected source process vents, tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil/ water separators, complying with a HAP or TOC reduction efficiency limit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart or an emissions rate limit in Table 2 of this subpart. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. For flow rate determination only. 4. New and existing affected source process vents, tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil/ water separators, and organic/ water separators complying with an emissions concentration limit in Table 3 of this subpart. Measure O2 concentration Method 3A or 3B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. For correcting HAP and TOC concentrations measured from combustion control device to 3% O2 for comparing to 20 ppmv concentration limit. See § 63.7912( f)( 4). 5. New and existing affected source process vents, tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil/ water separators, and organic/ water separators complying with a HAP or TOC reduction efficiency limit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart, an emissions rate limit in Table 2 of this subpart, or an emissions concentration limit in Table 3 of this subpart. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. For flow rate determination and correction to dry basis. 6. New and existing affected source process vents, tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil/ water separators, and organic water separators complying with a HAP or TOC reduction efficiency limit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart. a. Measure organic HAP concentration at inlet and outlet locations. b. Measure TOC concentration at inlet and outlet locations. i. Method 18 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. i. Method 18 or Method 25A or Method 25 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. (1) The organic HAP used for the calibration gas for Method 25A must be the single organic HAP representing the largest percent by volume of emissions and (2) during the performance test or a design evaluation you must establish the operating parameter limits within which total organic HAP emissions are reduced by 95 weight­ percent (or to the level necessary to meet the emissions rate limits in Table 2 of this subpart or to 20 ppmv exhaust concentration. 7. All affected source process vents associated with remediation activities complying with the emissions rate limit in item (1)( b) of Table 2 of this subpart. Measure organic HAP at the outlet location. Method 18 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. 8. New and existing affected source tanks, containers, surface impoundments, oil/ water separators, and organic water separators complying with a HAP or TOC emissions concentration limit in Table 3 of this subpart. a. Measure organic HAP at the outlet location. b. Measure TOC at the outlet location. i. Method 18 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. i. Method 18 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or. ii. Method 25A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter Use the following table to determine if you have demonstrated initial compliance for each affected source in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart and for process vents in Table 2 of this subpart: VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4706 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49439 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS For . . . For the following emissions limitation . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if ... 1. Each affected source listed in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart. Reduce total organic HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, or TOC emissions by at least 95 weight­ percent. Total organic HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, or TOC emissions, based on the results of the performance testing specified in Table 6 of this subpart, are reduced by at least 95 weight­ percent; and you have a record of the operating requirement( s) listed in Table 4 of this subpart for the process unit over the performance test during which emissions did not exceed 95 weight­ percent. 2. Each affected source listed in Table 3 of this subpart. Limit emissions of total HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, or TOC concentration to 20 ppmv. The average total HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, or TOC emissions, measured using the methods in Table 6 of this subpart over the 3­ hour initial performance test, do not exceed 20 ppmv; and you have a record of the operating requirement( s) listed in Table 4 of this subpart for the process unit over the performance test during which emissions did not exceed 20 ppmv. 3. Affected source process vents listed in Table 2 of this subpart. Reduce total HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, or TOC emissions below 1.4 kg/ h (3.0 lb/ hr) and 2.8 Mg/ yr (3.1 ton/ yr). The average total HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, or TOC emissions, measured using the methods in Table 6 of this subpart over the 3­ hour initial performance test, do not exceed 1.4 kg/ h (3.0 lb/ hr); and you have a record of the operating requirement s) listed in Table 4 of this subpart for the process unit( s) over the performance test during which emissions did not exceed 1.4 kg/ h (3.0 lb/ hr). Use the following table to determine if you have demonstrated initial compliance for tanks; containers; surface impoundments; oil/ water separators or organic/ water separators; equipment; closed­ vent systems; and transfer systems: TABLE 8 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS For each * * * For the following work practice standard * * * You have demonstrated initial compliance if *** 1. Tank complying with the requirements of subpart OO (control level 1) of this part. Install a fixed roof designed and operated in accordance with § 63.902. You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have installed a fixed roof that meets the specifications in § 63.902, you have performed the initial inspection following installation of the roof in accordance with § 63.906, and you have a record documenting the roof design and inspection results 2. Tank complying with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. Operate a fixed­ roof tank with an internal floating roof (IFR) in accordance with § 63.685( e). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have installed an IFR that meets the applicable specifications in § 63.685( e), you have performed the initial inspection following installation of the IFR in accordance with § 63.695( b)( 1), and you have a record documenting the IFR design and inspection results. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49440 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS— Continued For each * * * For the following work practice standard * * * You have demonstrated initial compliance if *** 3. Tank complying with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. Install an external floating roof (EFR) designed and operated in accordance with § 63.685( f). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have installed an EFR that meets the specifications in § 63.685( f), you have performed the initial inspection following installation of the EFR in accordance with § 63.695( b)( 2)( i), and you have a record documenting the EFR design and inspection results. 4. Tank complying with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. Vent the tank to a control device in accordance with § 63.685( g). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have installed a fixed roof that meets the applicable specifications in § 63.685( g)( 1) and (b), you have performed the initial inspection following installation of the fixed roof in accordance with § 63.695( b)( 3), and you have a record documenting the fixed roof design and inspection results. 5. Tank complying with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. Use a pressure tank designed and operated in accordance with § 63.685( h). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have designed a pressure tank meeting the applicable specifications in § 63.685( h), and you have a record documenting the tank design. 6. Tank complying with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. A tank located inside an enclosure in accordance with § 63.685( i). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that the enclosure meets the applicable specifications in § 63.685( i), you have performed the initial inspection in accordance with § 63.685( i)( 1), and you have a record documenting the enclosure design and inspection results. 7. Container complying with § 63.922 (level 1 controls). Install a cover meeting the requirements of § 63.922 whenever remediation material is in the container. You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that the cover meets § 63.922 and you have visually inspected the container and its cover and closure devices for visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces within 24 hours after the material is placed in the container and maintain a record of the inspection 8. Container complying with § 63.923 (level 2 controls). Install a cover meeting the requirements of § 63.923 and be installed whenever remediation material is in the container. You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that the cover meets § 63.923 and you have visually inspected the container and its cover and closure devices for visible cracks, holes, gaps, or other open spaces within 24 hours after the material is placed in the container and maintain a record of the inspection VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49441 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS— Continued For each * * * For the following work practice standard * * * You have demonstrated initial compliance if *** 9. Container complying with § 63.924 (level 3 controls). Vent the container through a closed­ vent system (CVS) to a control device according to the specifications of § 63.924( b). You have met the work practice standard, and for containers vented inside an enclosure, as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that, you meet the requirements of § 63.924( c)( 1). Note: see item number 17 of this table for work practice requirements for closed­ vent systems. 10. Surface impoundment subject to § 63.940 that is not vented to a control device. Install a floating membrane cover designed in accordance with specifications in § 63.942( a) through (c). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have installed a floating membrane cover the meets the specifications in § 63.942( b), you have performed the initial inspection following installation of the cover in accordance with § 63.946( a)( 2), and you have a record documenting the cover design and inspection results. 11. Surface impoundment subject to § 63.940 that is vented to a control device. Install a cover designed in accordance with specifications in § 63.943( b). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have installed a cover the meets the specifications in § 63.943( b), you have performed the initial inspection following installation of the cover as required by § 63.946( b)( 1)( ii), and you have a record documenting the cover design and inspection results. 12. Oil/ water separator, or organic/ water separator complying with § 63.1042. Install a fixed roof designed in accordance with the specifications in § 63.1042( b). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have installed a fixed roof that meets the specifications in § 63.1042( b), you have performed the initial inspection following installation of the fixed roof as required by § 63.1047( a), and you have a record documenting the fixed roof design and inspection results. 13. Oil/ water separator, or organic/ water separator complying with § 63.1043. Install a floating roof designed in accordance with the specifications in § 63.1043( b). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have installed a floating roof that meets the specifications in § 63.1043( b), you have performed the initial inspection following installation of the floating roof as required by § 63.1047( b), and you have a record documenting the floating design and inspection results. 14. Oil/ water separator, or organic/ water separator complying with § 63.1044. Install a fixed roof designed in accordance with the specifications in § 63.1044( b) and vent headspace to a control device through a CVS. You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have installed a fixed roof that meets the specifications in § 63.1044( b), you have performed the initial inspection following installation of the fixed roof as required by § 63.1047( c), and you have a record documenting the fixed roof design and inspection results. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49442 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS— Continued For each * * * For the following work practice standard * * * You have demonstrated initial compliance if *** 15. Oil/ water separator, or organic/ water separator that is complying with § 63.1045. Operate the separator as a closed system in accordance with the specifications in § 63.1045( b). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that the separator operates as a closed­ system, you have performed the no detectable organic emissions test required in § 63.1046, and you have a record documenting the separator design and inspection results. 16. Item of equipment ....................................... Carry out a leak detection and repair program to comply with the requirements of subpart TT (control level 1); or subpart WW (control level 2).. You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that equipment subject to the work practice requirements has been identified and you make available written specifications for the leak detection and repair program or equivalent control approach. 17. Closed­ vent system (CVS) conveying emissions to a control device. Design and operate the CVS in accordance with the specifications in § 63.693. You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that CVS meets the specifications in § 63.695( c) and you perform the initial inspection required by § 63.695( c)( 1)( i) and have a record documenting the design and inspection results. 18. Transfer system that is an individual drain system complying with the applicable requirements in subpart RR. Meet the design and operating requirements in § 63.962( a). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have designed the applicable controls in accordance with § 63.962( a) and (b) and performed the initial inspection requirements in § 63.964( a)( 1)( iv) and have a record documenting the design and inspection results. Systems conveying emissions through a CVS to a control device should meet the requirements in item 17 of this table. 19. Transfer system that is not an individual drain system and complies with the requirements in § 63.689( c). Design and operate a transfer system using covers in accordance with § 63.689( d). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have designed and installed the covers as required by § 63.689( d)( 1) through (5), performed the inspection requirements in § 63.695( d)( 2) and have a record documenting the design and inspection results. 20. Transfer system that is not an individual drain system and complies with the requirements in § 63.689( c). Design and operate a transfer system using hard piping in accordance with § 63.689( c)( 2). You have met the work practice standard and as part of the Notification of Compliance Status, you submit a signed statement that you have installed the hard piping as specified in § 63.689( c)( 2). Use the following table to determine if you have demonstrated continuous compliance for each unit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart: VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4706 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49443 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 9 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS For* * * For the following emissions limitation * * * You have demonstrated continuous compliance by * * * 1. Each unit listed in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart a. Reduce total organic HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, or TOC emissions by at least 95 weight­ percent, i. Performing CMS monitoring and collecting data according to §§ 63.7914, 63.7921, and 63.7930; ii. Maintaining the site­ specific operating limits within the ranges established during the design evaluation or performance test; and iii. Continuously monitoring and recording the total organic or HAP concentration at least every 15 minutes, reducing the CEMS data to 1­ hour and then 24­ hour block averages, and maintaining the 24­ hour block average total organic or HAP concentration less than or equal to the concentration established during the performance test; and iv. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. 2. Each unit listed in Table 3 of this subpart... Limit emissions of total HAP, listed in Table 1 of this Subpart, or TOC concentration of 20 ppmv. Same as in item 1 of Table 9 of this Subpart 3. Each unit listed in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart Limit emissions of total HAP, listed in Table 1 of this subpart, to below 1.4 kg/ hr (3.0 lb/ hr) and 2.8 Mg/ yr (3.1 ton/ yr). Same as in item 1 of Table 9 of this subpart. Use the following table to determine if you have demonstrated continuous compliance for each affected source unit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart: TABLE 10 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS For * * * For the following operating limit * * * You must demonstrate continuous compliance by * * * 1. Affected source using a thermal oxidizer to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart. a. Maintain the hourly average firebox temperature greater than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Continuously monitoring and recording firebox temperature every 15 minutes and maintaining the hourly average firebox temperature greater than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. 2. Affected source using a catalytic oxidizer to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart. a. Replace the existing catalyst bed with a catalyst bed that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the bed exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Replacing the existing catalyst bed with a catalyst bed that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the bed exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. b. Maintain the hourly average temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Continuously monitoring and recording the temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed at least every 15 minutes and maintaining the hourly average temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. c. Maintain the hourly average temperature difference across the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the minimum temperature difference established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Continuously monitoring and recording the temperature at the outlet of the catalyst bed every 15 minutes and maintaining the hourly average temperature difference across the catalyst bed greater than or equal to the minimum temperature difference established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49444 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 10 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS— Continued For * * * For the following operating limit * * * You must demonstrate continuous compliance by * * * 3. Affected source using a condenser to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart. a. Maintain the hourly average condenser exit temperature less than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Continuously monitoring and recording the temperature at the exit of the condenser at least every 15 minutes and maintaining the hourly average condenser exit temperature less than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. 4. Affected source using an adsorption system with adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart. a. Replace the existing adsorbent in each segment of the bed with an adsorbent that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Replacing the existing adsorbent in each segment of the bed with an adsorbent that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. b. Maintain the frequency of regeneration greater than or equal to the frequency established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Maintaining the frequency of regeneration greater than or equal to the frequency established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. c. Maintain the total regeneration stream mass flow during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle greater than or equal to the stream mass flow established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Continuously monitoring and recording the total regeneration stream mass flow during the adsorption bed regeneration cycle and maintaining the flow greater than or equal to the stream mass flow established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. d. Maintain the hourly temperature of the adsorption bed during regeneration (except during the cooling cycle) greater than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Continuously monitoring and recording the hourly temperature of the adsorption bed during regeneration (except during the cooling cycle) and maintaining the hourly temperature greater than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. e. Maintain the hourly temperature of the adsorption bed after regeneration (and within 15 minutes after completing any cooling cycle) less than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Continuously monitoring and recording the hourly temperature of the adsorption bed after regeneration (and within 15 minutes after completing any cooling cycle) and maintaining the hourly temperature less than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. 5. Affected source using an adsorption system without adsorbent regeneration to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 or 3. a. Replace the existing adsorbent in each segment of the bed with an adsorbent that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Replacing the existing adsorbent in each segment of the bed with an adsorption that meets the replacement specifications established during the design evaluation or performance test before the age of the adsorbent exceeds the maximum allowable age established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49445 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 10 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS— Continued For * * * For the following operating limit * * * You must demonstrate continuous compliance by * * * b. Maintain the hourly temperature of the adsorption bed less than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test. i. Continuously monitoring and recording the hourly temperature of the adsorption bed and maintaining an hourly temperature less than or equal to the temperature established during the design evaluation or performance test; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. 6. Affected source using a flare to comply with an emissions limit in Table 2 or 3 of this subpart. a. Maintain a pilot flame present in the flare at all times that vapors are not being vented to the flare (§ 63.11( b)( 5)). i. Continuously operating a device that detects the presence of the pilot flame; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.695( e). b. Maintain a flare flame at all times that vapors are being vented from the emissions source (§ 63.11( b)( 5)). i. Maintaining a flare flame at all times that vapors are being vented from the emissions; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. c. Operate the flare with no visible emissions, except for up to 5 minutes in any 2 consecutive hours (§ 63.11( b)( 4)). i. operating the flare with no visible emissions exceeding the amount allowed; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10 d. Operate the flare with an exit velocity that is within the applicable limits in § 63.11( b)( 6), (7), and (8). i. Operating the flare within the applicable exit velocity limits; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. e. Operate the flare with a net heating value of the gas being combusted greater than the applicable minimum value in § 63.11( b)( 6)( ii). i. Operating the flare with the gas net heating value within the applicable limit; and ii. Keeping the applicable records required in § 63.10. Use the requirements in the following table to demonstrate continuous compliance for tanks; containers; surface impoundments; oil/ water separators or organic/ water separators; equipment; closed­ vent systems; and transfer systems: TABLE 11 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS For each * * For the following work practice standard * * * You must demonstrate continuous compliance by * * * 1. Tank complying with subpart OO (control level 1) of this part. a. install a fixed roof designed and operated in accordance with the applicable specifications in § 63.902. i. following the inspection and repair procedures in § 63.906( a) and (b); and ii. keeping the records required in § 63.907. 2. Tank complying with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. a. operate a fixed­ roof tank with an internal floating roof (IFR) in accordance with § 63.685( e). i. following the inspection and repair requirements in § 63.695( b)( 1) and (4); and ii. keeping the records required in § 63.696. 3. Tank complying with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. a. install an external floating roof (EFR) designed and operated in accordance with § 63.685( f). i. following the inspection and repair requirements in § 63.695( b)( 2) and (4); and ii. keeping the records required in § 63.696( d). 4. Tank complying with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. a. vent the tank through a closed vent system (CVS) to a control device in accordance with § 63.685( g). i. following the inspection and repair requirements in § 63.695( b)( 3) and (4); and ii. following the inspection and monitoring requirements for the CVS in § 63.695( c)( 1)– (3); and iii. keeping the records required in § 63.696( e). 5. Tank complying with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. use a pressure tank designed and operated in accordance with § 63.685( h). operating the pressure tank at all times in accordance with the specifications in § 63.685( h). 6. Tank complying with the requirements of § 63.685( d) (control level 2) of this part. a. a tank located inside an enclosure in accordance with § 63.685( i). i. meeting the recordkeeping requirements of § 63.696( f); and ii. meeting the requirements for a closed­ vent system specified in item 19 of this table. 7. Container complying with § 63.922 (level 1 controls). install a cover meeting the requirements of § 63.922 whenever remediation material is in the container. following the inspection and repair requirements in § 63.926( a)( 2) and (3). VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49446 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 11 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS— Continued For each * * For the following work practice standard * * * You must demonstrate continuous compliance by * * * 8. Container complying with § 63.923 (level 2 controls). install a cover meeting the requirements of § 63.923 whenever remediation material is in the container. following the inspection and repair requirements in § 63.926( c)( 2) and (3). 9. Container complying with § 63.924 (level 3 controls). a. vent the container through a closed­ vent system (CVS) to a control device according to the specifications of § 63.924( b). i. following the inspection and monitoring requirements for the CVS in § 63.695( c)( 1)– (3); and ii. keeping the records required in § 63.927. 10. Surface impoundment complying with the applicable requirements in subpart QQ that is not vented to a control device. install a floating membrane cover designed according to the specifications in § 63.942( a)– (b) and maintain the membrane floating on the liquid surface at all times. maintaining the membrane floating on the liquid surface and visually inspecting the membrane at least once every year, making a first attempt at repair of any defects within 5 calendar days of detection, completing repair within 45 calendar days of detection, and keeping the records required in § 63.947( a). 11. Surface impoundment that is a new or existing affected source subject to subpart QQ that is vented to a control device. install a cover designed to meet the applicable specifications in § 63.943( b); and vent the emissions through a closed­ vent system (CVS) to a control device. maintaining a cover on the surface impoundment in accordance with the specifications in § 63.943( c), visually inspecting the cover in accordance with § 63.946( b), repairing any defects as specified in § 63.946( c), and keeping a record of the inspection as required in § 63.947; Note: see item no. 19 in this Table for CVS requirements. 12. Oil/ water separator, or organic/ water separator complying with § 63.1042. install a fixed roof designed to meet specifications in § 63.1042( b). performing the inspection required by § 63.1047( a) once every calendar year, and maintaining the records required by § 63.1048. 13. Oil/ water separator, or organic/ water separator complying with § 63.1043. install a floating roof designed to meet specifications in § 63.1043( b). performing the inspections required by § 63.1047( b), and maintaining the records required by § 63.1048. 14. Oil/ water separator, or organic/ water separator that is complying with § 63.1044. install a fixed roof designed to meet the specifications in § 63.1044( b) and vent headspace to a control device through a CVS. performing a visual inspection of the fixed roof at least once every calendar year under § 63.1047( c)( 1)( ii), operating, inspecting and monitoring the CVS in accordance with the requirements in § 63.693, and keeping the records required by § 63.1048. 15. Oil/ water separator, or organic/ water separator that is complying with § 63.1045. operate the separator as a closed system in accordance with the specifications in § 63.1045( b). operating the separator as a closed­ system and performing the no detectable organic emissions test required by § 63.1046. 16. Piece of equipment complying with either subpart TT or WW of this part. carry out a leak detection and repair program complying with the requirements of subpart TT (control level 1) or subpart WW (control level 2). meeting the monitoring, repair and recordkeeping requirements of either subpart TT or subpart WW. 17. Affected source conveying emissions to a control device using a closed­ vent system (CVS). a. design and operate the CVS in accordance with the specifications in § 63.693. i. following the inspection, repair and monitoring requirements in § 63.695( c)( 1) through (3); and ii. keeping the records required by § 63.696( a). For the purposes of this subpart, the term `` Table 2 of this subpart'' in 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart DD means `` Table 13''. 18. Transfer system that is an individual drain system complying with the applicable requirements in subpart RR. a. meet the design and operating requirements in § 63.962( a). i. following the operating requirements in § 63.962( b), the inspection and repair requirements in § 63.964( a) and (b); and ii. keeping the records required by § 63.965( a). iii. systems conveying emissions through a CVS to a control device should meet the requirements in item 19 of this table. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49447 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 11 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS— Continued For each * * For the following work practice standard * * * You must demonstrate continuous compliance by * * * 19. Transfer system that is not an individual drain system and complies with the requirements in § 63.689( c). a. transfer system using covers in accordance with § 63.689( d). i. following the operating requirements in § 63.689( d)( 5) and the inspection and repair requirements in § 63.695( d); and ii. keeping the records required by § 63.696. Use the following table to determine which reports to submit: TABLE 12 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS You must submit a( n) * * * The report must contain * * * You must submit the report * * * 1. Compliance report ........................................ a. A statement that there were no deviations from the emissions limitations and work practice standards during the reporting period if there are no deviations from any emissions limitations (emissions limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emissions limit) that applies to you, and there are no deviations from the requirements for work practice standards in Table 11 of this subpart that apply to you. If there were no periods during which the CMS, including CEMS, COMS, and operating parameter monitoring systems, was out­ of­ control as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), a statement that there were no periods during the which the CMS was out­ of­ control during the reporting period; and. i. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7931( b). b. The information in § 63.7931( c) and (d) if you have a deviation from any emissions limitation (emissions limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emissions limit) or work practice standard during the reporting period; and. i. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7931( b). c. The information in § 63.7931( c) and (d) if there were periods. i. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7931( b). 2. immediate startup, shutup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your startup shutdown, and malfunction plan. a. Actions taken for the event .......................... i. by fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan. b. The information in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii) ............... i. by letter within 7 working days after the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authority As stated in § 63.7940, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: TABLE 13 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart GGGGG § 63.1 ....................................... Applicability ............................. Initial Applicability Determination; Applicability After Standard Established; Permit Requirements; Extensions, Notifications Yes § 63.2 ....................................... Definitions ............................... Definitions for part 63 standards .............................................. Yes. § 63.3 ....................................... Units and Abbreviations ......... Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ........................ Yes. § 63.4 ....................................... Prohibited Activities ................ Prohibited Activities; Compliance date; Circumvention, Severability Yes. § 63.5 ....................................... Construction/ Reconstruction ... Applicability; applications; approvals ....................................... Yes. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49448 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 13 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG— Continued Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart GGGGG § 63.6( a) .................................. Applicability ............................. GP apply unless compliance extension GP apply to area sources that become major. Yes. § 63.6( b)( 1)–( 4) ........................ Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed sources. Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effective date; upon startup; 10 years after construction or reconstruction commences for 112( f). Yes. § 63.6( b)( 5) .............................. Notification .............................. Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruction after proposal. Yes. § 63.6( b)( 6) .............................. [Reserved] .............................. . § 63.6( b)( 7) .............................. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Area Sources That Become Major. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards immediately upon becoming major, regardless of whether required to comply when they were an area source. Yes. § 63.6( c)( 1)–( 2) ........................ 1. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources. a. Comply according to date in subpart, which must be no later than 3 years after effective date. ................................................. b. For 112( f) standards, comply within 90 days of effective date unless compliance extension. Yes. § 63.6( c)( 3)–( 4) ........................ [Reserved] .............................. . § 63.6( c)( 5) .............................. Compliance Dates for Existing Area Sources That Become Major. Area sources that become major must comply with major source standards by date indicated in subpart or by equivalent time period (for example, 3 years). Yes. § 63.6( d) .................................. [Reserved] .............................. . § 63.6( e)( 1)–( 2) ........................ 1. Operation & Maintenance .. a. Operate to minimize emissions at all times ......................... Yes. b. Correct malfunctions as soon as practicable ...................... Yes. c. Operation and maintenance requirements independently enforceable; information Administrator will use to determine if operation and maintenance requirements were met. Yes. § 63.6( e)( 3) .............................. 1. Startup, Shutdown, and malfunction Plan (SSMP). a. Requirement for SSM and startup, shutdown, and Malfunction plan. Yes b. Content of SSMP ................................................................. Yes. § 63.6( f)( 1) ............................... Compliance Except During SSM. You must comply with emissions standards at all times except during SSM. Yes. § 63.6( f)( 2)–( 3) ......................... Methods for Determining Compliance. Compliance based on performance test, operation and maintenance plans, records, inspection. Yes. § 63.6( g)( 1)–( 3) ........................ Alternative Standard ............... Procedures for getting an alternative standard ....................... Yes. § 63.6( h) .................................. Opacity/ Visible Emissions (VE) Standards. Requirements for opacity and visible emissions limits ............ Yes. However, there are no opacity standards. § 63.6( h)( 1) .............................. Compliance with opacity/ VE Standards. You must comply with Opacity/ VE emissions limitations at all times except during SSM. Yes. However, there are no opacity standards. § 63.6( h)( 2)( i) ........................... Determining Compliance with Opacity/ VE Standards. If standard does not state test method, use Method 9 for opacity and Method 22 for VE. Yes. However, there are no opacity standards. § 63.6( h)( 2)( ii) .......................... [Reserved]. § 63.6( h)( 2)( iii) ......................... Using Previous Tests to Demonstrate Compliance with Opacity/ VE Standards. Criteria for when previous opacity/ VE testing can be used to show compliance with this rule. Yes. However, there are no opacity standards. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49449 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 13 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG— Continued Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart GGGGG § 63.6( h)( 3) .............................. [Reserved]. § 63.6( h)( 4) .............................. Notification of Opacity/ VE Observation Date. Must notify Administrator of anticipated date of observation .. Yes. However, there are no opacity standards. § 63.6( h)( 5)( i), (iii)­( v) .............. Conducting Opacity/ VE Observations Dates and Schedule for conducting opacity/ VE observations Yes. However, there are no opacity standards. § 63.6( h)( 5)( ii) .......................... Opacity Test Duration and Averaging Times. Must have at least 3 hours of observation with thirty, 6­ minute averages. No. § 63.6( h)( 6) .............................. Records of Conditions During Opacity/ VE observations. Must keep records available and allow Administrator to inspect Yes. However, there are no opacity standards. § 63.6( h)( 7)( i) ........................... Report COMS Monitoring Data from Performance Test. Must submit COMS data with other performance test data .... No. § 63.6( h)( 7)( ii) .......................... Using COMS instead of Method 9. Can submit COMS data instead of Method 9 results even if rule requires Method 9, but must notify Administrator before performance test. No. § 63.6( h)( 7)( iii) ......................... Averaging time for COMS during performance test. To determine compliance, must reduce COMS data to 6­ minute averages. No. § 63.6( h)( 7)( iv) ......................... COMS requirements ............... Owner/ operator must demonstrate that COMS performance evaluations are conducted according to §§ 63.8( e), COMS are properly maintained and operated according to 63.8( c) and data quality as § 63.8( d). No. § 63.6( h)( 7)( v) .......................... Determining Compliance with Opacity/ VE Standards. COMS is probative but not conclusive evidence of compliance with opacity standard, even if Method 9 observation shows otherwise. Requirements for COMS to be probative evidence­ proper maintenance, meeting PS 1, and data have not been altered. Yes. However, there are no opacity standards. § 63.6( h)( 8) .............................. Determining Compliance with Opacity/ VE Standards. Administrator will use all COMS, Method 9, and Method 22 results, as well as information about operation and maintenance to determine compliance. Yes. However, there are no opacity standards. § 63.6( h)( 9) .............................. Adjusted Opacity Standard ..... Procedures for Administrator to adjust an opacity standard ... No. § 63.6( i)( 1)–( 14) ....................... Compliance Extension ............ Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant compliance extension. Yes. § 63.6( j) ................................... Presidential Compliance Exemption President may exempt source category from requirement to comply with rule. Yes. § 63.7( a)( 1)–( 2) ........................ Performance Test Dates ........ Dates for Conducting Initial Performance Testing and Other Compliance Demonstrations. Must conduct 180 days after first subject to rule. Yes. § 63.7( a)( 3) .............................. Section 114 Authority ............. Administrator may require a performance test under CAA Section 114 at any time. Yes. § 63.7( b)( 1) .............................. Notification of Performance Test. Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ................... Yes. § 63.7( b)( 2) .............................. Notification of Rescheduling ... If rescheduling a performance test is necessary, must notify Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of rescheduled date. Yes. § 63.7( c) .................................. 1. Quality Assurance/ Test Plan. a. Requirement to submit site­ specific test plan 60 days before the test or on date Administrator agrees with:. Yes. i. Test plan approval procedures ............................................. Yes. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49450 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 13 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG— Continued Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart GGGGG ii. Performance audit requirements .......................................... Yes. iii. Internal and External QA procedures for testing ................ Yes. § 63.7( d) .................................. Testing Facilities ..................... Requirements for testing facilities ............................................ Yes. § 63.7( e)( 1) .............................. Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Performance tests must be conducted under representative conditions. Cannot conduct performance tests during SSM. Not a violation to exceed standard during SSM. Yes. § 63.7( e)( 2) .............................. Conditions for Conducting Performance Tests. Must conduct according to rule and EPA test methods unless Administrator approves alternative. Yes. § 63.7( e)( 3) .............................. 1. Test Run Duration .............. a. Must have three test runs of at least one hour each .......... Yes. b. Complaince is based on arithmetic mean of three runs ..... Yes. c. Conditions when data from an additional test run can be used. Yes. § 63.7( f) ................................... Alternative Test Method ......... Procedures by which Administrator can grant approval to use an alternative test method. Yes. § 63.7( g) .................................. 1. Performance Test Data Analysis. a. Must include raw data in performance test report ............... Yes. b. Must submit performance test data 60 days after end of test with the Notification of Compliance Status. Yes. c. Keep data for 5 years .......................................................... Yes. § 63.7( h) .................................. Waiver of Tests ...................... Procedures for Administrator to waive performance test ........ Yes. § 63.8( a)( 1) .............................. Applicability of Monitoring Requirements Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard ................. Yes. § 63.8( a)( 2) .............................. Performance Specifications .... Performance Specifications in appendix B of part 60 apply ... Yes. § 63.8( a)( 3) .............................. [Reserved]. § 63.8( a)( 4) .............................. Monitoring with Flares ............ Unless your rule says otherwise, the requirements for flares in 63.11 apply. Yes. § 63.8( b)( 1) .............................. Monitoring ............................... Must conduct monitoring according to standard unless Administrator approves alternative. Yes. § 63.8( b)( 2)–( 3) ........................ 1. Multiple Effluents and Multiple Monitoring Systems. a. Specific requirements for installing monitoring systems ..... Yes. b. Must install on each effluent before it is combined and before it is released to the atmosphere unless Administrator approves otherwise. Yes. c. If more than one monitoring system on an emissions point, must report all monitoring system results, unless one monitoring system is a backup. Yes. § 63.8( c)( 1) .............................. Monitoring System Operation and Maintenance. Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices. Yes. § 63.8( c)( 1)( i) ........................... Routine and Predictable SSM Follow the SSM plan for routine repairs. Keep parts for routine repairs readily available. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is described in SSM plan. Yes. § 63.8( c)( 1)( ii) .......................... SSM not in SSMP .................. Reporting requirements for SSM when action is not described in SSM plan. Yes. § 63.8( c)( 1)( iii) ......................... 1. Compliance with Operation and Maintenance Requirements a. How Administrator determines if source complying with operation and maintenance requirements. Yes. b. Review of source O& M procedures, records, Manufacturer's instructions, recommendations, and inspection of monitoring system. Yes. § 63.8( c)( 2)–( 3) ........................ 1. Monitoring System Installation a. Must install to get representative emissions and parameter measurements. Yes. b. Must verify operational status before or at performance test. Yes. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49451 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 13 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG— Continued Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart GGGGG § 63.8( c)( 4) .............................. Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Requirements. CMS must be operating except during breakdown, out­ ofcontrol repair, maintenance, and high­ level calibration drifts. No. § 63.8( c)( 4)( i)–( ii) ..................... Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Requirements. COMS must have a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analysis for each successive 10­ second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6­ minute period CEMS must have a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15­ minute period. Yes. However, COMS are not applicable Requirements for CPMS are listed §§ 63.7900 and 63.7913. § 63.8( c)( 5) .............................. COMS Minimum Procedures .. COMS minimum procedures .................................................... No. § 63.8( c)( 6) .............................. CMS Requirements ................ Zero and High level calibration check requirements ............... Yes. However requirements for CPMS are addressed in §§ 63.7900 and 63.7913. § 63.8( c)( 7)–( 8) ........................ CMS Requirements ................ Out­ of­ control periods, including reporting ............................... Yes. § 63.8( d) .................................. CMS Quality Control ............... Requirements for CMS quality control, including calibration, etc. Must keep quality control plan on record for 5 years. Keep old versions for 5 years after revisions. Yes. § 63.8( e) .................................. CMS Performance Evaluation Notification, performance evaluation test plan, reports ........... Yes. § 63.8( f)( 1)–( 5) ......................... Alternative Monitoring Method Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative monitoring Yes. § 63.8( f)( 6) ............................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test. Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative relative accuracy tests for CEMS. No. § 63.8( g)( 1)–( 4) ........................ Data Reduction ....................... COMS 60­ minute averages Calculated over at least 36 evenly spaced data points. CEMS 1­ hour averages computed over at least 4 equally spaced data points. Yes. However, COMS are not applicable Requirements for CPMS are addressed in §§ 63.7900 and 63.7913. § 63.8( g)( 5) .............................. Data Reduction ....................... Data that can't be used in computing averages for CEMS and COMS. No. § 63.9( a) .................................. Notification Requirements ...... Applicability and State Delegation ........................................... Yes. § 63.9( b)( 1)–( 5) ........................ 1. Initial Notifications .............. a. Submit notification 120 days after effective date. ............... Yes. b. Notification of intent to construct/ reconstruct; Notification of commencement of construct/ reconstruct; Notification of startup. Yes. c. Contents of each .................................................................. Yes. § 63.9( c) .................................. Request for Compliance Extension Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed BACT/ LAER. Yes. § 63.9( d) .................................. Notification of Special Compliance Requirements for New Source. For sources that commence construction between proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3 years after effective date. Yes. § 63.9( e) .................................. Notification of Performance Test. Notify Administrator 60 days prior ........................................... Yes. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49452 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 13 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG— Continued Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart GGGGG § 63.9( f) ................................... Notification of VE/ Opacity Test Notify Administrator 30 days prior ........................................... No. § 63.9( g) .................................. Additional Notifications When Using CMS. Notification of performance evaluation; notification using COMS data; notification that exceeded criterion for relative accuracy. Yes. However, there are no opacity standards. § 63.9( h)( 1)–( 6) ........................ Notification of Compliance Status. Contents; Due 60 days after end of performance test or other compliance demonstration, except for opacity/ VE, which are due 30 days after; when to submit to Federal vs. State authority. Yes. § 63.9( i) ................................... Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines Procedures for Administrator to approve change in when notifications must be submitted. Yes. § 63.9( j) ................................... Change in Previous Information Must submit within 15 days after the change .......................... Yes. § 63.10( a) ................................ 1. Recordkeeping/ Reporting ... a. Applies to all, unless compliance extension ........................ Yes. b. When to submit to Federal vs. State authority .................... Yes. c. Procedures for owners of more than 1 source .................... Yes. § 63.10( b)( 1) ............................ 1. Recordkeeping/ Reporting ... a. General Requirements ......................................................... Yes.. b. Keep all records readily available ........................................ Yes. c. Keep for 5 years .................................................................. Yes. § 63.10( b)( 2)( i)–( iv) .................. 1. Records related to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. a. Occurrence of each of operation (process equipment) ....... Yes. b. Occurrence of each malfunction of air pollution equipment Yes. c. Maintenance on air pollution control equipment .................. Yes. d. Actions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction ............. Yes. § 63.10( b)( 2)( vi) and (x)–( xi) ... 1. CMS Records ..................... a. Malfunctions, inoperative, out­ of­ control .............................. Yes. b. Calibration checks ................................................................ Yes. c. Adjustments, maintenance ................................................... Yes. § 63.10( b)( 2)( vii)–( ix) ............... 1. Records .............................. a. Measurements to demonstrate compliance with emissions limitations. Yes. b. Performance test, performance evaluation, and visible emissions observation results. Yes. c. Measurements to determine conditions of performance tests and performance evaluations. Yes. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xii) ...................... Records .................................. Records when under waiver .................................................... Yes. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiii) ..................... Records .................................. Records when using alternative to relative accuracy test ....... No. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv) ..................... Records .................................. All documentation supporting Initial Notification and Notification of Compliance Status. Yes. § 63.10( b)( 3) ............................ Records .................................. Applicability Determinations ..................................................... Yes. § 63.10( c) ................................ Records .................................. Additional Records for CMS .................................................... No. § 63.10( d)( 1) ............................ General Reporting Requirements Requirement to report .............................................................. Yes. § 63.10( d)( 2) ............................ Report of Performance Test Results. When to submit to Federal or State authority ......................... Yes. § 63.10( d)( 3) ............................ Reporting Opacity or VE Observations What to report and when ......................................................... No. § 63.10( d)( 4) ............................ Progress Reports .................... Must submit progress reports on schedule if under compliance extension. Yes. § 63.10( d)( 5) ............................ Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports. Contents and submission ......................................................... Yes. VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2 49453 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 13 TO SUBPART GGGGG OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART GGGGG— Continued Citation Subject Brief description Applies to subpart GGGGG § 63.10( e)( 1)–( 2) ..................... Additional CMS Reports ......... Must report results for each CEM on a unit; written copy of performance evaluation; 3 copies of COMS performance evaluation. Yes. However, COMS are not applicable § 63.10( e)( 3) ............................ Reports ................................... Excess Emissions Reports ...................................................... No. § 63.10( e)( 3)( i)–( iii) .................. Reports ................................... Schedule for reporting excess emissions and parameter monitor exceedance (now defined as deviations). No. § 63.10( e)( 3)( iv)–( v) ................. 1. Excess Emissions Reports a. Requirement to revert to quarterly submission if there is an excess emissions and parameter monitor exceedance (now defined as deviations).. No. b. Provision to request semiannual reporting after compliance for one year. No. c. Submit report by 30th day following end of quarter or calendar half. No. d. If there has not been an exceedance or excess emissions (now defined as deviations), report contents is a statement that there have been no deviations. No. § 63.10( e)( 3)( iv)–( v) ................. Excess Emissions Reports ..... Must submit report containing all of the information in § 63.10( c)( 5– 13), § 63.8( c)( 7– 8). No. § 63.10( e)( 3)( vi)–( viii) .............. Excess Emissions Report and Summary Report. Requirements for reporting excess emissions for CMSs (now called deviations). Requires all of the information in § 63.10( c)( 5– 13), § 63.8( c)( 7– 8). No. § 63.10( e)( 4) ............................ Reporting COMS data ............ Must submit COMS data with performance test data ............. No. § 63.10( f) ................................. Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Reporting Procedures for Administrator to waive ..................................... Yes. § 63.11 ..................................... Flares ...................................... Requirements for flares ............................................................ Yes. § 63.12 ..................................... Delegation ............................... State authority to enforce standards ........................................ Yes. § 63.13 ..................................... Addresses ............................... Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests are sent. Yes. § 63.14 ..................................... Incorporation by Reference .... Test methods incorporated by reference ................................. Yes. § 63.15 ..................................... Availability of Information ....... Public and confidential information .......................................... Yes. [FR Doc. 02– 17360 Filed 7– 29– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate Jul< 25> 2002 21: 12 Jul 29, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30JYP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 30JYP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.842499

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0022-0001

Proposed Rule

Federal Implementation Plans Under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington

51802 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules change to the existing approved information collection. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. Drafting Information The principal author of this document was Francis W. Foote, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U. S. Customs Service. However, personnel from other offices participated in its development. List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 12 Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Imports, Prohibited merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Restricted merchandise. Proposed Amendment to the Regulations For the reasons stated above, it is proposed to amend Part 12 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 12) as set forth below. PART 12— SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE 1. The authority citation for Part 12 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 5 U. S. C. 301; 19 U. S. C. 66, 1202 (General Note 23, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624; * * * * * 2. A new center heading and new § 12.145 are added to read as follows: Steel Products § 12.145 Entry of certain steel products. Except in the case of merchandise that is eligible for informal entry under § 143.21 of this chapter, in any case in which a steel import license number is required to be obtained under regulations promulgated by the U. S. Department of Commerce, that license number must be included on the entry summary, Customs Form 7501, or on an electronic equivalent. Robert C. Bonner, Commissioner of Customs. Approved: August 6, 2002. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. [FR Doc. 02– 20165 Filed 8– 8– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 4820– 02– P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 630 [FHWA Docket No. FHWA– 2001– 11130] RIN 2125– AE29 Work Zone Safety AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: The FHWA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on February 6, 2002 (67 FR 5532), to obtain comments on the current work zone safety regulation. The purpose of the ANPRM was to seek comments regarding improvements that can be made to its regulation on Traffic Safety in Highway and Street Work Zones to better address work zone mobility and safety concerns. On June 6, 2002, the comment period closed, and the FHWA began to analyze the comments provided. This meeting is being held to highlight the reasons for the ANPRM, present a summary of the comments received, and discuss, based on the comments received, the possible impacts that a rulemaking might have on the current regulation. DATES: The meetings will be held Thursday, August 29, Thursday, September 19, and Wednesday, September 25, 2002 from 10: 00 to 2: 00 p. m. ADDRESSES: Cambridge Systematics, 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Telephone: (301) 347– 0100 and Fax: (301) 347– 0101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Materials associated with this meeting may be examined at the office of Cambridge Systematics, 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Persons needing further information or who request to speak at this meeting should contact Mike Harris at PB Farradyne, Inc. by telephone at (703) 742– 5759 or by Fax at (703) 742– 5989. The U. S. DOT contact is Scott Battles, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D. C. 20590, (202) 366– 4372. Office hours are from 7: 45 a. m. to 4: 15 p. m., e. t., Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded by using a computer, modem, and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512– 1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http:// www. nara. gov/ fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web site at http:// www. access. gpo. gov. Authority: 23 U. S. C. 106, 109, 115, 315, 320, and 402( a); 23 CFR 1.32; 49 CFR 1.48; sec. 1051, Pub. L. 102– 240, 105 Stat. 2001; sec. 358( b), Pub. L. 104– 59, 109 Stat. 625. Issued on: August 6, 2002. Gary E. Maring, Director, Office of Freight Management and Operations. [FR Doc. 02– 20249 Filed 8– 8– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 4910– 22– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 49 [Docket #: A– 2000– 25; FRL– 7254– 3] RIN 2012– AA01 Federal Implementation Plans Under the Clean Air Act for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; notice to re­ open the public comment period and to hold a public hearing. SUMMARY: Today, EPA is re­ opening the public comment period on EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking `` Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for Indian Reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, '' published March 15, 2002 at 67 FR 11748. The original 90­ day public comment period closed on June 13, 2002 but several commenters requested additional time to provide comments on the proposal and one commenter requested a public hearing. In response to these requests, EPA will re­ open the comment period and provide an additional 60 days for interested and affected parties to submit comments. The new comment period will close on October 10, 2002. In addition, EPA will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed rule on September 10, 2002, beginning at 7 p. m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) at the Liberty Theater in Toppenish, WA. All comments received by EPA during the public comment period will be considered in the final rulemaking. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received or postmarked no later than October 10, 2002. Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held on September 10, 2002, beginning at 7 p. m. PDT at the Liberty Theater in VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 16: 57 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP1. SGM pfrm20 PsN: 09AUP1 51803 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules Toppenish, WA. Additional requests for a public hearing must be received by EPA no later than August 23, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be addressed to: David Bray, Office of Air Quality (OAQ– 107), U. S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101– 1128. Comments may also be submitted by email to `` bray. dave@ epa. gov. '' Please cite the administrative docket, #A– 2000– 25, upon which you are providing comment. Public Hearing. The hearing on September 20, 2002 will take place at 7 p. m. PDT at the Liberty Theater, 211 S. Toppenish Avenue, Toppenish, WA. Docket. Docket A– 2000– 25, containing all information supporting this action is available for public inspection and copying between 8: 30 a. m. and 5: 30 p. m. Eastern Daylight Time at EPA's Central Docket Section, Office of Air and Radiation, Room 1500 (M– 6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. EPA's Central Docket Section is scheduled to move between August 12 and August 27, and material will not be available for viewing in Washington, DC, during this time. After August 27, 2002, the docket will be available for public inspection and copying between 8: 30 a. m. and 5: 30 p. m. Eastern Daylight Time at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T, Washington DC 20460. The docket is also available between 8: 30 a. m. and 3: 30 p. m. PDT at EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 10th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. A reasonable fee may be charged for copies. A copy of the March 15, 2002 proposed rule and all comments submitted as of June 13, 2002, are available at the Toppenish Library, 1 South Elm, Toppenish, WA 98948 during regular library hours. Web site. Information on this proposed rulemaking is also available on EPA Region 10's Web site at: www. epa. gov/ r10earth/ tribalairrules. htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Bray, Office of Air Quality (OAQ– 107), U. S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101– 1128, (206) 553– 4253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 15, 2002 (67 FR 11748), EPA solicited public comment on its proposal to promulgate Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for 39 Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The FIPs would include basic air quality regulations for the protection of communities on those Indian reservations. These rules would be implemented and enforced by EPA. EPA received requests to extend the public comment period to allow more time to review the proposal and to prepare comments. EPA also received a request on behalf of the residents of the Yakama Indian Reservation to hold a public hearing. As a result of the requests to extend the public comment period, EPA is reopening the comment period for 60 days. All comments received or postmarked by October 10, 2002 will be considered in the development of a final rule. A copy of all comments, including the requests to extend the public comment period, have been placed into the docket and may be reviewed during normal business hours at the locations listed above. Interested parties are invited to comment on all aspects of EPA's March 15, 2002 proposal. Comments should be addressed to David Bray at the address listed above. EPA also invites interested parties to provide comments at a public hearing to be held on September 10, 2002 at 7 p. m. PDT at the Liberty Theater in Toppenish, WA. Dated: July 24, 2002. L. John Iani, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 02– 19440 Filed 8– 8– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [NC93– 200122a; FRL– 7206– 8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans North Carolina: Approval of Revisions to The Open Burning Regulations Within the Forsyth County Local Implementation Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) revision submitted by the Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, through the State of North Carolina, for the purpose of amending regulations relating to open burning, transportation conformity, and the general provisions section of the Air Quality Permits subchapter. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the Forsyth county LIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no significant, material, and adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 9, 2002. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Randy Terry at the EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 8960. Copies of the State submittal( s) are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 8960. Randy Terry, 404/ 562– 9032. Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, 537 North Spruce Street, Winston­ Salem, North Carolina 27101. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy B. Terry at 404/ 562– 9032, or by electronic mail at terry. randy@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules section of this Federal Register. Dated: April 1, 2002. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 02– 20226 Filed 8– 8– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [FRL– 7256– 6] Rhode Island: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 16: 57 Aug 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09AUP1. SGM pfrm20 PsN: 09AUP1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.887643

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0023-0001

Proposed Rule

Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees for: Light-Duty Vehicles; Light-Duty Trucks; Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Engines; Nonroad Engines and Motorcycles; Proposed Rule

Wednesday, August 7, 2002 Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 85 and 86 Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees for: Light­ Duty Vehicles; Light­ Duty Trucks; Heavy­ Duty Vehicles and Engines; Nonroad Engines and Motorcycles; Proposed Rule VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51402 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 85 and 86 [AMS– FRL– 7250– 1] RIN 2060– AJ62 Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees for: Light­ Duty Vehicles; Light­ Duty Trucks; Heavy­ Duty Vehicles and Engines; Nonroad Engines; and Motorcycles AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Today's action proposes to update the current Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program (MVECP) fees regulation under which fees are collected for certification and compliance activities related to lightduty vehicles and trucks, heavy­ duty highway vehicles and engines, and highway motorcycles. Today's action proposes to update the fees regulations to reflect increased costs of administering the compliance programs already covered within the existing MVECP fee program. In addition, EPA is proposing to add a fee program for the nonroad compliance programs that have been implemented since the initial MVECP fees regulation including certain nonroad compression ignition, locomotive, and small spark ignition engines. EPA is also proposing to add a fee program for other nonroad categories including recreational vehicles (including snowmobiles, off­ road motorcycles and all­ terrain vehicles), recreational marine compression ignition engines and the remaining nonroad large spark ignition engines (engines over 37 kW) compliance programs for which emission standards have been proposed but not yet finalized. Also included in this proposal are fees for marine spark ignition/ inboard sterndrive engines; the emission standards for these engines are under development but not yet proposed. DATES: Comments: Send written comments on this document by October 19,2002. Hearings: We will hold a public hearing on September 19, 2002. The hearing will begin at 10 a. m. and continue until all testimony has been presented. If you want to testify at the hearing, notify either contact person below by September 12, 2002. See Section VII. A. and B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document for more information about public hearings and comment procedures. ADDRESSES: Comments: You may send written comments in paper form or by e­ mail. We must receive them by the date indicated under DATES above. Send paper copies of written comments (in duplicate, if possible) to either contact person listed below or by e­ mail to `` otaqfees@ epa. gov''. In your correspondence, refer to Docket A– 2001– 09. EPA's air docket makes materials related to this rulemaking available for review in EPA Air Docket No. A– 2001– 09. Until August 26, 2002, the docket is located at The Air Docket, 401 M. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, and may be viewed in room M1500 between 8 a. m. and 5: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday. The telephone number is (202) 260– 7548 and the facsimile number is (202) 260– 4400. After August 26, 2002, the Air Docket will be located at room B– 108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket material. Hearings: We will hold a public hearing at the Towsley Auditorium, Morris Lawrence Building, Washtenaw Community College, Ann Arbor, MI. See Section VII. A. and B. for more information about public hearings and comment procedures. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Sohacki, Certification and Compliance Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, Telephone 734– 214– 4851, Internet e­ mail `` sohacki. lynn@ epa. gov, '' or Trina D. Vallion, 734– 214– 4449, Internet e­ mail `` vallion. trina@ epa. gov. '' SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which manufacture or seek certification (`` manufacturer'' or `` manufacturers'') of new motor vehicles and engines (including both highway and nonroad). The table below shows the category, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes and examples of the regulated entities: Category NAICS Codes 1 SIC Codes 2 Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry ................................................................. 333111 3523 Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 333112 3524 Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 333120 3531 Construction Machinery Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 333131 3532 Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 333132 3533 Oil & Gas Field Machinery. Industry ................................................................. 333210 3553 Sawmill & Woodworking Machinery. Industry ................................................................. 333924 3537 Industrial Truck, Tractor, Trailer, and Stacker Machinery Manufacturing Industry ................................................................. 333991 3546 Power Driven Handtool Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 336111 3711 Automotive and Light­ Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 336120 3711 Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 336213 3716 Motor Home Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 336311 3592 Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing Industry ................................................................. 336312 3714 Gasoline Engine & Engine Parts Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 336991 3751 Motorcycle, Bicycle, and Parts Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 336211 3711 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 333618 3519 Gasoline, Diesel & dual­ fuel engine Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 811310 7699 Commercial & Industrial Engine Repair and Maintenance. Industry ................................................................. 336999 3799 Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing. Industry ................................................................. 421110 .................... Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Parts. Industry ................................................................. 333612 3566 Speed Changer, Industrial High­ speed Drive and Gear Manufacturing Industry ................................................................. 333613 3568 Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51403 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Nonroad engines are defined in 40 CFR 89.2. It is a general term which encompasses all the regulated subclasses including, but not limited to, both CI and SI engines used in: farm and construction equipment, marine applications, recreation applications, and locomotives. 2 Manufacturer, as used in this NPRM, means all entities or individuals requesting certification, including, but not limited to, Original Equipment Manufacturers, ICIs, and vehicle or engine converters. Category NAICS Codes 1 SIC Codes 2 Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry ................................................................. 333618 3519 Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing. 1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 2 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this proposed action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your product would be regulated by this proposed action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 86, 89, 90, 91, 92 and 94; also parts 1045, 1048, and 1051 when those Parts are finalized. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular product, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Obtaining Rulemaking Documents Through the Internet The preamble and regulatory language of today's proposal, and the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Cost Analysis document (which is an explanation how we determined EPA's costs to conduct the MVECP and the proposed fees to cover the program) are also available electronically from the EPA Internet Web site. This service is free of charge. The official EPA version is made available on the day of publication on the primary Web site listed below. The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality also publishes these notices on the secondary Web site listed below. (1) http:// www. epa. gov/ docs/ fedrgstr/ EPA– AIR/ (either select desired date or use Search feature) (2) http:// www. epa. gov/ OTAQ/ (look in `` What's New'' or under the specific rulemaking topic) Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the document and the software into which the document may be downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur. Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Overview B. What Programs Are Covered by the Fees? II. Background A. Basis for Action under the Clean Air Act and Other Legal Authority B. How Do EPA's Compliance Programs Work? C. How Does this Rulemaking Affect the Proposed Recreational Vehicles Rule and Future Rules? D. How Does the Fuel Economy Program Work? III. Proposed Fee System A. What Agency Costs Are Recoverable by Fees? B. What OTAQ Activities Are Not Included in the Agency's Proposed Fee Program? C. How did the Agency Analyze the Costs of the Compliance Programs? D. Proposed Fee Schedule E. Will the Fees Automatically Increase to Reflect Future Inflation? F. Comments on the Proposed Fee System IV. Fee Collection and Transactions A. Procedure for Paying Fees B. What is the Implementation Schedule for Fees? C. What Happens to the Money That Is Collected by the Fees Program? D. Can I Qualify for a Reduced Fee? E. What Is the Refund Policy? V. What Other Options Were Considered by EPA When Proposing this Rule? A. Separate Fees for Other ICI Categories Beyond Light­ Duty B. Start Updating Fees for Cost of Inflation in 2004 Model Year VI. What Is the Economic Impact of this Proposed Rule? VII. How Can I Participate in the Rulemaking Process? A. How to Make Comments and Use the Public Docket B. Public Hearings VIII. What are the Administrative Requirements for this Proposal? A. Executive Order 12866: Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act F. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects I. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments I. Introduction A. Overview EPA is proposing to update the current MVECP fees regulation which assesses fees for the EPA's certification and compliance activities related to highway vehicles and engines and to incorporate new fees for certification and compliance activities related to nonroad 1 engines. Currently, fees are collected for certification and compliance activities related to lightduty vehicles and trucks, heavy­ duty highway vehicles and engines, and highway motorcycles. Today's action proposes to update the fees regulations to reflect the increased costs of administering the compliance programs already covered within the existing MVECP fee program and to add a fee program for the nonroad compliance programs we have implemented since the initial MVECP fees regulation including nonroad compression ignition, marine spark ignition outboard/ personal­ water­ craft, locomotive, and small spark ignition (less than or equal to 19 kW) engines. We are also proposing to add a fee program for recreational vehicles (including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, off­ road motorcycles and all terrain vehicles), recreational marine compression ignition engines and large spark ignition nonroad engines (over 19 kW) compliance programs. Also included in this proposal are fees for marine spark ignition/ inboardsterndrive engines. Hence, under this new proposal all manufacturers and Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) of light­ duty vehicles (LDVs), light­ duty trucks (LDTs), heavy­ duty vehicles (HDVs), heavy­ duty highway engines (HDEs), nonroad spark and compression ignition engines (NR), marine compression and spark ignition engines (including recreational applications), locomotives, highway and off­ road motorcycles (MCs), and recreational vehicles would be subject to fees. Table II– B. 1 below lists the vehicle and engine classes that are affected by today's proposed action. A certificate of conformity is generally required when a manufacturer 2 decides to market new vehicles or engines in the United States (see discussion below for complete discussion of when a certificate of conformity is required). VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51404 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules 3 Part C of the CAA, as amended, pertains to Clean Fuel Vehicles. 4 A certification request is defined as a manufacturer's request for certification evidenced by the submission of an application for certification, Engine System Information (ESI) data sheet, or ICI Carry­ Over data sheet. Before issuing that certificate, EPA must perform certain activities necessary to ensure compliance with regulations implemented within the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program (MVECP). The MVECP includes all activities conducted by EPA that are associated with certification, fuel economy, Selective Enforcement Auditing (SEA), and in­ use compliance monitoring and audits. Such MVECP activities include: Providing certification assistance during the preproduction phase; pre­ certification confirmatory testing of vehicles; laboratory correlation; certification compliance audits and investigations; conducting fuel economy selection, testing, and labeling; selective enforcement audits (SEA); providing manufacturers and ICIs with CAFE calculations; monitoring of in­ use vehicles and engines; monitoring/ data review of mandatory production line (PLT) and in­ use testing; and Agencyrun in­ use surveillance and/ or recall tests. In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA), and the Independent Office of Appropriations Act (IOAA), EPA is authorized to collect fees for specific services it provides to manufacturers. Section 217 of the CAA (42 U. S. C. 7552) permits the EPA to establish fees to recover all reasonable costs associated with (1) new vehicle or engine certification under section 206( a) or part C, 3 (2) new vehicle or engine compliance monitoring and testing under section 206( b) or part C, and (3) in­ use vehicle or engine compliance monitoring under section 207( c) or part C. Secondly, the authority to collect fees is also provided by the IOAA (31 U. S. C. 9701) which permits a government agency to establish fees for a service or thing of value provided by the agency to an identifiable recipient. Finally, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A– 25 Revised, establishes Federal policy regarding fees assessed for Government services and for the sale or use of Government goods or resources and provides guidance for agency implementation of charges and the deposition of collections. The MVECP fees have been in existence since 1992. The first fees regulations (57 FR 30055) were published on July 7, 1992, establishing MVECP fees to recover all reasonable costs associated with certification and compliance programs within the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), then called Office of Mobile Sources (OMS). In 1999, under the Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000) regulations (64 FR 23906), the provisions for fees were updated to reflect several changes in the costs of the MVECP. The fees regulations were further modified by a regulatory amendment published on March 7, 2000 (65 FR 11904). This amendment, which is applicable to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and aftermarket conversion manufacturers, allows a fee waiver for small volume engine families of alternatively fueled vehicles that are certified to the Clean­ Fuel Vehicle standards for model years (MY) 2000 through 2003. Since the initial MVECP fees regulation, EPA has incurred additional costs and will continue to incur cost in supporting these current light­ duty and heavy­ duty compliance programs (including Tier 2 and new heavy­ duty engine regulations), and new compliance programs and testing requirements for nonroad. Today's action proposes to update the MVECP fee provisions to reflect these changes. Manufacturers receive certification and compliance services by initiating a certification request and an application for certification. 4 By determining the EPA activities and associated costs within the MVECP, we calculated a fee for each certification request type. The certification request types are described in more detail later in this proposal. Each request for a certificate of conformity within a certification request type is potentially subject to an equal amount of EPA expenditure related to the applicable certification, fuel economy, SEA, and in­ use compliance monitoring and audit programs, thus EPA believes it is fair and equitable to calculate fees in a manner whereby the cost for each certificate within a certification request type is the same. In summary, today we are proposing to collect fees under the authority of the IOAA and section 217 of the CAA to ensure that the MVECP is self­ sustaining to the extent possible. In essence, this proposed regulation will require those manufacturers specially benefitting from the services provided under the MVECP to bear the EPA's cost of administering the program on their behalf. B. What Programs Are Covered by the Fees? EPA has a number of different services it provides under the MVECP. Under the MVECP, fees are collected to recover the cost of services associated with: (1) New vehicle or engine certification; (2) new vehicle or engine compliance monitoring (including selective enforcement auditing (SEA) and production line testing (PLT)); (3) in­ use vehicle or engine compliance monitoring and testing; and (4) the fuel economy program. These services include: pre­ production certification assistance; confirmatory testing of vehicles; laboratory correlation; certification compliance audits and investigations; conducting fuel economy selection, testing, and labeling; selective enforcement audits (SEA); providing manufacturers and ICIs with CAFE ´ calculations; monitoring of in­ use vehicles and engines; monitoring/ data review of mandatory production line and in­ use testing; and Agency­ run inuse surveillance and/ or recall tests. The proposed fees reflect the cost of these activities. In addition to those services just mentioned, EPA also conducts activities for which a fee is not being proposed at this time. These activities include regulation development and policy, emission factors determination, air quality assessment and analysis, air quality initiatives, and support of state inspection and maintenance (I/ M) programs. Under the currentMVECP fees regulation these activities are not covered. II. Background A. Basis for Action Under the Clean Air Act and Other Legal Authority We are amending current fees and setting new fees within the MVECP fees regulation under the authority of section 217 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is authorized under section 217 of the CAA, as amended by Public Law 101– 549, section 225, to establish fees for specific services it provides to vehicle and engine manufacturers. The CAA provides in pertinent part: (a) Fee Collection.— Consistent with section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, the Administrator may promulgate (and from time to time revise) regulations establishing fees to recover all reasonable costs to the Administrator associated with— (1) New vehicle or engine certification under section 206( a) or part C, (2) New vehicle or engine compliance monitoring and testing under section 206( b) or part C, and (3) In­ use vehicle or engine compliance monitoring and testing under section 207( c) or part C; The Administrator may establish for all foreign and domestic manufacturers a fee schedule based on such factors as the Administrator finds appropriate and equitable and nondiscriminatory, VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51405 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules 5 See http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ omb/ circulars/ a025/ a025. html the text of which is also contained in the EPA Air Docket No. A– 2001– 09. 6 See 57 FR 30055 (July 7, 1992). 7 See Engine Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 20 F. 3d 1177 (D. C. Cir. 1994). 8 42 U. S. C. 7547. including the number of vehicles or engines produced under a certificate of conformity. In the case of heavy­ duty and vehicle manufacturers, fees shall not exceed a reasonable amount to recover an appropriate portion of such reasonable costs. EPA is also authorized under the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 to establish fees for Government services and things of value that it provides. This provision, originally designated as 31 U. S. C. 483( a), was codified into law on September 13, 1982, at 31 U. S. C. 9701. This provision encourages Federal regulatory agencies to recover, to the fullest extent possible, costs provided to identifiable recipients. The relevant text states: (a) It is the sense of Congress that each service or thing of value provided by an agency * * * to a person * * * is to be self­ sustaining to the extent possible. (b) The head of an agency * * * may prescribe regulations establishing the charge for a service or thing of value provided by the agency. Regulations prescribed by the heads of executive agencies are subject to policies prescribed by the President and shall be uniform as practicable. Each charge shall be— (1) Fair; and (2) Based on— (A) Costs to the Government; (B) The value of the service or thing to the recipient; (C) Public policy or interest served; and (D) Other relevant facts. EPA also intends to follow, and is guided by, the Office of Management and Budget's Circular No. A– 25 (Revised), 5 which establishes Federal policy regarding fees assessed for Government services and for the sale or use of Government goods or resources and was issued under the authority of the IOAA. Included in the Circular's objectives are ensuring that each service provided by an agency to a specific recipient be self­ sustaining, and to promote the efficient allocation of the Nation's resources by establishing charges for special benefits provided to a recipient that are at least as great as costs to the Government of providing the special benefits. Subsequent to EPA's initial rulemaking that set forth the fees for the MVECP, 6 the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit, upon reviewing EPA's authority to collect fees under the IOAA and section 217, held that for the regulated industry, a certificate of conformity is deemed a benefit specific to the recipient, for purposes of the provision of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (IOAA); thus authorizing a federal agency to collect fees from a beneficiary of service or thing of value the federal agency provides in order to make the service self­ sustaining to the extent possible. 7 The court held that because the Compliance Program confers a specific, private benefit upon the manufacturers, the EPA can lawfully recoup from them the reasonable cost of the program. Court decisions have also provided guidance on the criteria to be used in implementing fee schedules under the IOAA when user fees are being charged for special benefits. See National Cable Television Ass'n v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 554 F. 2d 1094 (D. C. Cir. 1976); Electronic Industries Association v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 554 F. 2d 1109 (D. C. Cir. 1976); and Capital Cities Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 554 F. 2d 1135 (D. C. Cir. 1976). These decisions indicate the following factors are relevant in developing a fee program: 1. An agency may impose a reasonable charge on recipients for an amount of work from which the recipients benefit. The fees must be for specific services to specific persons. 2. The fees may not exceed the cost to the agency in rendering the service. 3. An agency may recover the full cost of providing a service to an identifiable beneficiary regardless of the incidental public benefits which may flow from the service. An agency, when it proposes a fee pursuant to the IOAA to recover special benefits, should also address the following matters set out in Electronic Industries Ass'n v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 554 F. 2d at 1117: 1. The agency must justify the assessment of a fee by a clear statement of the particular service or benefit for which it seeks reimbursement. 2. The agency must calculate the cost basis for each fee by: a. Allocating specific expenses of the cost basis of the fee to the smallest practical unit; b. Excluding expenses that serve an independent public interest; and c. Providing public explanation of the specific expenses included in the cost basis for a particular fee, and an explanation of the criteria used to include or exclude a particular item. 3. The fee must be set to return the cost basis at a rate that reasonably reflects the cost of the services performed and valued conferred on the payor. As detailed in today's proposal and in the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Cost Analysis, EPA believes it has fulfilled all of these aims in developing this proposal. EPA believes that all the fees included in this proposal are justified based on the tests for fee recovery relating to special benefits applicable under IOAA. In addition, EPA believes that CAA section 217 gives EPA additional support for imposing fees for the programs specified in that section. Section 217 authorizes EPA to establish fees ``[ c] onsistent'' with the IOAA `` to recover all reasonable costs to the Administrator associated'' with certification, SEA testing and in­ use compliance programs. This section establishes Congress' position that the specified programs provide the type of benefit and have the type of costs that are appropriately recoverable under the IOAA. In addition to collecting fees for new highway vehicles and engines, EPA believes section 217 also authorizes the collection of fees for EPA certification and compliance activities related to new nonroad vehicles and engines. As noted above, section 217 sets forth the authority for EPA to collect fees for: new vehicle or engine certification activities conducted under section 206( a) of the CAA, new vehicle or engine compliance monitoring and testing under section 206( b) of the CAA (including such activities as SEA and PLT testing), and in­ use vehicle or engine compliance monitoring and testing under section 207( c) of the CAA. Section 213 of the CAA 8 creates a statutory program which mirrors that Congress created for the regulation of new highway vehicles and engines. The nonroad standards created under section 213 are in fact subject to the same requirements (e. g., sections 206, 207, 208, and 209) and implemented in the same manner (including certification, SEA, and in­ use testing) under the same sections (as those referenced in section 217) as regulations for new highway vehicles and engines under section 202 (with modifications to the implementing nonroad regulations as the Administrator deems appropriate). Therefore, because EPA's certification and compliance activities related to new nonroad vehicles and engines are VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51406 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules 9 CAA Sec. 213( d) requires that the standards for nonroad engines or vehicles under Sec. 213 be enforced in the same manner as standards prescribed under section 202. As such, EPA applies the provisions of Sec. 203 to nonroad vehicles and engines. 10 See CAA Sec. 202( b)( 3). It is also defined in the applicable Title 40 regulations for the applicable class of vehicle or engine covered. pursuant to sections 206 and 207 and because the text of section 217 authorizes the collection of fees for activities under such sections without limiting it to new highway vehicles and engines, EPA believes collecting fees for new nonroad vehicles and engines certification and compliance activities under section 217 is appropriate as an additional compliance requirement. EPA also believes that the IOAA creates an additional and independent authority for EPA to collect such fees due to the same special and unique benefits that manufacturers of both new highway and nonroad vehicle and engine manufacturers receive from EPA under the certification and compliance services. Moreover, by providing authority to recover `` all reasonable costs * * * associated'' with the programs, Congress has given EPA authority to impose fees on a basis that can extend beyond the specific criteria used in interpreting the IOAA. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. United States, 846 F. 2d 765 (DC Cir. 1988), cert denied, 109 S. Ct. 1952 (1989). If any commenters believe that any fee proposed by EPA for recovery for the programs identified in CAA section 217 is not recoverable under the IOAA, the commenters are requested to discuss whether, in their view, the fees would be recoverable under the `` all reasonable costs associated'' test found in section 217 and should do so in light of the court decision noted above. Additionally, if any commenters believe that any fee proposed by EPA for recovery is not identified or authorized by section 217, the commenters are requested to identify which portions of the fee program are not identified or authorized and why the provisions of the IOAA would not provide such authorization. As noted in more detail in the reduced fee section of today's preamble, EPA also believes that section 217 and the IOAA allow the Agency to set fees for specific small volume engine families and invites comments on this as well. B. How Do EPA's Compliance Programs Work? Certification Section 203( a) 9 of the CAA requires that a manufacturer of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines obtain a certificate of conformity prior to the distribution into commerce, sale, or offering for sale, or the introduction, or delivery for introduction, into commerce, within the United States of such new motor vehicles or engines. The certificate of conformity covers a defined group of vehicles or engines and has a specified duration referred to as the model year (MY). `` Model year'' is defined in the CAA 10 to be the manufacturer's annual production period (as determined by the Administrator) which includes January 1 of the calendar year. If the manufacturer has no annual production period, the term `` model year'' means the calendar year. For some industries, such as the light duty vehicle industry, the model year typically begins before the calendar year; for example, the 2003 model year might run from August 1, 2002 to July 31, 2003. For other industries it is synonymous with the calendar year and runs from January 1 to December 31. In some cases a model year may be longer than twelve months. However, in all cases the model year refers to an annual production period. Consequently new certificates must be issued each year. For marine vessels covered under the voluntary IMO program, a letter of compliance is issued instead of a certificate of compliance. For purposes of the fee rulemaking, the letter of compliance will be treated the same as a certificate of compliance. In this case a request for certification shall mean a request for the voluntary IMO letter of compliance. Although such letters of compliance are not a requirement under title II of the CAA, EPA believes that it provides special and unique benefits to the manufacturers of marine vessels that seek and receive EPA services in order to receive letters of compliance. As explained above, EPA believes that the IOAA provides the basis by which to collect fees for this activity. As further discussed below, EPA is also considering and inviting comment on whether to finalize fees for industry categories that may not yet have final emission standards regulations, as part of the overall final fees regulation promulgated from today's proposal or to issue such fees requirements at the time the emission standards themselves become final. EPA anticipates promulgating fees for marine vessels covered under the voluntary IMO program as part of final fees regulation associated with today's proposal. The group of vehicles or engines covered by a certificate of conformity is called either an `` engine family'' or a `` test group'' depending on the applicable class of vehicles or engines. While the terminology changes between classes, the basic certification unit (or group) is designed to accomplish the same purpose. Only vehicles or engines which are expected to exhibit similar emission characteristics and deterioration are combined together into a single group. Table II. B– 1, below, summarizes the name of these basic certification groups, the location of the general certification and compliance program rules, and the typical number of certificates which are issued for each class of vehicles and engines covered by this proposal. The number of certificates in the following table are projections. If there is a certification program currently active for the class, the number of certificates are based on latest actual numbers. For other industries, the number of certificates is based on projections gathered from the discussions with manufacturers and information presented when the Agency proposed and/ or finalized the rules pertaining to the industry. TABLE II. B– 1.— CLASSES OF CERTIFICATES, THEIR UNIT, NUMBER OF CERTIFICATES AND REGULATIONS Class of vehicles/ engines Basic certification unit Number of certs Location or future location of general certification regulations Light Duty Vehicles & Trucks (LD) .................................... Test Group ......................................... 411 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart S. Highway motorcycles (MC) ................................................ Engine Family ..................................... 174 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart E Heavy­ duty Highway Engines ............................................ Engine Family ..................................... 130 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart A. Nonroad CI Engines ........................................................... Engine Family ..................................... 603 40 CFR Part 89. Heavy­ duty Vehicle Evap ................................................... Evap Family ........................................ 42 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart M. Marine SI Outboard/ PWC .................................................. Engine Family ..................................... 155 40 CFR Part 91. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51407 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE II. B– 1.— CLASSES OF CERTIFICATES, THEIR UNIT, NUMBER OF CERTIFICATES AND REGULATIONS— Continued Class of vehicles/ engines Basic certification unit Number of certs Location or future location of general certification regulations Marine CI a > 37 kW .......................................................... Engine Family ..................................... 40 40 CFR Part 94. International Maritime Organization b ................................. Engine Family ..................................... 9 Small Nonroad SI ............................................................... Engine Family ..................................... 546 40 CFR Part 90 Locomotives & Locomotive Engines .................................. Engine Family ..................................... 10 40 CFR Part 92. Large Nonroad SI (> 19 kW) c ............................................ Engine Family ..................................... 50 40 CFR Part 1048. Recreational Marine CI> 37 kW c ........................................ Engine Family ..................................... 25 40 CFR Part 94. Marine SI Inboard /Sterndrive d .......................................... Engine Family ..................................... 50 40 CFR Part 1045. Recreational c (including Off­ road MC, ATV's, Snowmobiles Engine Family ..................................... 100 40 CFR Part 1051. ( a The rules for these classes are finalized but not yet implemented; numbers are estimates. ( b The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has established procedures for obtaining a letter of compliance with the MARPOL 73/ 78 Annex 6 which have not yet been ratified by the U. S. A. Manufacturers of such engines may voluntarily comply with these requirements. EPA has agreed to issue a letter of compliance for such manufacturers who voluntarily comply with the MARPOL 73/ 78 Annex 6 emission requirements. ( c The rules for these classes are proposed but not yet finalized; numbers are estimates. ( d The rules for these classes are under development but not yet finalized; numbers are estimates. To obtain a certificate, the manufacturers must perform the required testing and fulfill other requirements specified in the applicable regulations listed in the above table. When the manufacturer has satisfied itself that it has complied with all the requirements, it submits an application for certification for review by the Agency. EPA processes these applications and makes a determination of conformance with the CAA and the applicable regulations. If the vehicle or engine satisfies the prescribed emission standards and otherwise complies with the applicable provisions of the regulations, EPA issues a certificate of conformity for the group (e. g., engine family). The certification process includes, but is not limited to, review of the application for certification, review of the manufacturer's durability and deterioration determination, review of emission­ data for test engine selection, review of the manufacturer's justification that auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) are not defeat devices, and certification request processing and computer support. Other activities related to the certification process include auditing the applicant's testing and data collection procedures, laboratory correlation, and EPA confirmatory testing and compliance inspections and investigations related to certification. The certification program also covers ICI manufacturers review and processing and approval for final importation of vehicles and engines. SEA and PLT EPA conducts new vehicle or engine compliance monitoring in the form of Agency­ conducted Selective Enforcement Audits (SEA) or manufacturer­ conducted production line testing (PLT) programs. The purpose of these programs is to assure that the vehicles that are actually being produced comply with the emission standards. The certification portion of the MVEPC demonstrates that the vehicles are designed to pass the standards for the vehicles' useful life through testing of pre­ production prototype vehicles or engines. The SEA or PLT testing also serves as some additional proof of in­ use compliance for certain programs (where in­ use testing is more difficult) by addressing the prototype to production effects on emissions. SEA activities include the selection and testing of vehicles and engines off the assembly line at various production plants around the world to determine compliance with emission standards. PLT programs require the manufacturer (rather than EPA) to test a percentage of engines as they leave the production line. In either case, if a substantial number of vehicles or engines fail to meet the emission standards the manufacturer could be required to cease production of the failing vehicles until the manufacturer had demonstrated that a new version of the vehicle complied with the standard. The manufacturer may also be required to recall (see discussion below for the meaning of a recall) failing vehicles or engines which have been introduced into commerce. In­ Use Programs EPA further ensures compliance with the CAA through a variety of in­ use testing and in­ use defect investigations. These activities include investigations into potential emission­ related defects vehicles and engines and various types of in­ use compliance programs. In­ use compliance activities ensure that vehicles and engines continue to meet emission standards throughout their useful life. The type of in­ use programs conducted by the Agency vary between the classes of vehicles and engines. These variations contribute to the different fee amounts which the Agency is proposing for different classes. (See Section IV of the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Cost Analysis, available in the docket, for details of how the Agency calculated the fee amounts). In all cases, should the Administrator of EPA determine, by whatever means, that a substantial number of any class or category of vehicles or engines, although properly maintained and used, do not comply with their applicable regulations when in actual use throughout their useful life, the Agency requires the manufacturer to submit a plan to remedy the nonconformity of the vehicles or engines. The implementation of the plan to remedy vehicles is called a recall. The Agency uses data from Selective Enforcement Audits (SEA), manufacturer­ supplied production line testing (PLT), Agency­ run in­ use surveillance and/ or recall tests conducted on a dynamometer and/ or on the road , manufacturer­ run in­ use verification program (IUVP) testing, manufacturer­ run engine testing and manufacturer­ supplied defect reports to evaluate in­ use emissions performance for the various classes of engines and vehicles which are certified. For recall and surveillance testing, the Agency recruits vehicles from their owners and conducts tests either on a dynamometer or on the road using mobile emission measurement equipment. The IUVP program only applies to light­ duty vehicles and medium­ duty passenger vehicles; it requires manufacturers to conduct a specified amount of testing on in­ use vehicles which they procure from VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51408 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules 11 Current CAFE ´ standards are 27.5 mpg for cars and 20.7 mpg for trucks. 12 Current fines are $5.50 per tenth of an mpg beneath the standard multiplied by the total number of vehicles in the fleet average. Manufacturers are allowed to carry­ forward or carry­ back credits up to three years to offset short falls calculated in other years. owners. Defect reporting (DR) generally requires manufacturers to notify the Agency when an emission related defect occurs on more than 25 vehicles or engines in use. The specific programs currently employed by the Agency to assure inuse compliance for the various classes of vehicles and engines are summarized in the following paragraphs. This list is being provided to document the activities considered in the analysis for proposed fees. The Agency may at any time perform other investigations and/ or use other sources of data to make compliance determinations of in use vehicles and engines. The selection of which in­ use tools are used by the Agency for each industry is based on the in­ use compliance needs. Each of the industries are subject to different regulations which establish different requirements. When the applicable regulations require the manufacturer to supply some form of in­ use data, production line data, or aged engine testing; this information makes it easier for the Agency to monitor compliance in actual use. Consequently for those industries the Agency can spend less of its own effort to collect data. For the light­ duty and highway motorcycle programs, the Agency conducts an in­ use surveillance and recall program where individual owner's vehicles are recruited and tested by the Agency. This data is augmented by manufacturer­ run in­ use data to fulfill the requirements of the inuse verification program (IUVP) for light duty vehicles. The Agency also reviews defect reports submitted by the manufacturers for potential in­ use problems. Although there is authority for the Agency to conduct SEA testing, EPA does not currently conduct SEA testing for light­ duty vehicles. For heavy­ duty highway vehicles and nonroad vehicles, the Agency conducts SEAs and on­ the­ road emission measurements of engines installed in inuse vehicles. EPA may also remove engines from heavy­ duty highway and nonroad vehicles for laboratory testing when problems are found using onvehicle measurement equipment. For other classes of engines such as marine SI outboards and personal water craft (PWC), manufacturers are required to age engines in fleets and then perform testing on the engine. C. How Does This Rulemaking Affect the Proposed Recreational Vehicles Rule and Future Rules? We are proposing fees for Large Nonroad SI (> 19 kW), Recreational Marine CI, Marine SI Inboard and Sterndrive engines, Recreational engines (including Off­ Road Motorcycles (MC), All­ terrain Vehicles (ATVs), and Snowmobiles) even though emission regulations currently do not exist for those classes. As discussed previously, the Agency has proposed and is in the process of finalizing emission standards (See 66 FR 51098, (October 10, 2001)) or is in the process of preparing to propose emission standards for these industries. The fees listed in the Table III. D– 1, below, will apply only after the applicable regulations are effective for these classes of engines. The fees are due only when a manufacturer is making a request for certification. We are proposing fees for these classes at this time because enough is known of the anticipated Agency costs for the MVECP for these programs and the projected number of certificates to accurately calculate proposed fees. The fees proposed for these programs represent a reasonable but somewhat conservative and low estimate Agency cost and assume either low levels of EPA monitoring or monitoring through manufacturer­ run PLT and in­ use testing. In the event that the programs for these classes of engines significantly change, the Agency will revise the applicable fee by a separate regulation. Today's proposal of potential fees for these classes in no way prejudges the outcome of the ongoing emission standards rulemakings. D. How Does the Fuel Economy Program Work? The Agency is proposing to continue the current provisions which incorporate the fuel economy program costs into a single fee due at the time of certification for light duty vehicles. The fuel economy program applies to light duty vehicles only. There are three separate programs: fuel economy labeling and Guide publication, gas guzzler tax, and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE ´ ). The fuel economy labeling program is a public information program which is designed to provide the public accurate fuel economy information for comparison purposes. All light duty vehicles are required to have a fuel economy label before they can be introduced into commerce. The label values are also published in the Fuel Economy Guide (a joint publication with the Department of Energy, DOE) and published on the internet on two web sites (http:// www. fueleconomy. gov and http:// www. epa. gov/ autoemissions). EPA reviews manufacturers' testing, conducts confirmatory testing, audits the manufacturers' label calculations, and determines the classification of vehicles. EPA receives approximately 1000 label calculations in a typical model year. The fuel economy label program is mandated by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U. S. C. 620, and is codified in regulations in 40 CFR part 600. The gas guzzler tax program is designed to discourage the purchase of vehicles with particularly poor fuel economy through a tax program administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Vehicles with a combined fuel economy value below 22.5 mpg must pay a tax which starts at the rate of $1000 per vehicle. EPA determines potential gas guzzlers as part of the labeling process; the final determination of the tax liability is made by the IRS. The gas guzzler program is mandated by the Gas Guzzler Tax Law and is codified in regulations in 40 CFR part 600. The CAFE ´ program is designed to reduce fuel consumption, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new light duty vehicles. Manufacturers are required to meet specified average fuel economy values. Separate values are specified for cars and trucks. 11 If manufacturers fail to meet the specified standards they are required to pay a fine. 12 The Department of Transportation (DOT) administers the CAFE ´ program and collects the fines. Many additional vehicle tests are required to calculate the CAFE ´ values. EPA reviews manufacturers' testing and conducts confirmatory testing as necessary. EPA also calculates the CAFE ´ values; typically 50 CAFE ´ are processed each year. The CAFE ´ program is mandated by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U. S. C. 620, and is codified in regulations in 40 CFR part 600. The fuel economy and light­ duty certification program have substantial overlap. Both programs collect fuel economy and emissions data. Emissiondata vehicles provide both emissions and fuel economy data on engine families for which the manufacturer submits a certification request. Further, fuel economy­ data vehicles are tested for emissions and must comply with the emission standards. Only then can the fuel economy data be used in the fuel economy program. Thus, each program generates data to support the other and to support decisions on both VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51409 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules 13 The Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program cost is contained the EPA Air docket No. A– 2001– 09 and is on the EPA OTAQ website. certification and fuel economy. This interrelationship has allowed EPA to streamline the certification program and procedures, thereby minimizing costs directly incurred by the industry as well as by EPA. Every vehicle that is certified must also receive a fuel economy label and will ultimately be included in the CAFE ´ for that manufacturer. For these reasons, it is unnecessary, for fee purposes, to distinguish between the efforts expended on fuel economy and certification. Consequently, the Agency is proposing to continue its current practice of assessing light duty vehicle fees based on certification of test groups and including the costs for the fuel economy activities in that single fee. III. Proposed Fee System A. What Agency Costs Are Recoverable by Fees? Today's notice proposes a fee program to recover those costs incurred by EPA in conducting the MVECP as authorized under the CAA and the IOAA. These costs, incurred by EPA while conducting new vehicle and engine certification which includes EPA precertification testing, certification compliance audits and investigations, fuel economy labeling, CAFE ´ calculations and certificate processing; new vehicle and engine compliance monitoring and testing which includes SEAs and review of manufacturer production line test data; and in­ use vehicle or engine compliance monitoring which includes testing of inuse vehicles and engines, in­ use audits and reviewing manufacturers' in­ use test data. The proposed fees are based on all recoverable direct and indirect costs associated with administering these activities. Recoverable costs include all labor, operating and program costs associated with the activities listed above. Direct labor costs consist of the personnel compensation or pay and benefits for the people that directly administer the MVECP. Indirect labor costs consist of the personnel compensation or pay and benefits for the people that support the employees that directly administer the MVECP. This includes support staff, computer technicians in the lab, managers, etc. Operating costs include all costs for contracts, parts, supplies and infrastructure, excluding labor costs that are used to support the MVECP. Examples of these costs include travel costs, building space, computer support and training for people who work directly on the MVECP. Program Costs are those of specific compliance activities conducted for individual industries. These include the costs of testing either at the NVFEL or at a contracted facility, engine procurement for testing, equipment for testing and equipment used in analyzing the test data. The overall EPA overhead cost is also included in the analysis. The overall EPA overhead costs are costs incurred by other parts of the EPA that support the people working directly on the MVECP. See the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Cost Analysis 13 for further discussion. These costs are all costs of providing a certificate of conformity and the related compliance activities which allows vehicle and engine manufacturers an opportunity to introduce such vehicles and engines into commerce within the United States, and are, therefore, recoverable by fees as stated in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act and the Office of Management and Budget's Circular No. A– 25 discussed in Section II. A above. A more complete description of the agency costs that are recoverable by fees is in the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Cost Analysis, Section III. A. B. What OTAQ Activities Are Not Included in the Agency's Proposed Fee Program? EPA conducts numerous activities related to certification and mobile source air pollution control, in general, for which it is not proposing to charge a fee at this time. These activities include but are not limited to: regulation development, emission factor testing, air quality assessment, support of state inspection and maintenance programs and research. For a more complete description of OTAQ's programs, see Section II. D of the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Cost Analysis. C. How Did the Agency Analyze the Costs of the Compliance Programs? The proposed fees were based on the Agency's projected costs of providing certification and related compliance programs to manufacturers in the 2003 model year. To determine these projected costs, we conducted an indepth analysis and detailed all of the direct and indirect costs incurred by EPA to operate the MVECP. Budget data from 2001 was used as a baseline since it is the most current data available. Cost estimates for future compliance programs are based on estimates for the equipment, labor and contract needs required to support new compliancerelated programs and regulations and was collected through discussions with senior management. The full discussion of the methods and numbers used in the analysis is contained in the `` Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees Cost Analysis. '' EPA determined that by 2003, significant laboratory equipment modernization will be required to satisfactorily test vehicle and engines at the lower emission levels associated with Tier 2 and new diesel engine emission standards. Consequently, an appropriate portion of the cost of this laboratory upgrade ($ 10 million dollars of the total $14 million dollar upgrade) was included in the cost analysis that supports this proposal. The 10 million dollar projected, recoverable cost was amortized over 10 years for an annual cost of 1 million dollars. Refer to the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees Cost Analysis for a complete discussion of the laboratory upgrade costs. EPA is exploring the possibility of a partnership with industry through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) that would fully develop and deploy the National Low Emission Vehicle Compliance/ Correlation Test Site at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory. A CRADA agreement may reduce the cost of the laboratory modernization. In the event the EPA enters into such a CRADA and the agreement results in a significant cost savings, EPA may adjust the fees in a future rulemaking. However, at this time EPA believes it is appropriate to include in the costs to be recovered by today's proposal, those projected actual costs associated with the laboratory equipment modification, as such modification is necessary to conduct the MVECP. Another cost that was projected for 2003 is the cost of a robust highway and nonroad engine compliance program, discussed in more detail in Section V. B of Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Cost Analysis available in the docket. These costs and the laboratory modernization costs were projected for 2003 and are included in the cost study because they will be incurred by the EPA as part of the MVECP in 2003. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51410 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules D. Proposed Fee Schedule Today's action proposes the following fees for each certification request: TABLE III. D– 1— PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE Category Certificate type a Fee LD, excluding ICIs ......................................................................... Fed Certificate ............................................................................. $33,911 LD, excluding ICIs ......................................................................... Cal­ only Certificate ...................................................................... 16,958 MDPV, excluding ICIs ................................................................... Fed Certificate ............................................................................. 33,911 MDPV, excluding ICIs ................................................................... Cal­ only Certificate ...................................................................... 16,958 Complete SI HDVs, excluding ICIs ............................................... Fed Certificate ............................................................................. 33,911 Complete SI HDVs, excluding ICIs ............................................... Cal­ only Certificate ...................................................................... 16,958 ICIs for the following industries: LD, MDPV, or Complete SI HDVs. All Types ...................................................................................... 8,394 MC HW, including ICIs .................................................................. All Types ...................................................................................... 2,416 HD HW, including ICIs .................................................................. Fed Certificate ............................................................................. 30,437 HD HW, including ICIs .................................................................. Cal­ only Certificate ...................................................................... 827 HDV (evap), including ICIs ........................................................... Evap Certificate ........................................................................... 827 NR CI, including ICIs, but excluding Locomotives, Marine and Recreational engines. All Types ...................................................................................... 2,156 NR SI, including ICIs ..................................................................... All Types ...................................................................................... 827 All Marine, including ICIs .............................................................. All Types and IMO ....................................................................... 827 All Recreational b , including ICIs, but excluding marine engines All Types ...................................................................................... 827 Locomotives, including ICIs .......................................................... All Types ...................................................................................... 827 a Fed and Cal­ only Certificate and IMO is defined in 40 CFR 85.2402 b Recreational means the engines subject to 40 CFR 1051 which includes off road motorcycles, all­ terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. The Agency is proposing fees for Large Nonroad SI (> 19 kW), Recreational Marine CI, Marine SI Inboard and Sterndrive engines, Recreational engines (including Off Road MC, ATV's, and Snowmobiles) even though emission regulations currently do not exist for those classes. The Agency has proposed (See 66FR 51098, published on October 5, 2001) or is in the process of proposing regulations for these classes. The fees listed in the above table will apply only after the applicable regulations are effective for these classes of engines. The fees are due only when a manufacturer is making a request for certification. It may be worth noting again, that we are considering whether to finalize the fees for these yet to be regulated industries within the final rule based on today's fee proposal or to finalize the fees associated with these yet to be regulated industries in the emission regulations covering such industries. E. Will the Fees Automatically Increase To Reflect Future Inflation? One factor that could keep EPA from recovering the full cost of conducting the MVECP is inflation. To help mitigate the effects of inflation, the Agency is proposing that fees be automatically adjusted annually by the change in the Consumer Price Index starting with the 2005 model year. The Agency is proposing a formula for manufacturers to use to calculate the applicable calculate beginning with the 2005 model year. Starting with the 2005 model year, fees will be calculated using the following equation: FeesMY = Feesbase × (CPIMY ¥ 2/ CPI2002) Where: FeesMY is the applicable fee for the model year of the certification request. Feesbase is the applicable fee from paragraph (a) of this section. CPIMY ¥ 2 is the consumer price index for all U. S. cities using the `` U. S. city average'' area, `` all items'' and `` not seasonally adjusted'' numbers calculated by the Department of Labor listed for the month of July of the year two years before the model year. (e. g., for the 2005 MY the CPI used in the equation will be calculated based on the date of July, 2003). CPI2002 is the consumer price index for all U. S. cities using the `` U. S. city average'' area, `` all items'' and `` not seasonally adjusted'' numbers calculated by the Department of Labor for December, 2002. The applicable CPI results calculated by the Department of Labor are currently published on the following internet address: http:// stats. bls. gov/ cpihome. htm by choosing the data option link for `` Consumer Price Index— All Urban Consumers (Current Series) '', then selecting `` U. S. city average'' area, `` all items'' and `` not seasonally adjusted''. The Agency invites comment on alternate ways to adjust fees for inflation. As a convenience for manufacturers and to avoid errors in calculation, the Agency intends to provide, via a guidance letter, a listing of applicable fees calculated from the above equation for each model year beginning with the 2005 model year. The Agency invites comments regarding potential procedures for notification of the new fee amounts. F. Comments on the Proposed Fee System The Agency requests comments on the proposed fee system including the `` Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fees Cost Analysis, '' recoverable costs, costs not recovered, the allocation of recoverable costs by compliance industry, and the fees per certificate. Comments can refer to this preamble, the proposed regulations and the cost analysis. IV. Fee Collection and Transactions A. Procedure for Paying Fees Fees must be paid in advance of receiving a certificate. For each certification request, evidenced by an application for certification, ESI data sheet, or ICI Carryover data sheet, manufacturers and ICIs will submit a MVECP Fee Filing Form (filing form) and the appropriate fee in the form of a corporate check, money order, bank draft, certified check, or electronic funds transfer [wire or Automated Clearing House (ACH)], payable in U. S. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51411 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules 14 Typically, this will be the first February 15 after a certificate expires. Certificates generally expire on December 31 of the model year. dollars, to the order of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The filing form and accompanying fee will be sent to the address designated on the filing form. EPA will not be responsible for fees received in other than the designated location. Applicants will continue to submit the application for certification to the National Vehicle and Fuel Emission Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan or to the Engine Programs Group in Washington, DC. To ensure proper identification and handling, the check or electronic funds transfer and the accompanying filing form will indicate the manufacturer's corporate name, the EPA standardized test group or engine family name. The full fee is to accompany the filing form. Partial payments or installment payments will not be permitted. If submitting a wire or an ACH payment the full fee payment does not include the extra fee a banking institution may charge to process the wire or ACH. The Agency invites comment on methods of streamlining the fee payment process while maintaining the requirement that fees are paid in advance of certification services. B. What Is the Implementation Schedule for Fees? The fee schedule proposed today will apply to 2003 and later model year vehicles and engines. This proposal will not apply to 2003 model year certification requests received by EPA prior to the effective date of the regulations, providing that they are complete and include all required data. C. What Happens to the Money That Is Collected by the Fees Program? Any fees collected for administering the MVECP will be deposited in a special fund in the United States Treasury. D. Can I Qualify for a Reduced Fee? EPA believes that an expansive fee reduction policy could violate the very premise underlying section 217 of the CAA: to reimburse the government for the specific regulatory services provided to an applicant. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that there may be instances, in the case of small engine families, where the full proposed fee may represent an unreasonable economic burden. Therefore, EPA is proposing to continue the current two part test which, if met, would qualify an applicant for a reduction of a portion of the certification fee. A reduced fee is available when: (1) The certificate is to be used for the sale of vehicles or engines within the U. S.; and (2) The full fee for the certification request exceeds 1% of the projected aggregate retail value of all vehicles or engines covered by that certificate. The proposed requirement that the certificate request pertain to U. S. vehicle/ engine sales is intended to exclude fee reductions for certificates used to support foreign vehicle or engine sales. This provision is carried over from the current fees rules. These certificates are not required and represent extra effort expended by the Agency beyond that which is mandated in U. S. laws or regulations. Further, the Certificate of Conformity does not distinguish between U. S. and foreign sales, therefore, although the manufacturer's intention may be to certify vehicles for a foreign market, there is nothing to prohibit the sale of these vehicles in the U. S. Consequently, the Agency is proposing that it is inappropriate to reduce the cost of these certificates below the actual cost to the Agency. For the first time EPA is also proposing that the reduced fee will be the larger of 1% of the aggregate retail value of the vehicles and engines covered by the certificate or a minimum fee of $300. The $300 minimum fee represents the lowest level of fee that is cost effective for the Agency to collect and still represents actual costs incurred by the Agency in providing services. As noted below, the Agency is proposing two potential `` pathways'' by which a manufacturer can seek to pay a reduced fee. Under either pathway the minimum that a manufacturer will be required to pay is $300. The Agency invites comment on the concept of a minimum fee and the amount of the minimum fee. The Agency is proposing two separate pathways by which a manufacturer can request and pay a reduced fee amount. One of the purposes of these pathways is to clarify when manufacturers are required to determine the value of the vehicles or engines actually sold under a certificate and to either pay additional fees or seek a refund if necessary. Under the first pathway, the Agency is proposing that manufacturers seeking a reduced fee include in their certification application a statement that the reduced fee is appropriate under the criteria and a calculation of the amount of the reduced fee. The manufacturer's evaluation and submission of a fee amount under this reduced fee provision is subject to EPA review or audit. A manufacturer's statement that it is eligible for a reduced fee can be rejected by EPA if the Agency finds that manufacturer's evaluation does not meet the eligibility requirements for a reduced fee, the amount of the reduced fee was improperly calculated, the manufacturer failed to meet the requirements to calculate a final reduced fee using actual sales data, or the manufacturer failed to pay the net balance due between the initial and final reduce fee calculation (see below for discussion of the final fee calculation, reporting and payment proposals). If the manufacturer's statement of eligibility or request of a reduced fee is rejected by EPA then EPA may require the manufacturer to pay the full fee normally applicable to it or EPA may adjust the amount of the reduced fee that is due or EPA may require the manufacturer to utilize the special fee provisions (the second pathway) which are explained below. To aid our review, the Agency is proposing that the applicant for a reduced fee also provide EPA with a report (called a `` report card''). This report shall include the total number of vehicles ultimately covered by the certificate (the report card shall include information on all certificates held by the manufacturer that were issued with a reduced fee), a calculation of the actual final reduced fee due for each certificate which is derived by adding up the total number of vehicles and their sales prices, a statement of the total initial fees paid by the manufacturer and the total final fees due for the manufacturer. Manufacturers will be required to submit the report card within 30 days of the end of the model year, 14 EPA believes this is reasonable as manufacturers should have final figures for each certificate by this time. Manufacturers will be required to `` true ­up'' or submit the final reduced fee due as calculated within the report card within 45 days of the end of the model year. The Agency is proposing to not require payment of the balance when the amount is less than $500 for a manufacturer. (The Agency requests comment on these special provisions.) In addition, EPA may require that manufacturers submit a report card, with the same or similar information as noted above, for previous model years. The purpose of such report card would be to give EPA assurance that the manufacturer has demonstrated a continuous capability of submitting the necessary year to year report cards and that appropriate fees have been paid. This will assist EPA in its determination as to whether a manufacturer is capable of adequately projecting its annual sales for reduced fee purposes and whether VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51412 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules the manufacturer shall remain eligible for the reduced fee provisions. Under the second pathway, EPA is also proposing special provisions for fee payment that are available for manufacturers which, due to the nature of their business, may be unable to make good estimates of the aggregate projected retail value of all the vehicles or engines to be covered by the requested certificate. Examples of manufacturers that may be unable to estimate the number of vehicles and engines covered by a certificate are those that modify customer­ owned vehicles (as done by some ICIs and aftermarket alternative fuel converters) that are uncertain how many owners will approach them to perform this service. Under the special provisions, manufacturers that obtain prior approval from the Agency may pay 1.0% of the retail selling price of 5 vehicles, engines or conversions when applying for a certificate. Manufacturers under this pathway will be required to submit the same report card and true­ up the actual amount of reduced fee that is due in the same manner as described above under the first pathway. Under either pathway, if a manufacturer fails to report within 30 days or pay the balance due by 45 days of the end of the model year, then EPA may refuse to approve future reduced fee requests from that manufacturer. In addition, if a manufacturer fails to report within 30 days and pay the balance due by 45 days of the end of the model year as noted above then the Agency may deem the applicable certificate as void ab initio. In the case of vehicles or engines which have originally been certified by an OEM but are being modified to operate on an alternative fuel, EPA is proposing that the cost basis for the reduced fee amount be the value­ added by the conversion, not the full cost of the vehicle or engine. On the other hand, ICI vehicles or engines certificates cover vehicles or engines which are imported into the U. S. A. and that were not originally certified by an OEM. As such, EPA costs associated with proving various MVECP services for these vehicles has not yet been recovered. Since the Agency has not received a fee payment for the `` base vehicle'' or the vehicle imported before its conversion to meet U. S. emissions requirements, we are proposing that the cost basis for calculating a reduced fee for an ICI certification shall be based upon the full cost of the vehicle or engine rather than the cost or value of the conversion. As noted above, EPA is already proposing a fee of $8,394 for certain types of ICI certificates as EPA has determined the costs of MVECP services provided for such certificates regardless of the number of vehicles included under such certificates. However, we recognize that this fee or the full fee associated with other types of certificates may represent an unreasonable economic burden on smaller businesses or on the price of vehicles in smaller classes under a certificate. Therefore, EPA is proposing to retain its current requirement that manufacturers pay a fee based on 1% of the aggregate retail sales price (or value) of the vehicles covered by a certificate as EPA believes this best represents the proper balance between recovering the MVECP costs without imposing an unreasonable economic burden. EPA invites comment on the continued use of the 1% multiplier. For ICI requests EPA proposes to continue the current requirement to calculate the full cost of a vehicle based on a vehicle's average retail price listed in the National Automobile Dealer's Association (NADA) price guide. By using the NADA price guide to establish a vehicle's retail sales price (or value), EPA ensures uniformity and fairness in charging fees. Further, it avoids problems associated with abuse, such as falsification of entry documents, in particular, sales receipts. Where the NADA price guide does not provide the retail price of a vehicle, and in the case of engines, the applicant for a reduced fee must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator, the actual market value of the vehicle or engine in the United States at the time of final importation. When calculating the aggregate retail sales price of vehicles or engines under the reduced fee provisions such calculation must not only include vehicles and engines actually sold but also those modified under the modification and test options in 40 CFR 85.1509 and 40 CFR 89.609 and those imported on behalf of a private or another owner. EPA is continuing the current exemption of fees for small volume certification requests for vehicles using alternative fuels through the 2003 model year. EPA believes that this program has completed its purpose of providing a short­ term relief for alternative fuel conversion manufacturers. Therefore, starting with the 2004 model year, EPA is no longer including this exemption for alternative fuel convertors, and such convertors shall be subject to the same fee provisions as other manufacturers. This includes the reduced fee provisions. We believe that this fee reduction proposal will provide adequate relief for small entities that would otherwise have been harmed by a standardized fee. It is important to note that this fee reduction does not raise the fees for other manufacturers; EPA will simply collect less funds. The Agency invites comment on the necessity of a reduced fee provision. E. What Is the Refund Policy? Instances may occur in which an applicant submits a filing form with the appropriate fee, has an engine­ system combination undergo a portion of the certification process, but fails to receive a signed certificate. Under the current rules, the Agency offers the manufacturer a partial refund in those situations. The Agency retains a portion of the fee to pay for the work which has already been done. This policy has been difficult to administer and required substantial Agency oversight. Consequently, we have included a simplified refund policy in today's proposal. When a certificate has not been issued, the applicant will be eligible to receive, upon request, a full refund of the fee paid. Optionally, in lieu of a refund, the manufacturer may apply the fee to another certification request. The new refund policy will not reduce the money collected by the Agency because the fee schedule proposed today is based on the number of certificates actually issued rather than the number of certification requests. The Agency also considered not allowing any refunds if the manufacturer overpaid based on their own projections. However, the Agency was concerned there could be cases where sales were significantly lower than expected and the overpayment amount would be significant. Also, the Agency does not want to encourage manufacturers to systematically underproject the reduced fees on the fear that they might significantly overpay and be unable to obtain a refund. On the other hand, processing refunds costs the Agency time and money and there is a potential for a large number of small refunds that would be not be cost effective for EPA to process or for the manufacturer to request. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to only consider refund requests for a minimum of $500 overpayment. The Agency invites comment on this issue. V. What Other Options Were Considered by EPA When Proposing This Rule? A. Separate Fees for Other ICI Categories Beyond Light­ Duty EPA considered continuing the current provisions which charge the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51413 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules same fee for ICI and OEM manufacturers. However, when the Agency examined the costs associated with ICI and OEM manufacturers, we found the costs associated with administering the light­ duty ICI program was lower than for light­ duty OEM manufacturers. Consequently, today's proposal includes lower fees for lightduty ICI certificate requests. EPA considered calculating separate fees for other ICI industries beyond light­ duty. Currently, EPA has issued ICI certificates only for highway motorcycles in addition to light­ duty. In this case, the costs to the Agency for the MVECP for motorcycles and ICI motorcycles are essentially the same. EPA expects that when other industries have ICI certification requests that the Agency will a similar amount of effort on the ICI manufacturers as the OEM manufacturers. Consequently, the Agency believes that ICI and OEM fees would be similar for all the categories other than light­ duty. For that reason, today's proposal does not establish separate fees for ICI manufacturers other than the for the light­ duty ICIs. B. Start Updating Fees for Cost of Inflation in 2004 Model Year EPA considered updating MVECP fees for the cost of inflation at the start of model year (MY) 2004. We also considered waiting one year to apply inflation costs to fees. We are proposing to postpone this update for one year and apply inflation costs in 2005 MY. The Agency invites comment on updating the fees before the start of MY 2005. VI. What Is the Economic Impact of This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the majority of vehicle and engine manufacturers. The cost to industry will be a relatively small value per unit manufactured for most engine­ system combinations. EPA expects to collect about 18 million dollars annually. This averages out to approximately 50 cents per vehicle or engine sold annually. However, for engine­ system combinations with low annual sales volume, the cost per unit could be higher. To remove the possibility of serious financial harm on companies producing only low sales volume designs, the regulations adopted today include a reduced fee provision for small volume engine families to reduce the burden of fees. These provisions should alleviate concerns about undue economic hardship on small volume manufacturers. Refer to the Regulatory Flexibility Act section, Section VIII. B, below, for more discussion on this topic. VII. How Can I Participate in the Rulemaking Process? A. How To Make Comments and Use the Public Docket EPA welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking. Commenters are especially encouraged to give suggestions for changing any aspects of the proposal. All comments, with the exception of proprietary information should be addressed to the EPA Air Docket Section, Docket No. A– 2001– 09 (see ADDRESSES). Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information for consideration should clearly separate such information from other comments by (1) labeling proprietary information `` Confidential Business Information'' and (2) sending proprietary information directly to the contact person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and not to the public docket. This will help insure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter wants EPA to use a submission labeled as confidential business information as part of the basis for the final rule, then a nonconfidential version of the document, which summarizes the key data or information, should be sent to the docket. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when EPA receives it, the submission may be made available to the public without notifying the commenters. B. Public Hearings Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the public hearing (see DATES) should, if possible, notify the contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by September 12, 2002. The contact person should be given an estimate of the time required for the presentation of testimony and notification of any need for audio/ visual equipment. Testimony will be scheduled on a first­ come, first­ serve basis. A sign­ up sheet will be available at the registration table the morning of the hearing for scheduling those who have not notified the contact earlier. This testimony will be scheduled on a first­ come, first­ serve basis to follow the previously scheduled testimony. EPA requests that approximately 50 copies of the statement or material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an advanced copy of any statement or material to be presented at the hearing at least one week before the scheduled hearing date. This is to give EPA staff adequate time to review such material before the hearing. Such advanced copies should be submitted to the contact person listed. The comment period will be kept open until October 19, 2002, and therefore will remain open for 30 days following the hearing. All such submittals should be directed to the Air Docket Section, Docket No. A– 2001– 09 (see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be conducted informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. A written transcript of the hearing will be placed in the above docket for review. Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of the transcript should make individual arrangements with the court reporter recording the proceedings. VIII. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Proposal? A. Executive Order 12866: Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether this proposed regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines a `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is a `` significant regulatory action'' because this rulemaking materially alters user fees. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51414 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules 15 The average costs of the fees per vehicle or engine (fee per unit) for the specific fee categories of Highway Motorcycle, Light­ Duty, Light­ Duty ICI, Heavy­ Duty Highway CI and SI and Nonroad CI categories are shown in Worksheet 2, Appendix C, of the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Cost Analysis available in EPA Air Docket No. A– 2001– 09. will be documented in the public record. B. 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 that meets the definition for business based on SBA size standards; (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. Table VIII. B– 1 provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected by this regulation. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposed action. TABLE VIII. B– 1.— PRIMARY SBA SMALL BUSINESS CATEGORIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED REGULATION Industry NAICS a Codes Defined by SBA as a small business If: b Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing ............................................................................................. 333111 <500 employees. Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment Manufacturing ..................................... 333112 <500 employees. Construction Machinery Manufacturing ........................................................................................................... 333120 <750 employees. Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing ........................................................................................... 333131 <500 employees. Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Unit Manufacturing ................................................................................. 333611 <1,000 employees. Speed Changer, Industrial High­ speed Drive and Gear Manufacturing ......................................................... 333612 <500 employees. Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing .......................................................................... 333613 <500 employees. Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing ......................................................................................................... 333618 <1,000 employees. Nonroad SI engines ......................................................................................................................................... 333618 <1,000 employees. Internal Combustion Engines .......................................................................................................................... 333618 <1,000 employees. Industrial Truck, Tractor, Trailer, and Stacker Machinery ............................................................................... 333924 <750 employees. Power­ Driven Handtool Manufacturing ............................................................................................................ 333991 <500 employees. Automobile Manufacturing ............................................................................................................................... 336111 <1000 employees. Light Truck and Utility Vehicle Manufacturing ................................................................................................. 336112 <1000 employees. Heavy­ Duty Truck Manufacturing .................................................................................................................... 336120 <1000 employees. Fuel Tank Manufacturers ................................................................................................................................. 336211 <1000 employees. Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing ......................................................................................... 336312 <750 employees. Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing ............................................................................................ 336412 <1000 employees. Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing ............................................................................................................. 336510 <1000 employees. Boat Building and Repairing ............................................................................................................................ 336612 < 500 employees. Motorcycles and motorcycle parts manufacturers ........................................................................................... 336991 <500 employees. Snowmobile and ATV manufacturers .............................................................................................................. 336999 <500 employees. Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and parts ............................................................................. 421110 <100 employees. Engine Repair and Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 811310 <$ 5 million annual receipts Notes: a North American Industry Classification System. b According to SBA's regulations (13 CFR part 121), businesses with no more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are considered `` small entities'' for purposes of a regulatory flexibility analysis. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A review of rulemakings that set emissions standards for the industries affected by today's proposed rule, including those manufacturers affected by the recreational vehicle proposed rule, showed that approximately 108 small businesses that will be paying fees. EPA examined the cost of the proposed fees and determined that the average cost for manufacturers of all sizes, across industry sectors, is approximately $. 41 per vehicle or engine. 15 In addition, under the reduced fee provisions described above in Section IV. D., the fee a manufacturer would pay will not exceed 1.0 percent of the aggregate retail sales price of the vehicles or engines covered by a certificate request or a minimum fee of $300. The reduced fee provision limits the impact of this proposed rule on small entities to 1.0 percent of the aggregate retail sales price or a minimum fee of $300. EPA believes that in a very small number of cases, the 1.0 percent reduced fee amount will be less than the $300 minimum fee. The minimum, $300 fee is a modest amount and will only be required when engine families have less than $30,000 aggregate retail sales price. While the minimum fee would represent an impact greater than 1.0 percent of the aggregate retail sales price, the $300 amount will not have a significant economic impact on the manufacturers that pay it. This amount would represent a modest cost of doing business. The following is an example of a reduced fee calculation: If a light­ duty vehicle manufacturer has an engine family of 2 vehicles that are sold for $35,000 per vehicle, under the proposed fee schedule the full fee would be $33,911, or $16,958 per engine family ($ 16,956 or $8,479 per vehicle, respectively), depending upon whether the engine family is certified as a Federal vehicle or California­ only engine family. Under the proposal, the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51415 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules reduced fee would be 1.0 percent of the aggregate retail sales price of the vehicles ($ 70,000), or $700 (or $350 per vehicle) as shown below: 2 * $35,000 * 0.01 = $700 In another example, a manufacturer of small nonroad spark ignition engines certifies an engine family of 500 engines that are sold for $50 apiece. In this case, under the proposed fee schedule the full fee would be $827. Under the reduced fee provisions, the manufacturer would determine 1 percent of the total retail sales price of the engines and determine whether this amount is less than the full fee or the minimum fee of $300. The aggregated retail sales price of the engines is $25,000; 1.0 percent of that is $250. Therefore, the manufacturer pays the minimum fee of $300 (or $. 60 per engine). 500 * $50 * .01 = $250 $250 < $300 minimum fee Fee = $300 EPA also had a fees rule briefing which was offered in Ann Arbor, MI, to regulated industries on August 29, 2001. The purpose of the briefing was to give businesses enough time to plan for fees in their 2003 FY budgets. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed fees on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. ) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at farmer. sandy@ epamail. epa. gov, or by calling (202) 260– 4901. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information to be collected is necessary to assure that the fees collected are properly credited to the both the firm paying them and the specific product to be certified. In addition, under some circumstances, a fee may be reduced or refunded; information collected will be used to verify that such action is appropriate. Except for reduced fees and refunds, the submission of information is mandatory. The collection is authorized by the Clean Air Act (42 U. S. C. 7552) and the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U. S. C. 9701). Information collected will be available to the public. EPA estimates that 1600 certifications will be requested annually of which 180 will qualify for a reduced fee. In addition, approximately 50 fee refunds will be processed each year. The total burden of these projected responses per year is 500 hours; an average of 18 minutes per response. There are no capital, start­ up, operation, maintenance or other costs associated with this collection. 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 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 EPA's 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 August 7, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by September 6, 2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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 action on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgation of an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA 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 EPA 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 requirement that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must develop, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. 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 our regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates. The plan must also provide for informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments. Nor does this proposed rule have Federal mandates that may result in the expenditures of $100 million or more in any year by the private sector as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA as the total cost of the fee program is estimated to be below 20 million dollars. Nothing in the proposed rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51416 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113, 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory 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, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. F. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection Executive Order 13045: `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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 EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency 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 considered by the Agency. EPA believes this proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. In addition, this proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it does not involve decisions based on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. Today's proposed rule seeks to implement a fees program and is expected to have no impact on environmental health or safety risks that would affect the public or disproportionately affect children. G. 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 will not have federalism implications. It will not have 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. This proposed rule will impose no direct compliance costs on states. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this 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. H. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects This proposed rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) because it will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have determined that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. I. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 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. '' 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. The requirements proposed by this action impact private sector businesses, particularly the vehicle and engine manufacturing industries. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 85 Environmental protection, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 86 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air Pollution Control, Confidential business information, Diesel, Gasoline, Fees, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 17, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 85— CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES 1. The Authority for part 85 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401– 7671q. 2. Add a new Subpart Y to Part 85 to read as follows: Subpart Y— Fees for the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Sec. 85.2401 To whom do these requirements apply? 85.2402 [Reserved] 85.2403 What definitions apply to this subpart? 85.2404 What abbreviations apply to this subpart? 85.2405 How much are the fees? 85.2406 Can I qualify for reduced fees? 85.2407 Can I get a refund if I don't get a certificate or overpay? 85.2408 How do I make a fee payment? 85.2409 Deficiencies 85.2410 Special provisions applicable to the 2003 model year only. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51417 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules Subpart Y— Fees for the Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program § 85.2401 To whom do these requirements apply? (a) This subpart prescribes fees manufacturers must pay for the motor vehicle and engine compliance program (MVECP) activities performed by the EPA. The prescribed fees and the provisions of this subpart apply to manufacturers of: (1) Light­ duty vehicles (cars and trucks) (See 40 CFR Part 86); (2) Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles (See 40 CFR Part 86); (3) Complete gasoline­ fueled highway heavy duty vehicles (See 40 CFR Part 86); (4) Heavy­ duty highway diesel and gasoline engines (See 40 CFR Part 86); (5) On­ highway motorcycles (See 40 CFR Part 86); (6) Nonroad compression ignition engines (See 40 CFR Part 89); (7) Locomotives (See 40 CFR Part 92); (8) Marine diesel and gasoline engines (See 40 CFR Parts 91, 94, or 1045 and MARPOL 73/ 78, as applicable); (9) Small nonroad spark ignition engines (engines 19kW) (See 40 CFR Part 90); (10) Recreational vehicles (including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, allterrain vehicles and off­ highway motorcycles) (See 40 CFR Part 1051); (11) Heavy­ duty highway gasoline vehicles (evaporative emissions certification only) (See 40 CFR Part 86); and (12) Large nonroad spark ignition engines (engines > 19 kW) (See 40 CFR Part 1048). (b) This subpart applies to manufacturers that submit 2003 and later model year certification requests received on or after [60 days after the date of publication of the final rule]. (c) Certification requests for the 2003 model year which are complete, contain all required data, and are received prior to [60 days after the date of publication of the final rule] are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart J. (d) Nothing in this subpart will be construed to limit the Administrator's authority to require manufacturer or confirmatory testing as provided in the Clean Air Act, including authority to require manufacturer in­ use testing as provided in section 208 of the Clean Air Act. § 85.2402 [Reserved] § 85.2403 What definitions apply to this subpart? (a) The following definitions apply to this subpart: Agency or EPA means the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Body Builder means a manufacturer, other than the OEM, who installs certified on­ highway HD engines into equipment such as trucks. California­ only certificate is a Certificate of Conformity issued by EPA which only signifies compliance with the emission standards established by California. Certification request means a manufacturer's request for certification evidenced by the submission of an application for certification, ESI data sheet, or ICI Carryover data sheet. A single certification request covers one test group, engine family, or engine system combination as applicable. For HDV evaporative certification, the certification request covers one evaporative family. Consumer Price Index means the consumer price index for all U. S. cities using the `` U. S. city average'' area , `` all items'' and `` not seasonally adjusted'' numbers calculated by the Department of Labor. Federal certificate is a Certificate of Conformity issued by EPA which signifies compliance with emission requirements in 40 CFR part 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 1045, 1048, and/ or 1051 as applicable. Filing form means the MVECP Fee Filing Form to be sent with payment of the MVECP fee. Fuel economy basic engine means a unique combination of manufacturer, engine displacement, number of cylinders, fuel system, catalyst usage, and other characteristics specified by the Administrator. MARPOL 73/ 78 is the international treaty regulating disposal of wastes generated by normal operation of vessels (Title: International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships). Recreational means the engines subject to 40 CFR 1051 which includes off road motorcycles, all­ terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles. (b) The definitions contained in the following parts also apply to this subpart. If the term is defined in paragraph (a) of this section then that definition will take precedence. (1) 40 CFR Part 85; (2) 40 CFR Part 86; (3) 40 CFR Part 89; (4) 40 CFR Part 90; (5) 40 CFR Part 91; (6) 40 CFR Part 92; (7) 40 CFR Part 94; (8) 40 CFR Part 1045; (9) 40 CFR Part 1048; and (10) 40 CFR Part 1051. § 85.2404 What abbreviations apply to this subpart? The abbreviations in this section apply to this subpart and have the following meanings: Cal— California; CI— Compression Ignition (Diesel) cycle engine; CPI— Consumer Price Index; ESI— Engine System Information; EPA— U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Evap— Evaporative Emissions; Fed— Federal; HD— Heavy­ duty engine; HDV— Heavy­ duty vehicle; HW— On Highway versions of a vehicle or engine; ICI— Independent Commercial Importer; IMO— International Maritime Organization; LD— Light­ Duty including both LDT and LDV; LDT— Light­ duty truck; LDV— Light­ duty vehicle; MARPOL— An IMO treaty for the control of marine pollution; MC— Motorcycle; MDPV— Medium­ Duty Passenger Vehicle; MVECP— Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program; MY— Model Year; NR— Nonroad version of a vehicle or engine; OEM— Original equipment manufacturer; SI— Spark Ignition (Otto) cycle engine. § 85.2405 How much are the fees? (a) Fees for the 2003 and 2004 model years. The fee for each certification request is in the following table: Category Certificate type Fee (1) LD, excluding ICIs ................................................................... Fed Certificate ............................................................................. 33,911 (2) LD, excluding ICIs ................................................................... Cal­ only Certificate ...................................................................... 16,958 (3) MDPV, excluding ICIs ............................................................. Fed Certificate ............................................................................. 33,911 (4) MDPV, excluding ICIs ............................................................. Cal­ only Certificate ...................................................................... 16,958 (5) Complete SI HDVs, excluding ICIs ......................................... Fed Certificate ............................................................................. 33,911 (6) Complete SI HDVs, excluding ICIs ......................................... Cal­ only Certificate ...................................................................... 16,958 VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51418 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules Category Certificate type Fee (7) ICIs for the following industries: LD, MDPV, or Complete SI HDVs. All Types ...................................................................................... 8,394 (8) MC HW, including ICIs ............................................................ All Types ...................................................................................... 2,416 (9) HD HW, including ICIs ............................................................ Fed Certificate ............................................................................. 30,437 (10) HD HW, including ICIs .......................................................... Cal­ only Certificate ...................................................................... 827 (11) HDV (evap), including ICIs .................................................... Evap Certificate ........................................................................... 827 (12) NR CI, including ICIs, but excluding Locomotives, Marine and Recreational engines. All Types ...................................................................................... 2,156 (13) NR SI, including ICIs ............................................................. All Types ...................................................................................... 827 (14) All Marine, including ICIs ....................................................... All Types and IMO ....................................................................... 827 (15) All Recreational, including ICIs, but excluding marine engines All Types ...................................................................................... 827 (16) Locomotives, including ICIs ................................................... All Types ...................................................................................... 827 (b) Fees for 2005 model year and beyond. (1) Starting with the 2005 model year, the fees due for each certification request will be calculated using an equation which adjusts the fees in paragraph (a) of this section for the change in the consumer price index. (2) Fees for 2005 model year and later certification requests will be calculated using the following equation. FeesMY = Feesbase × (CPIMY– 2 / CPI2002) Where: FeesMY is the applicable fee for the model year of the certification request. Feesbase is the applicable fee from paragraph (a) of this section. CPIMY– 2 is the consumer price index for all U. S. cities using the `` U. S. city average'' area , `` all items'' and `` not seasonally adjusted'' numbers calculated by the Department of Labor listed for the month of July of the year two years before the model year. (e. g., for the 2005 MY use the CPI based on the date of July, 2003). CPI2002 is the consumer price index for all U. S. cities using the `` U. S. city average'' area , `` all items'' and `` not seasonally adjusted'' numbers calculated by the Department of Labor for December, 2002. (c) A single fee will be charged when a manufacturer seeks to certify multiple evaporative families within a single engine family or test group. (d) A body builder, who exceeds the maximum fuel tank size for a HDV that has been certified by an OEM and consequently makes a request for HDV certification, must pay a separate fee for each certification request. The fee will be that listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, paragraph (c) does not apply. § 85.2406 Can I qualify for reduced fees? (a) Eligibility Requirements. To be eligible for a reduced fee, the following conditions must be satisfied: (1) The certificate is to be used for sale of vehicles or engines within the United States; and (2) The full fee for certification request for a MY exceeds 1.0% of the aggregate projected retail sales price of all vehicles or engines covered by that certificate. (b) Initial Reduced Fee Calculation. (1) If the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are satisfied, the fee to be paid by the applicant (the `` initial reduced fee'') will be the greater of: (i) 1.0% of the aggregate projected retail sales price of all the vehicles or engines to be covered by the certification request; or (ii) A minimum fee of $300. (2) For vehicles or engines that are converted to operate on an alternative fuel using as the basis for the conversion a vehicle or engine which is covered by an existing OEM certificate of conformity, the cost basis used in this section must be the aggregate projected retail value­ added to the vehicle or engine by the conversion rather than the full cost of the vehicle or engine. To qualify for this provision, the applicable OEM certificate must cover the same sales area and model year as requested certificate for the converted vehicle or engine. (3) For ICI certification requests, the cost basis of this section must be the aggregate projected retail cost of the entire vehicle( s) or engine( s), not just the value added by the conversion. If the vehicles/ engines covered by an ICI certificate are not being offered for sale, the manufacturer shall use the fair retail market value of the vehicles/ engines as the retail sale price required in this section. For an ICI certification request, the retail sales price (or fair retail market value) must be based on the applicable National Automobile Dealer's Association (NADA) appraisal guide and/ or other evidence of the actual market value. (4) The aggregate cost used in this section must be based on the total projected sales of all vehicles and engines under a certificate, including vehicles and engines modified under the modification and test option in 40 CFR 85.1509 and 89.609. The projection of the number of vehicles or engines to be covered by the certificate and their projected retail selling price must be based on the latest information available at the time of the fee payment. (5) A manufacturer may submit a reduced fee as described in paragraphs (a) and (b)( 1) through (b)( 4) of this section if it is accompanied by a certification from the manufacturer that the reduced fee is appropriate under this section. The reduced fee shall be deemed approved, unless EPA determines that the criteria of this section have not been met. The Agency may make such determination either before or after EPA issues a certificate of conformity. If the Agency determines that the requirements of this section have not been met, EPA may: (i) Require that future reduced fee eligibility determinations be made by the Agency; (ii) Require that the manufacturer for future reduced fee requests use the special provisions contained in paragraph (b) (7); or (iii) Deny future reduced fee requests and require submission of the full fee payment until such time as the manufacturer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that its reduced fee submissions are based on accurate date and that final fee payments are made within 45 days of the end of the model year. (6) If the reduced fee is denied by the Administrator, the applicant will have 30 days from the date of notification of the denial to submit the appropriate fee to EPA or appeal the denial. (7) The following special provisions are available for manufacturers which meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section but, due to the nature of their business, are unable to make good estimates of the aggregate projected retail sales price of all the vehicles or engines to be covered by the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51419 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules certification request as required in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section. EPA may also require a manufacturer to use these special provisions rather than the process described in paragraph (b)( 5) of this section if EPA makes such a determination under paragraph (b)( 5)( ii) of this section. (i) A manufacturer's request to use of these provisions requires advance Agency approval and will be based on a determination of whether the requirements of this section have been met. The request to use these provisions shall be made prior to the submission of its application for certification. The manufacturer shall provide as part of this request: (A) A statement that the eligibility requirements of paragraph (a) of this section are satisfied; and (B) The reasons why it is unable to make a good estimate of the aggregate projected retail sales price of all the vehicles or engines to be covered by the certification request as required in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section. (ii) If the request is approved, the initial reduced fee is the greater of: (A) 1% of the retail selling price of 5 vehicles, engines, or conversions, as appropriate; or (B) A minimum fee of $300. (c) Final Reduced Fee Calculation and Adjustment. (1) Within 30 days of the end of the model year, the manufacturer shall submit a model year reduced fee payment report covering all certificates issued in the model year for which the manufacturer has paid a reduced fee. This report will include: (i) The fee amount paid at certification time; (ii) The total actual number of vehicles covered by the certificate; (iii) A calculation of the actual final reduced fee due for each certificate; and (iv) A difference between the total fees paid and the total final fees due for the manufacturer. (2) The final reduced fee shall be calculated using the procedures of paragraph (b) of this section but using actual numbers rather than projections. (3) If the difference calculated in paragraph (c)( 1)( iv) of this section exceeds $500 which is due to the Agency, then the manufacturer shall pay any difference due between the initial reduced fee and the final reduced fee using the provisions of § 85.2408. This payment shall be paid within 45 days of the end of the model year. The total fees paid for a certificate shall not exceed the applicable full fee of § 85.2405. If a manufacturer fails to make complete payment within 45 days or to submit the report under paragraph (c)( 1) of this section then the Agency may void ab initio the applicable certificate. EPA may also refuse to grant reduced fee requests submitted under paragraph (b)( 5) or (b)( 7) of this section. (4) If the initial reduced fee paid exceeds the final reduced fee then the manufacturer may request a refund using the procedures of § 85.2407. (5) Manufacturers must retain in their records the basis used to calculate the projected sales and fair retail market value and the actual sales and retail price for the vehicles and engines covered by each certificate that is issued under the reduced fee provisions of this section. This information must be retained for a period of at least three years after the issuance of the certificate and must be provided to the Agency within 30 days of request. Manufacturers are also subject to the applicable maintenance of records requirements of Part 86, Subpart A. If a manufacturer fails to maintain the records or provide such records to EPA as required by this paragraph then EPA may void ab initio the certificate for which such records shall be kept. § 85.2407 Can I get a refund if I don't get a certificate or overpay? (a) Full Refund. The Administrator may refund the total fee imposed by § 85.2405 if the applicant fails to obtain a certificate and requests a refund. (b) Partial Refund. The Administrator may refund a portion of a reduced fee, paid under § 85.2406, due to a decrease in the aggregate projected retail sales price of the vehicles or engines covered by the certification request. (1) Partial refunds are only available for certificates which were used for the sale of vehicles or engines within the United States. (2) Requests for a partial refund may only be made once the model year for the applicable certificate has ended. Requests for a partial refund must be submitted no later than six months after the model year has ended. (3) EPA will only consider requests which result in at least a $500 refund. Smaller amounts of money will not be refunded, nor can they be credited to other certification fee payments due to the Agency. (4) Requests for a partial refund must include all the following: (i) A statement that the applicable certificate was used for the sale of vehicles or engines within the United States. (ii) A statement of the fee amount paid (the reduced fee) under the applicable certificate. (iii) The actual number of vehicles or engines produced under the certificate (whether or not the vehicles/ engines have been actually sold). (iv) The actual retail selling or asking price for the vehicles or engines produced under the certificate. (v) The calculation of the reduced fee amount using actual production levels and retail prices. The calculated reduced fee amount may not be less than $300 under the provisions of § 85.2406( b)( 1)( ii). (vi) The calculated amount of the refund. Refund requests for less than $500 will not be considered under the provisions of paragraph (b)( 3) of this section. (c) Refunds due to errors in submission. The Agency will approve requests from manufacturers to correct errors in the amount or application of fees if the manufacturer provides satisfactory evidence that the change is due to an accidental error rather than a change in plans. Requests to correct errors must be made to the Administrator as soon as possible after identifying the error. The Agency will not consider requests to reduce fee amounts due to errors that are reported more than 90 days after the issuance of the applicable certificate of conformity. (d) In lieu of a refund, the manufacturer may apply the refund amount to the amount due on another certification request. (e) A request for a full or partial refund of a fee or a report of an error in the fee payment or its application must be submitted in writing to: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Vehicle Programs and Compliance Division, Fee Program Specialist, National Vehicle and Fuel Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. § 85.2408 How do I make a fee payment? (a) All fees required by this subpart must be paid by money order, bank draft, certified check, corporate check, or electronic funds transfer payable in U. S. dollars to the order of the Environmental Protection Agency. (b) A completed fee filing form must be sent to the address designated on the form for each fee payment made. (c) Fees must be paid prior to submission of an application for certification. The Agency will not process applications for which the appropriate fee (or reduced fee amount) has not been fully paid. (d) If EPA denies a reduced fee, the proper fee must be submitted within 30 days after the notice of denial, unless the decision is appealed. If the appeal is denied, then the proper fee must be submitted within 30 days after the notice of the appeal denial. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3 51420 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 85.2409 Deficiencies. (a) Any filing pursuant to this subpart that is not accompanied by a completed fee filing form and full payment of the appropriate fee is deemed to be deficient. (b) A deficient filing will be rejected and the amount paid refunded, unless the full appropriate fee is submitted within a time limit specified by the Administrator. (c) EPA will not process a request for certification associated with any filing that is deficient under this section. (d) The date of filing will be deemed the date on which EPA receives the full appropriate fee and the completed fee filing form. § 85.2410 Special provisions applicable to the 2003 model year only. (a) For the 2003 model year, the fees specified in sec. 85.2405 of this part will be waived for any light­ duty vehicle, light­ duty truck, or heavy­ duty engine certification request that meets the small volume sales requirements of 40 CFR 86.1838– 01 or 86.098– 14, as applicable, and: (1) Is a dedicated gaseous­ fueled vehicle or engine; or (2) Receives a certificate of conformity with the LEV, ILEV, ULEV, or ZEV emissions standards in 40 CFR part 88. (b) This section does not apply to 2004 model year and later vehicles or engines. PART 86— CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN­ USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES AND ENGINES 3. The Authority for Part 86 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401– 7671q. Subpart J—[ Amended] 4. Section 86.903– 93 is revised to read as follows: § 86.903– 93 Applicability. (a) This subpart prescribes fees to be charged for the MVECP for the 1993 through 2003 model year. The fees charged will apply to all manufacturers' and ICIs', LDVs, LDTs, HDVs, HDEs, and MCs. Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to limit the Administrator's authority to require manufacturer or confirmatory testing as provided in the Clean Air Act, including authority to require manufacturer in­ use testing as provided in section 208 of the Clean Air Act. (b) The fees prescribed in this subpart are replaced by the requirements of 40 CFR part 85, subpart Y for 2003 and later certification requests received on or after [60 days after the date of publication of the final rule]. (c) The fees prescribed in this subpart will only apply to those 2003 model year certification requests which are complete, include all data required by this title, and are received by the Agency prior to [60 days after the date of publication of the final rule]. [FR Doc. 02– 19563 Filed 8– 6– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 19: 54 Aug 06, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07AUP3. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 07AUP3

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.893704

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0024-0001

Proposed Rule

Control of Emissions From Spark-Ignition Marine Vessels and Highway Motorcycles

Wednesday, August 14, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 86, 90, 1045, 1051 and 1068 Control of Emissions From Spark­ Ignition Marine Vessels and Highway Motorcycles; Proposed Rule VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53050 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 86, 90, 1045, 1051, and 1068 [AMS– FRL– 7253– 8] RIN 2060– AJ90 Control of Emissions From SparkIgnition Marine Vessels and Highway Motorcycles AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: In this action, we are proposing evaporative emissions standards for marine vessels that use spark­ ignition engines (including sterndrive, inboard, and outboard engines and personal watercraft) and we discuss our plans to propose standards in the future regulating exhaust emissions from spark­ ignition marine engines. This action also proposes new emission standards for highway motorcycles, including motorcycles of less than 50 cubic centimeters in displacement. This action is related to our proposal for emission standards for several sources that cause or contribute to air pollution. On October 5, 2001 we published proposed standards for large spark­ ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport tugs; recreational vehicles using sparkignition engines such as off­ highway motorcycles, all­ terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. Nationwide, marine evaporative hydrocarbon (HC) emissions contribute to ozone, and motorcycles contribute to ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) nonattainment. These pollutants cause a range of adverse health effects, especially in terms of respiratory impairment and related illnesses. The proposed standards would help states achieve and maintain air quality standards. In addition, the proposed evaporative emission standards would help reduce acute exposure air toxics and the proposed motorcycle exhaust standards would help reduce exposure to CO, air toxics, and PM for operators and other people close to emission sources. They would also help address other environmental problems, such as visibility impairment in our national parks. We believe that manufacturers would be able to maintain or even improve the performance of their products in certain respects when producing engines and vessels meeting the proposed standards. In fact, we estimate that the evaporative emission standards would reduce fuel consumption by enough to offset any costs associated with the evaporative emission control technology. Overall, the gasoline fuel savings associated with the anticipated changes in technology resulting from the rule proposed in this notice are estimated to be about 31 million gallons per year once the program is fully phased in (2030). The proposal also has several provisions to address the unique limitations of smallvolume manufacturers. DATES: Comments: Send written comments on this proposal by November 8, 2002. See Section VII for more information about written comments. Hearings: We will hold a public hearing on September 17, 2002 starting at 9: 30 a. m. EDT. This hearing will focus on issues related to highway motorcycles. In addition, we will hold a public hearing on September 23, 2002 starting at 9: 30 a. m. EDT. This hearing will focus on issues related to marine vessels. If you want to testify at a hearing, notify the contact person listed below at least ten days before the hearing. See Section VII for more information about public hearings. ADDRESSES: Comments: You may send written comments in paper form or by e­ mail. We must receive them by November 8, 2002. Send paper copies of written comments (in duplicate if possible) to the contact person listed below. You may also submit comments via e­ mail to `` MCNPRM@ epa. gov. '' In your correspondence, refer to Docket A– 2000– 02. Hearings: We will hold a public hearing for issues related to highway motorcycles on September 17 at the Ypsilanti Marriott at Eagle Crest, Ypsilanti, Michigan (734– 487– 2000). We will host a public hearing for issues related to marine vessels on September 23 at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, Michigan (734– 214– 4334). See Section VII, `` Public Participation'' below for more information on the comment procedure and public hearings. Docket: EPA's Air Docket makes materials related to this rulemaking available for review in Public Docket Nos. A– 2000– 01 and A– 2000– 02 at the following address: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room M– 1500 (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 between 8 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by telephone at (202) 260– 7548, and by facsimile (202) 260– 4400. We may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Borushko, U. S. EPA, National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone (734) 214– 4334; FAX: (734) 214– 4816; E­ mail: borushko. margaret@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities This proposed action would affect companies that manufacture or introduce into commerce any of the engines or vehicles that would be subject to the proposed standards. These include: Marine vessels with sparkignition engines and highway motorcycles. This proposed action would also affect companies buying engines for installation in vessels and motorcycles. There are also proposed requirements that apply to those who rebuild any of the affected engines. Regulated categories and entities include: Category NAICS codes a SIC codes b Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry ........................................................ ........................ 3732 Manufacturers of marine vessels. Industry ........................................................ 811310 7699 Engine repair and maintenance. Industry ........................................................ 336991 ........................ Motorcycles and motorcycle parts manufacturers. Industry ........................................................ 421110 ........................ Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Parts. a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this action, you should carefully VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53051 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 See 66 FR 51098. 2 Diesel­ cycle engines, referred to simply as `` diesel engines'' in this document, may also be referred to as compression­ ignition (or CI) engines. These engines typically operate on diesel fuel, but other fuels may also be used. Otto­ cycle engines (referred to here as spark­ ignition or SI engines) typically operate on gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, or natural gas. 3 While we characterize emissions of hydrocarbons, this can be used as a surrogate for volatile organic compounds (VOC), which is broader group of compounds. examine the proposed regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Obtaining Electronic Copies of the Regulatory Documents The preamble, regulatory language, Draft Regulatory Support Document, and other rule documents are also available electronically from the EPA Internet Web site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost incurred for internet connectivity. The electronic version of this proposed rule is made available on the day of publication on the primary Web site listed below. The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality also publishes official Federal Register notices and related documents on the secondary Web site listed below. 1. http:// www. epa. gov/ docs/ fedrgstr/ EPA– AIR/ (either select desired date or use Search feature) 2. http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ (look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic) Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the document may be downloaded, format changes may occur. Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Overview B. How Is this Document Organized? C. What Categories of Vessels and Vehicles are Covered in This Proposal? D. What Requirements Are We Proposing? E. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? F. Putting This Proposal into Perspective II. Public Health and Welfare Effects of Emissions from Covered Engines A. Background B. What Are the Public Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Emissions From Nonroad Engines and Motorcycles Subject to the Proposed Standards? C. What Is the Inventory Contribution of These Sources? III. Evaporative Emission Control from Boats A. Overview B. Boats/ Fuel Systems Covered By This Proposal C. Proposed Evaporative Emission Requirements D. Demonstrating Compliance E. General Compliance Provisions F. Proposed Testing Requirements G. Special Compliance Provisions H. Technological Feasibility IV. Sterndrive and Inboard Marine Engines V. Highway Motorcycles A. Overview B. Motorcycles Covered by This Proposal C. Proposed Standards D. Special Compliance Provisions E. Technological Feasibility of the Standards VI. Projected Impacts A. Environmental Impact B. Economic Impact C. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced D. Additional Benefits VII. Public Participation A. How Do I Submit Comments? B. Will There Be a Public Hearing? VII. Administrative Requirements A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis (Executive Order 12866) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Intergovernmental Relations E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act F. Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045) G. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) H. Energy Effects (Executive Order 13211) I. Plain Language I. Introduction A. Overview Air pollution is a serious threat to the health and well­ being of millions of Americans and imposes a large burden on the U. S. economy. Ground­ level ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter are linked to potentially serious respiratory health problems, especially respiratory effects and environmental degradation, including visibility impairment in our precious national parks. Over the past quarter century, state and federal representatives have established emission­ control programs that significantly reduce emissions from individual sources. Many of these sources now pollute at only a small fraction of their pre­ control rates. This proposal is part of a new effort that further addresses these air­ pollution concerns by proposing national standards regulating emissions from several types of nonroad engines and vehicles that are currently unregulated by establishing standards for nonroad engines and vehicles, as required by Clean Air Act section 213( a)( 3). The first part of this effort was a proposal published on October 5, 2001 which included industrial spark­ ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport tugs; recreational vehicles such as off­ highway motorcycles, allterrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. 1 This action, the second part, includes evaporative emission standards for marine vessels with spark­ ignition engines and their fuel systems. 2 In addition, we are proposing new emission standards for highway motorcycles. The proposed standards for motorcycles reflect the development of emission­ control technology that has occurred since we last set standards for these engines in 1978. Including highway motorcycles in this proposal is also appropriate as we consider new emission standards for the counterpart off­ highway motorcycle models. Nationwide, the sources covered by this proposal are significant contributors to mobile­ source air pollution. Marine evaporative emissions currently account for 1.3 percent of mobile­ source hydrocarbon (HC) emissions, and highway motorcycles currently account for about 1.1 percent of mobile­ source HC emissions, 0.4 percent of mobilesource carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, 0.1 percent of mobile­ source oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions, and 0.1 percent of mobile­ source particulate matter (PM) emissions. 3 The proposed standards would reduce exposure to these emissions and help avoid a range of adverse health effects associated with ambient ozone and PM levels, especially in terms of respiratory impairment and related illnesses. In addition, the proposed standards would help reduce acute exposure air toxics and PM for persons who operate or who work with or are otherwise active in close proximity to these sources. They would also help address other environmental problems associated with these sources, such as visibility impairment in our national parks and other wilderness areas where recreational vehicles and marine vessels are often used. This proposal follows EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulmaking (ANRPM) published on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76797). In that Advance Notice, we provided an initial overview of possible regulatory strategies for nonroad vehicles and engines and invited early input to the process of developing standards. We received comments on the Advance Notice from a wide variety of stakeholders, including the engine industry, the equipment industry, various governmental bodies, environmental groups, and the general public. These comments are available for public viewing in Docket A– 2000– 01. The Advance Notice, the related comments, and other new information provide the framework for this proposal. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53052 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 4 For this proposal, we consider the United States to include the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. B. How Is This Document Organized? This proposal covers both marine vessels and highway motorcycles and many readers may only be interested in one or the other of theses applications. We have attempted to organize the document in a way that allows each reader to focus on the application of particular interest. The Air Quality discussion in Section II is general in nature, however, and applies to the proposal as a whole. The next three sections contain our proposal for the marine vessels and highway motorcycles that are the subject of this action. Section III presents the proposed evaporative emission program for marine vessels using spark­ ignition engines. Section IV discusses our intentions for controlling exhaust emissions from spark­ ignition marine engines in the future. Section V contains our proposed highway motorcycle standards. Section VI summarizes the projected impacts and a discussion of the benefits of this proposal. Finally, Sections VII and VIII contain information about public participation, how we satisfied our administrative requirements, and the statutory provisions and legal authority for this proposal. The remainder of this Section I summarizes important background information about this proposal, including the engines covered, the proposed standards, and why we are proposing them. C. What Categories of Vessels and Vehicles Are Covered in This Proposal? 1. Which Marine Vessels Are Covered in This Proposal? We are proposing evaporative emission requirements for marine vessels that use any kind of spark ignition (SI) engine, including boats using sterndrive, inboard, and outboard engines and personal watercraft. These vessels are currently unregulated for evaporative emissions. Although we are not proposing exhaust emission standards for SI marine, we discuss our intent for a future emission control program. This proposal covers new vessels that are used in the United States, whether they are made domestically or imported. 4 A more detailed discussion of the meaning of the terms `` new, '' `` imported, '' as well as other terms that help define the scope of application of this proposal, is contained in Section III. B of this preamble. 2. Which Highway Vehicles Are Covered in This Proposal? We are proposing standards for new highway motorcycles, including those with engines with displacements of less than 50 cubic centimeters (cc). The federal emission standards for highway motorcycles were established over twenty years ago. Technology has advanced significantly over the last two decades, and many advancements are currently being used on highway motorcycles in California and elsewhere in the world. Despite these advancements, highway motorcycles currently produce more harmful emissions per mile than driving a car, or even a large SUV. (This discrepancy will become even larger when the Tier 2 emissions standards for passenger cars and SUVs take effect starting in 2004, when SUVs will have to meet the same set of standards as passenger cars.) Present technology already in use on highway motorcycles can be applied easily and cost­ effectively to achieve additional improvements in emissions. California, which has separately regulated motorcycles, recently adopted more advanced emissions standards in several stages. New emission standards and test procedures have also been proposed or finalized internationally. Proposing more stringent standards nationwide will reduce emissions from these engines, which operate predominantly in warmer weather when ozone formation is a greater concern. In addition, we believe it is important to consider the emissions standards for highway motorcycles in the context of setting standards for off­ highway motorcycles. Some degree of consistency between the standards for these related products may allow manufacturers to transfer technologies across product lines. (At the same time, we recognize that there are other factors which may argue for treating these categories differently.) D. What Requirements Are We Proposing? Clean Air Act section 213 directs EPA to establish standards which achieve the greatest degree of emission reductions from nonroad engines and vehicles achievable through the application of technology that will be available, giving appropriate consideration to cost, noise, energy, and safety factors. Other requirements such as certification procedures, engine and vehicle labeling, and warranty requirements are necessary for implementing the proposed program in an effective way. For vessels that use spark­ ignition marine engines, we are proposing emission standards, beginning in 2008, that would reduce evaporative hydrocarbon emissions by more than 80 percent. To meet these standards, manufacturers would need to design and produce fuel systems that prevent gasoline vapors from escaping. While we are not proposing exhaust emission standards for spark­ ignition marine engines at this time, we are participating with California and industry representatives in a technology development program that is evaluating the feasibility of using catalyst controls on these engines. We considered setting emission standards for sterndrive and inboard marine engines in this rulemaking, but have decided not to pursue these standards at this time. We instead intend to propose exhaust emission standards for these engines after the results of this development program are available. We also intend at that time to review, and if appropriate, propose to update emission standards for outboard and personal watercraft engines based on the results of the ongoing catalyst test program. With respect to highway motorcycles, section 202( a)( 3)( E) of the Clean Air Act states, in part: `` In any case in which such standards are promulgated for such emissions from motorcycles as a separate class or category, the Administrator, in promulgating such standards, shall consider the need to achieve equivalency of emission reductions between motorcycles and other motor vehicles to the maximum extent practicable. '' Given that it has been more than twenty years since the first (and only) federal emission regulations for motorcycles were implemented, we believe it is consistent with the Act to set new standards for highway motorcycles. Thus, for highway motorcycles we are proposing to harmonize with the California program, but with some additional flexibilities. This is a two­ phase program that would result in reductions of HC+ NOX of about 50 percent when fully phased in. E. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? There are important public health and welfare reasons supporting the standards proposed in this document. As described in Section II, these sources contribute to air pollution which causes public health and welfare problems. Emissions from these engines contribute to ground level ozone and ambient CO and PM levels. Exposure to ground level ozone, CO, and PM can cause serious respiratory problems. These emissions also contribute to other serious VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53053 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 5 This study is avaialble in docket A– 92– 28. 6 The Clean Air Act limits the role states may play in regulating emissions from new motor vehicles and nonroad engines. California is permitted to establish emission standards for new motor vehicles and most nonroad engines; other states may adopt California's programs (sections 209 and 177 of the Act). The Act specifies the power rating minimum in terms of horsepower for farm and construction equipment (175 hp = 130 kW). environmental problems, including visibility impairment. F. Putting This Proposal Into Perspective This proposal should be considered in the broader context of EPA's nonroad and highway vehicle emission­ control programs; state­ level programs, particularly in California; and international efforts. Each of these are described in more detail below. 1. EPA's Emission­ Control Programs a. EPA's nonroad process. Clean Air Act section 213( a)( 1) directs us to study emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles to determine, among other things, whether these emissions `` cause, or significantly contribute to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. '' Section 213( a)( 2) further required us to determine whether emissions of CO, VOC, and NOX from all nonroad engines significantly contribute to ozone or CO emissions in more than one nonattainment area. If we determine that emissions from all nonroad engines were significant contributors, section 213( a)( 3) then requires us to establish emission standards for classes or categories of new nonroad engines and vehicles that in our judgment cause or contribute to such pollution. We may also set emission standards under section 213( a)( 4) regulating any other emissions from nonroad engines that we find contribute significantly to air pollution. We completed the Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study, required by Clean Air Act section 213( a)( 1), in November 1991. 5 On June 17, 1994, we made an affirmative determination under section 213( a)( 2) that nonroad emissions are significant contributors to ozone or CO in more than one nonattainment area. We also determined that these engines make a significant contribution to PM and smoke emissions that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In the same document, we set a first phase of emission standards (now referred to as Tier 1 standards) for landbased nonroad diesel engines rated at or above 37 kW. We recently added a more stringent set of Tier 2 and Tier 3 emission levels for new land­ based nonroad diesel engines at or above 37 kW and adopted Tier 1 standards for land­ based nonroad diesel engines less than 37 kW. Our other emission­ control programs for nonroad engines are listed in Table I. F– 1. This proposal takes another step toward the comprehensive nonroad engine emission­ control strategy envisioned in the Act by proposing an emission­ control program for the remaining unregulated nonroad engines. TABLE I. F– 1.— EPA'S NONROAD EMISSION­ CONTROL PROGRAMS Engine category Final rule Date Land­ based diesel engines 37 kW— Tier 1 ........................................................................................... 56 FR 31306 June 17, 1994. Spark­ ignition engines 19 kW— Phase 1 ................................................................................................ 60 FR 34581 July 3, 1995. Spark­ ignition marine ................................................................................................................................ 61 FR 52088 October 4, 1996. Locomotives .............................................................................................................................................. 63 FR 18978 April 16, 1998. Land­ based diesel engines— Tier 1 and Tier 2 for engines < 37 kW— Tier 2 and Tier 3 for engines 37 kW. 63 FR 56968 October 23, 1998. Commercial marine diesel ........................................................................................................................ 64 FR 73300 December 29, 1999. Spark­ ignition engines 19 kW (Non­ handheld)— Phase 2 ..................................................................... 64 FR 15208 March 30, 1999. Spark­ ignition engines 19 kW (Handheld)— Phase 2 ............................................................................. 65 FR 24268 April 25, 2000. b. National standards for marine engines. In the October 1996 final rule for spark­ ignition marine engines, we set standards only for outboard and personal watercraft engines. We decided not to finalize emission standards for sterndrive or inboard marine engines at that time. Uncontrolled emission levels from sterndrive and inboard marine engines were already significantly lower than the outboard and personal watercraft engines. We did, however, leave open the possibility of revisiting the need for emission standards for sterndrive and inboard engines in the future. c. National standards for highway motorcycles. National standards for highway motorcycles were first established in the 1978 model year. Interim standards were effective for the 1978 and 1979 model years, and final standards took effect with the 1980 model year. These standards remain in effect today, unchanged from more than two decades ago. These standards, which have resulted in the phase­ out of two­ stroke engines for highway motorcycles above 50cc displacement, achieved significant reductions in emissions. The level of technology required to meet these standards is widely considered to be comparable to the pre­ catalyst technology in the automobile. However, for the past two decades, other agencies in Europe, Asia, and California have caused motorcycle emission controls to keep some pace with the available technology. It is clear that the impact of the current federal standards on technology was fully realized by the mid­ 1980's, and that the international and other efforts have been the recent driving factor in technology development for motorcycle emissions control. 2. State Initiatives Under Clean Air Act section 209, California has the authority to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. California may also regulate emissions from nonroad engines, with the exception of new engines used in locomotives and new engines used in farm and construction equipment rated under 130 kW. 6 So far, the California Air Resources Board (California ARB) has adopted requirements for four groups of nonroad engines: (1) Diesel­ and Ottocycle small off­ road engines rated under 19 kW; (2) new land­ based nonroad diesel engines rated over 130 kW; (3) land­ based nonroad recreational engines, including all­ terrain vehicles, off­ highway motorcycles, go­ carts, and other similar vehicles; and (4) new nonroad SI engines rated over 19 kW. They have approved a voluntary registration and control program for existing portable equipment. Other states may adopt emission standards set by California ARB, but are otherwise preempted from setting VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53054 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules emission standards for new engines or vehicles. In contrast, there is generally no federal preemption of state initiatives related to the way individuals use individual engines or vehicles. a. SI Marine engines. California ARB developed exhaust emission standards for SI marine engines through two rulemakings. In 1998, they adopted standards for outboards and personal watercraft that have three stages. Beginning with the 2001 model year, manufacturers must meet the 2006 EPA national averaging standard for engines sold in California. In addition, they require two more phases in 2004 and 2008 which reduce the standards an additional 20 and 60 percent, respectively, beyond the EPA standards. Last year, California ARB also adopted exhaust emission standards for sterndrive and inboard marine engines. These standards cap HC+ NOX emissions at 15 g/ kW­ hr beginning in 2003. In 2007, 45 percent of each manufacturer's product line must meet 5 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX. This production fraction becomes 75 percent in 2008 and 100 percent in 2009. Manufacturers will likely need to use catalytic converters to meet this standard. As part of the emission­ control program for sterndrive and inboard marine engines, California ARB has committed to performing a review of emission­ control technology in conjunction with the industry, U. S. Coast Guard, and EPA. They intend to hold a technology review in 2003, and if necessary, hold another technology review in 2005. The technology review will focus on applying catalytic control to marine engines operating in boats on the water. EPA is working with these groups to continue to assess technical concerns related to introducing catalysts on these marine engines. b. Highway motorcycles. Motorcycle emission standards in California were originally identical to the federal standards. However, California ARB has revised their standards several times to bring them to their current levels. In the 1982 model year the standards were modified to tighten the HC standard from 5.0 g/ km to 1.0 or 1.4 g/ km, depending upon engine displacement. California adopted an evaporative emission standard of 2.0 g/ test for 1983 and later model year motorcycles, and later amended the regulations for 1988 and later model year motorcycles, resulting in standards of 1.0 g/ km HC for engines under 700cc and 1.4 g/ km HC for 700cc and larger engines. In 1999 California ARB finalized new standards for Class III highway motorcycles that will take effect in two phases—`` Tier 1'' standards starting with the 2004 model year, followed by `` Tier 2''standards starting with the 2008 model year. The Tier 1 standard is 1.4 g/ km HC+ NOX, and the Tier 2 standard is 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOX. The CO standard remains at 12.0 g/ km. 3. Actions in Other Countries a. European action— Recreational Marine Engines. The European Commission has proposed emission standards for recreational marine engines, including both diesel and gasoline engines. These requirements would apply to all new engines sold in member countries. The numerical emission standards for SD/ I marine engines, are shown in Table I. F– 2. Table I. F– 2 also presents average baseline emissions based on data that we have collected. These data are presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. We have received comment that we should apply these standards in the U. S., but the proposed European emission standards for SD/ I marine engines may not result in a decrease in emissions, and based on emissions information we now have, would in some cases allow an increase in emissions from current designs of engines operated in the U. S. TABLE I. F– 2.— PROPOSED EUROPEAN EMISSION STANDARDS FOR FOUR­ STROKE SPARK­ IGNITION MARINE ENGINES Pollutant Emission standard (g/ kW­ hr) Baseline emissions (g/ kW– hr) NOX ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15.0 9.7 HC ........................................................................................................................................................................ a 7.2 5.8 CO ........................................................................................................................................................................ a 154 141 a For a 150 kW engine; decreases slightly with increasing engine power rating. b. Highway motorcycles. Under the auspices of the United Nations/ Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ ECE) there is an ongoing effort to develop a global harmonized world motorcycle test cycle (WMTC). The objective of this work is to develop a scientifically supported test cycle that accurately represents the in­ use driving characteristics of motorcycles. The United States is also a participating member of UN/ ECE. This is an ongoing process that EPA is actively participating in, but that will not likely result in an action until sometime in 2003 or 2004. If an international test procedure is agreed upon by the participating nations, we plan to initiate a rulemaking process to propose adopting the global test cycle as part of the U. S. regulations. The European Union (EU) recently finalized a new phase of motorcycle standards, which will start in 2003, and are considering a second phase to start in 2006. The 2003 European standards are more stringent than the existing Federal standards, being somewhat comparable to the California Tier 1 standards taking effect in 2004. The standards being considered for 2006, along with a revised test cycle (as an interim cycle to bridge between the current EU cycle and a possible WMTC cycle in the future) are likely to be proposed soon by the EU. As of April 2002 the 2006 European standards and test cycle are being considered and debated by the European Parliament and the European Commission. Many other nations, particularly in southeast Asia where low­ displacement two­ stroke motorcycles are ubiquitous, have established standards that could be considered quite stringent. Taiwan, in particular, is often noted for having some of the most stringent standards in the world, but India, China, Japan, and Thailand, are moving quickly towards controlling what is, in those nations, a significant contributor to air pollution problems. 4. Recently Proposed EPA Standards for Nonroad Engines This proposal is the second part of an effort to control emissions from nonroad engines that are currently unregulated and for updating Federal emissions standards for highway motorcycles. The first part of this effort was a proposal published on October 5, 2001 for emission control from large sparkignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport tugs; recreational VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53055 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules vehicles using spark­ ignition engines such as off­ highway motorcycles, allterrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. The October 5, 2001 proposal includes general provisions in proposed 40 CFR part 1068 that address the applicability of nonroad engine standards, which could be relevant to commenters. With regard to Large SI engines, we proposed a two­ phase program. The first phase of the standards, to go into effect in 2004, are the same as those recently adopted by the California Air Resources Board. In 2007, we propose to supplement these standards by setting limits that would require optimizing the same technologies but would be based on a transient test cycle. New requirements for evaporative emissions and engine diagnostics would also start in 2007. For recreational vehicles, we proposed emission standards for snowmobiles separately from offhighway motorcycles and all­ terrain vehicles. For snowmobiles, we proposed a first phase of standards for HC and CO emissions based on the use of clean carburetion or 2­ stroke electronic fuel injection (EFI) technology, and a second phase of emission standards for snowmobiles that would involve use of direct fuel injection 2­ stroke and some 4­ stroke technology. For off highway motorcycles and all­ terrain vehicles, we proposed standards based mainly on moving these engines from 2­ stroke to 4­ stroke technology. In addition, we proposed a second phase of standards for all­ terrain vehicles that could require some catalyst use. For marine diesel engines, we proposed to extend our commercial marine diesel engine standards to diesel engines used on recreational vessels. These standards would phase in beginning in 2006. II. Public Health and Welfare Effects of Emissions From Covered Engines A. Background This proposal contains regulatory strategies to control evaporative emissions from marine vessels that use spark ignition engines. Spark­ ignition marine vessels include vessels that use sterndrive and inboard engines as well as outboards and personal watercraft. Most of these vessels are recreational, but there are some commercial vessels that use spark­ ignition engines as well. The standards we are proposing in this document for marine vessels may require changes to the fuel system or fuel tank. We are also proposing revised standards for highway motorcycles. The current HC and CO emission standards for highway motorcycles were set in 1978 and are based on 1970s technology. The proposed standards are harmonized to California's emission limits, but also include new requirements for under 50 cc motorcycles. Nationwide, marine vessels and onhighway motorcycles are an important source of mobile­ source air pollution (see section II– C). We determined that marine vessels that use spark­ ignition engines cause or contribute to ozone and carbon monoxide pollution in more than on nonattainment area in an action dated February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4600). These engines continue to contribute to these problems because they are primarily used in warm weather and therefore their HC, NOX, CO, and PM emissions contribute to ozone formation and ambient PM and CO levels, and because they are primarily used in marinas and commercial ports that are frequently located in nonattainment areas such as Chicago and New York. Evaporative emissions from marine vessels are also significant for similar reasons and because the emissions occur all the time rather than just when the engine is running. Similarly, onhighway motorcycles are typically used in warm, dry weather when their HC and NOX emissions are most likely to form ozone, thus adding to ground­ level ozone levels and contributing to ozone nonattainment. We expect that implementation of the proposed standards would result in about a 50 percent reduction in HC emissions and NOX emissions from highway motorcycles in 2020. We expect that the proposed standards would result in about a 56 percent reduction in evaporative HC emissions from marine vessels using spark­ ignition engines in 2020 (see Section VI below for more details). These emission reductions would reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, and fine particles, which is a health concern and contributes to visibility impairment. The standards would also reduce personal exposure for people who operate or who work with or are otherwise in close proximity to these engines and vehicles. As summarized below and described more fully in the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this proposal, many types of hydrocarbons are air toxics. By reducing these emissions, the proposed standards would provide assistance to states facing ozone air quality problems, which can cause a range of adverse health effects, especially in terms of respiratory impairment and related illnesses. States are required to develop plans to address visibility impairment in national parks, and the reductions proposed in this rule would assist states in those efforts. B. What Are the Public Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Emissions From Nonroad Engines and Motorcycles Subject to the Proposed Standards? Marine vessels that use spark­ ignition engines and highway motorcycles generate emissions that contribute to ozone formation and ambient levels of PM, and air toxics. This section summarizes the general health effects of these pollutants. National inventory estimates are set out in Section II. C, and estimates of the expected impact of the proposed control programs are described in Section VI. Interested readers are encouraged to refer to the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this proposal for more in­ depth discussions. 1. Health and Welfare Effects Associated with Ground Level Ozone and its Precursors Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX are precursors in the photochemical reaction which forms tropospheric ozone. Ground­ level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by complex chemical reactions of VOCs and NOX in the presence of heat and sunlight. Hydrocarbons (HC) are a large subset of VOC, and to reduce mobile­ source VOC levels we set maximum emissions limits for hydrocarbon and particulate matter emissions. A large body of evidence shows that ozone can cause harmful respiratory effects including chest pain, coughing, and shortness of breath, which affect people with compromised respiratory systems most severely. When inhaled, ozone can cause acute respiratory problems; aggravate asthma; cause significant temporary decreases in lung function of 15 to over 20 percent in some healthy adults; cause inflammation of lung tissue; produce changes in lung tissue and structure; may increase hospital admissions and emergency room visits; and impair the body's immune system defenses, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses. Children and outdoor workers are likely to be exposed to elevated ambient levels of ozone during exercise and, therefore, are at a greater risk of experiencing adverse health effects. Beyond its human health effects, ozone has been shown to injure plants, which has the effect of reducing crop yields and reducing productivity in forest ecosystems. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53056 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 7 National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA, 2001, at Table A– 19. This document is available at http:// www. epa. gov/ oar/ aqtrnd99/. The data from the Trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A– 2000– 01, Document No. II– A– 64. 8 National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998, March, 2000, at 28. This document is available at http:// www. epa. gov/ oar/ aqtrnd98/. The data from the Trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A– 2000– 01, Document No. II– A.– 63. 9 National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998, March, 2000, at 32. This document is available at http:// www. epa. gov/ oar/ aqtrnd98/. The data from the trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A– 2000– 01, Document No. II– A– 63. 10 Additional information about this modeling can be found in our Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy­ Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Contro Requirements, document EPA420– R– 00– 026, December 2000. This document is available at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ diesel. htm# documents and in Docket No. 1– 2000– 01, Document No. II– A– 13. 11 We also performed ozone air quality modeling for the western United States but, as described further in the air quality technical support document, model predictions were well below corresponding ambient concentrations for out heavy­ duty engine standards and fuel sulfur control rulemaking. Because of poor model performance for this region of the country, the results of the Western ozone modeling were not relied on for that rule. 12 Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy­ Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, US EPA, EPA420– R– 00– 026, December 2000, at II– 14, Table II. A– 2. Docket No. A– 2000– 01, Document Number II– A– 13. This document is also available at http:/ /www. epa. gpa. gov/ otaq/ diesel/ htm# documents. 13 Additional information about theses studies can be found in Chapter 2 of `` Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy­ Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, '' December 2000, EPA420– R– 00– 026. Docket No. A– 2000– 01, Document Number II– A– 13. This document is also available at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ diesel. htm# documents. 14 A copy of this data can be found in Air Docket A– 2000– 01, Document No. II– A– 80. 15 Memorandum to Docket A– 99– 06 from Eric Ginsburg, EPA, `` Summary of Model­ Adjusted Ambient Concentrations for Certain Levels of Ground­ Level Ozone over Prolonger Periods, '' November 22, 2000, at Table C, Control Scenario— 2020 Populations In Eastern Metropolitan Counties with Predicted Daily 8­ Hour Ozone greater than or equal to 0.080 ppm. Docket A– 2000– 01, Document Number II– B– 13. There is strong and convincing evidence that exposure to ozone is associated with exacerbation of asthmarelated symptoms. Increases in ozone concentrations in the air have been associated with increases in hospitalization for respiratory causes for individuals with asthma, worsening of symptoms, decrements in lung function, and increased medication use, and chronic exposure may cause permanent lung damage. The risk of suffering these effects is particularly high for children and for people with compromised respiratory systems. Ground level ozone today remains a pervasive pollution problem in the United States. In 1999, 90.8 million people (1990 census) lived in 31 areas designated nonattainment under the 1­ hour ozone NAAQS. 7 This sharp decline from the 101 nonattainment areas originally identified under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 demonstrates the effectiveness of the last decade's worth of emission­ control programs. However, elevated ozone concentrations remain a serious public health concern throughout the nation. Over the last decade, declines in ozone levels were found mostly in urban areas, where emissions are heavily influenced by controls on mobile sources and their fuels. Twentythree metropolitan areas have realized a decline in ozone levels since 1989, but at the same time ozone levels in 11 metropolitan areas with 7 million people have increased. 8 Regionally, California and the Northeast have recorded significant reductions in peak ozone levels, while four other regions (the Mid­ Atlantic, the Southeast, the Central and Pacific Northwest) have seen ozone levels increase. The highest ambient concentrations are currently found in suburban areas, consistent with downwind transport of emissions from urban centers. Concentrations in rural areas have risen to the levels previously found only in cities. Particularly relevant to this proposal, ozone levels at 17 of our National Parks have increased, and in 1998, ozone levels in two parks, Shenandoah National Park and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, were 30 to 40 percent higher than the ozone NAAQS over part of the last decade. 9 To estimate future ozone levels, we refer to the modeling performed in conjunction with the final rule for our most recent heavy­ duty highway engine and fuel standards. 10 We performed ozone air quality modeling for the entire Eastern U. S. covering metropolitan areas from Texas to the Northeast. 11 This ozone air quality model was based upon the same modeling system as was used in the Tier 2 air quality analysis, with the addition of updated inventory estimates for 2007 and 2030. The results of this modeling were examined for those 37 areas in the East for which EPA's modeling predicted exceedances in 2007, 2020, and/ or 2030 and the current 1­ hour design values are above the standard or within 10 percent of the standard. This photochemical ozone modeling for 2020 predicts exceedances of the 1­ hour ozone standard in 32 areas with a total of 89 million people (1999 census) after accounting for light­ and heavy­ duty on­ highway control programs. 12 We expect the NOX and HC control strategies contained in this proposal for marine vessels that use spark­ ignition engines and highway motorcycles will further assist state efforts already underway to attain and maintain the 1­ hour ozone standard. In addition to the health effects described above, there exists a large body of scientific literature that shows that harmful effects can occur from sustained levels of ozone exposure much lower than 0.125 ppm. 13 Studies of prolonged exposures, those lasting about 7 hours, show health effects from prolonged and repeated exposures at moderate levels of exertion to ozone concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm. The health effects at these levels of exposure include transient pulmonary function responses, transient respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital and emergency room visits, and transient pulmonary respiratory inflammation. Prolonged and repeated ozone concentrations at these levels are common in areas throughout the country, and are found both in areas that are exceeding, and areas that are not exceeding, the 1­ hour ozone standard. Areas with these high concentrations are more widespread than those in nonattainment for that 1­ hour ozone standard. Monitoring data indicates that 334 counties in 33 states exceeded these levels in 1997– 99. 14 The Agency's most recent photochemical ozone modeling forecast that 111 million people are predicted to live in areas that are at risk of exceeding these moderate ozone levels for prolonged periods of time in 2020 after accounting for expected inventory reductions due to controls on light­ and heavy­ duty onhighway vehicles. 15 2. Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Particulate Matter Highway motorcycles contribute to ambient particulate matter through direct emissions of particulate matter in the exhaust. Both marine vessels and highway motorcycles contribute to indirect formation of PM through their emissions of organic carbon, especially HC. Organic carbon accounts for between 27 and 36 percent of fine particle mass depending on the area of the country. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53057 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 16 EPA adopted a policy in 1996 that allows areas with PM10 exceedances that are attributable to natural events to retain their designation as unclassifiable if the State is taking all reasonable measures to safeguard public health regardless of the sources of PM10 emissions. 17 Memorandum to Docket A– 99– 06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, `` Summary of 1999 Ambient Concentrations of Fine Particulate Matter, '' November 15, 2000. Air Docket A– 2000– 01, Docket No. II– B– 12. For information regarding estimates for future PM2.5 levels, See information about the Regulatory Model System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD) and our modeling protocols, which can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy­ Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Controls Requirements, document EPA 420– R– 00– 026, December 2000. Docket No. A– 2000– 01, Document No. A– II– 13. This document is also available at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ diesel. htm# documents. Also see Technical Memorandum, EPA Air Docket A– 99– 06, Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, OAQPs, Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model­ Adjusted Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years, December 6, 2000, Table P– 2. Docket Number 2000– 01, Document Number II– B– 14. 18 Memorandum to Docket A– 99– 06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, `` Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model­ Adjusted Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years, '' December 6, 2000. Air Docket A– 2000– 01, Docket No. II– B– 14. 19 EPA (1996) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA– 452/ R– 96– 013. Docket Number A– 99– 06, Documents Nos. II– A– 18, 19, 20, and 23. The particulate matter air quality criteria documents are also available at http:// www. epa. gov/ ncea/ partmatt. htm. 20 EPA recently finalized a list of 21 Mobile Source Air Toxics, including VOCS, metals, and diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases (collectively DPM+ DEOG). 66 FR 17230, March 29, 2001. 21 See our Mobile Source Air Toxics final rulemaking, 66 FR 17230, March 29, 2001, and the Technical Support Document for that rulemaking. Docket No. A– 2000– 01, Documents Nos. II– A– 42 and II– A– 30. Particulate matter represents a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances. It can be principally characterized as discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) phase spanning several orders of magnitude in size. All particles equal to and less than 10 microns are called PM10. Fine particles can be generally defined as those particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (also known as PM2.5), and coarse fraction particles are those particles with an aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 microns, but equal to or less than a nominal 10 microns. Particulate matter, like ozone, has been linked to a range of serious respiratory health problems. Scientific studies suggest a likely causal role of ambient particulate matter (which is attributable to several of sources including mobile sources) in contributing to a series of health effects. The key health effects categories associated with ambient particulate matter include premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, work loss days, and restricted activity days), aggravated asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult or painful breathing, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function that can be experienced as shortness of breath. Observable human noncancer health effects associated with exposure to diesel PM include some of the same health effects reported for ambient PM such as respiratory symptoms (cough, labored breathing, chest tightness, wheezing), and chronic respiratory disease (cough, phlegm, chronic bronchitis and suggestive evidence for decreases in pulmonary function). Symptoms of immunological effects such as wheezing and increased allergenicity are also seen. Epidemiology studies have found an association between exposure to fine particles and such health effects as premature mortality or hospital admissions for cardiopulmonary disease. PM also causes adverse impacts to the environment. Fine PM is the major cause of reduced visibility in parts of the United States, including many of our national parks. Other environmental impacts occur when particles deposit onto soils, plants, water or materials. For example, particles containing nitrogen and sulphur that deposit on to land or water bodies may change the nutrient balance and acidity of those environments. Finally, PM causes soiling and erosion damage to materials, including culturally important objects such as carved monuments and statues. It promotes and accelerates the corrosion of metals, degrades paints, and deteriorates building materials such as concrete and limestone. The NAAQS for PM10 were established in 1987. The most recent PM10 monitoring data indicate that 14 designated PM10 nonattainment areas with a projected population of 23 million violated the PM10 NAAQS in the period 1997– 99. In addition, there are 25 unclassifiable areas that have recently recorded ambient concentrations of PM10 above the PM10 NAAQS. 16 Current 1999 PM2.5 monitored values, which cover about a third of the nation's counties, indicate that at least 40 million people live in areas where longterm ambient fine particulate matter levels are at or above 16 µ g/ m 3 (37 percent of the population in the areas with monitors). 17 According to our national modeled predictions, there were a total of 76 million people (1996 population) living in areas with modeled annual average PM2.5 concentrations at or above 16 µ g/ m 3 (29 percent of the population). 18 This 16 µ g/ m 3 threshold is the low end of the range of long term average PM2.5 concentrations in cities where statistically significant associations were found with serious health effects, including premature mortality. 19 We expect the PM reductions that result from control strategies contained in this proposal will further assist state efforts already underway to attain and maintain the PM NAAQS. 3. Health Effects Associated with Air Toxics In addition to the human health and welfare impacts described above, emissions from the engines covered by this proposal also contain several Mobile Source Air Toxics, including benzene, 1,3­ butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein. 20 The health effects of these air toxics are described in more detail in Chapter 1 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this rule. Additional information can also be found in the Technical Support Document for our final Mobile Source Air Toxics rule. 21 The hydrocarbon controls contained in this proposal are expected to reduce exposure to air toxics and therefore may help reduce the impact of these engines on cancer and noncancer health effects. C. What Is the Inventory Contribution of These Sources? The spark­ ignition marine vessels and highway motorcycles that would be subject to the proposed standards contribute to the national inventories of pollutants that are associated with the health and public welfare effects described in Section II. B. To estimate nonroad engine and vehicle emission contributions, we used the latest version of our NONROAD emissions model. This model computes nationwide, state, and county emission levels for a wide variety of nonroad engines, and uses information on emission rates, operating data, and population to determine annual emission levels of various pollutants. Emission estimates for highway motorcycles were developed using information on the certification levels of current motorcycles and updated information on motorcycle use provided by the motorcycle industry. A more detailed description of the modeling and our estimation methodology can be found in the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53058 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules Chapter 6 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. Baseline emission inventory estimates for the year 2000 for the marine vessels and highway motorcycles covered by this proposal are summarized in Table II. C– 1. This table shows the relative contributions of the different mobilesource categories to the overall national mobile­ source inventory. Of the total emissions from mobile sources, evaporative emissions from sparkignition marine vessels contribute about 1.3 percent of HC. Highway motorcycles contribute about 1.1 percent, 0.1 percent, 0.4 percent, and 0.1 percent of HC, NOX, CO, and PM emissions, respectively, in the year 2000. Our draft emission projections for 2020 for the spark­ ignition marine vessels and highway motorcycles that would be subject to the proposed standards show that emissions from these categories are expected to increase over time if left uncontrolled. The projections for 2020 are summarized in Table II. C– 2 and indicate that the evaporative emissions from marine vessel are expected to contribute 1.8 percent of mobile source HC, and motorcycles are expected to contribute 2.3 percent, 0.2 percent, 0.6 percent, and 0.1 percent of mobile source HC, NOX, CO, and PM emissions in the year 2020. Population growth and the effects of other regulatory control programs are factored into these projections. TABLE II. C– 1.— MODELED ANNUAL EMISSION LEVELS FOR MOBILE­ SOURCE CATEGORIES IN 2000 [Thousand short tons] Category NOX HC CO PM Tons Percent of mobile source Tons Percent of mobile source Tons Percent of mobile source Tons Percent of mobile source Highway Motorcycles .................. 8 0. 1 35 0.5 331 0.4 0.4 0.1 Marine SI Evaporative ................... 0 0. 0 108 1.3 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 Marine SI Exhaust 32 0.2 708 9.6 2,144 2.8 38 5.4 Nonroad Industrial SI > 19 kW ......... 306 2.3 247 3.2 2,294 3.0 1.6 0.2 Recreational SI ...... 13 0.1 737 9.6 2,572 3.3 5.7 0.8 Recreation Marine CI ........................ 24 0.2 1 0. 0 4 0. 0 1 0. 1 Nonroad SI < 19 kW ...................... 106 0.8 1,460 19.1 18,359 23.6 50 7.2 Nonroad CI ............. 2,625 19.5 316 4.1 1,217 1.6 253 36.2 Commercial Marine CI ........................ 977 7.3 30 0.4 129 0.2 41 5.9 Locomotive ............. 1,192 8.9 47 0.6 119 0.2 30 4.3 Total Nonroad ........ 5,275 39 3,646 48 26,838 35 420 60 Total Highway ........ 7,981 59 3,811 50 49,813 64 240 34 Aircraft .................... 178 1 183 2 1,017 1 39 6 Total Mobile Sources .............. 13,434 100 7,640 100 77,668 100 699 100 Total Man­ Made Sources .............. 24,538 ...................... 18,586 ...................... 99,747 ...................... 3,095 ...................... Mobile Source percent of Total Man­ Made Sources .............. 55% ...................... 41% ...................... 78% ...................... 23% ...................... TABLE II. C– 2.— MODELED ANNUAL EMISSION LEVELS FOR MOBILE­ SOURCE CATEGORIES IN 2020 [Thousand short tons] Category NOX HC CO PM Tons Percent of mobile source Tons Percent of mobile source Tons Percent of mobile source Tons Percent of mobile source Highway Motorcycles .................. 14 0.2 58 0.9 572 0.6 0.8 0.1 Marine SI Evaporative ................... 0 0. 0 114 1.8 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 Marine SI Exhaust 58 0.9 284 4.6 1,985 2.2 28 4.4 Nonroad Industrial SI > 19 kW ......... 486 7.8 348 5.6 2,991 3.3 2.4 0.4 Recreational SI ...... 27 0.4 1,706 27.7 5,407 3.3 7.5 1.2 VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53059 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE II. C– 2.— MODELED ANNUAL EMISSION LEVELS FOR MOBILE­ SOURCE CATEGORIES IN 2020— Continued [Thousand short tons] Category NOX HC CO PM Tons Percent of mobile source Tons Percent of mobile source Tons Percent of mobile source Tons Percent of mobile source Recreation Marine CI ........................ 39 0.6 1 0. 0 6 0. 0 1.5 0.2 Nonroad SI < 19 kW ...................... 106 1.7 986 16.0 27,352 30.5 77 12.2 Nonroad CI ............. 1,791 28.8 142 2.3 1,462 1.6 261 41.3 Commercial Marine CI ........................ 819 13.2 35 0.6 160 0.2 46 7.3 Locomotive ............. 611 9.8 35 0.6 119 0.1 21 3.3 Total Nonroad ........ 3,937 63 3,651 59 39,482 44 444 70 Total Highway ........ 2,050 33 2,276 37 48,906 54 145 23 Aircraft .................... 232 4 238 4 1,387 2 43 7 Total Mobile Sources .............. 6,219 100 6,165 100 89,775 100 632 100 Total Man­ Made Sources .............. 16,195 ...................... 16,234 ...................... 113,443 ...................... 3,016 Mobile Source percent of Total Man­ Made Sources .............. 38% ...................... 38% ...................... 79% ...................... 21% ...................... III. Evaporative Emission Control From Boats A. Overview Evaporative emissions refer to hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere when gasoline, or other volatile fuels, evaporate from a fuel system. These emissions come from four primary mechanisms: hot soak, diurnal heating, vapor displacement during refueling, and permeation from tanks and hoses. Hot soak emissions occur when fuel evaporates from hot engine surfaces such as parts of the carburetor as a result of engine operation. These are minimal on fuel­ injected engines. Control of hot soak emissions involves the engine manufacturer rather than the tank manufacturer. Currently, most fuel tanks in boats are vented to atmosphere through vent hoses. Diurnal emissions, which represent about 20 percent of the evaporative emissions from boats, occur as the fuel in the tank and fuel lines heats up due to increases in ambient temperature. As the fuel heats, it forms hydrocarbon vapor which is vented to the atmosphere. Refueling emissions are vapors that are displaced from the fuel tank to the atmosphere when fuel is dispensed into the tank and only represent a small portion of the total evaporative emissions. Permeation refers to when fuel penetrates the material used in the fuel system and is most common through plastic fuel tanks and rubber hoses. This permeation makes up the majority of the evaporative emissions from fuel tanks and hoses. Table III. A– 1 presents our national estimates of the evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from boats using spark­ ignition engines for 2000. TABLE III. A– 1.— ESTIMATED EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM TANKS/ HOSES IN 2000 Evaporative emission component HC [tons] Diurnal breathing losses ............... 22,700 Permeation through the fuel tank 26,600 Permeation through hoses ........... 43,200 Refueling vapor displacement ...... 6,700 Hot Soak ....................................... 260 Total evaporative emissions .. 100,000 This section describes the new provisions proposed for 40 CFR part 1045, which would apply only to boat manufacturers and fuel system component manufacturers. This section also discusses proposed test equipment and procedures (for anyone who tests fuel tanks and hoses to show they meet emission standards) and proposed general compliance provisions (for boat manufacturers, fuel system component manufacturers, operators, repairers, and others). We are proposing performance standards intended to reduce permeation and diurnal evaporative emissions from boats using spark ignition engines. The proposed standards, which would apply to new boats starting in 2008, are nominally based on manufacturers reducing these sources of evaporative emissions by about 80 percent overall. Because of the many small businesses that manufacture boats and fuel tanks, we are proposing a flexible compliance program that is intended to help minimize the burden of meeting the proposed requirements. Based on a database maintained by the U. S. Coast Guard, we estimate that there are nearly 1,700 boat builders producing boats that use engines for propulsion. At least 1,200 of these boat builders install gasoline­ fueled engines and would therefore be subject to the evaporative emission­ control program discussed below. Our understanding is that more than 90 percent of the boat builders identified so far would be considered small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration for SIC code 3732. Some of these boat builders construct their own fuel tanks either out of aluminum or fiberglass reinforced plastic. However, the majority of fuel tanks used by boat builders are purchased from fuel tank manufacturers. We have determined that fuel tank manufacturers sell approximately 550,000 fuel tanks per year for gasoline storage on boats. The market is divided into manufacturers that produce plastic tanks and manufacturers that produce aluminum tanks. We have identified VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53060 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules nine companies that make plastic marine fuel tanks with total sales of approximately 440,000 units per year. Of these plastic tanks, about 20 percent are portable while the rest are installed. We have determined that there are at least five companies that make aluminum marine fuel tanks with total sales of approximately 110,000 units per year. All but one of the fuel tank manufacturers that we have identified are small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration for SIC Code 3713. Our understanding is that there are four primary manufacturers of marine hose used in fuel supply lines and venting. At least two of these four manufacturers produce hoses for other transportation sources as well and already supply low permeation hoses that would meet our proposed standards. Only one U. S. manufacturer of fill neck hose has been identified. The rest is shipped from overseas. B. Boats/ Fuel Systems Covered by This Proposal Generally speaking, this proposed rule would cover the fuel systems of all new marine vessels with spark­ ignition (SI) engines. We include boats and fuel systems that are used in the United States, whether they are made domestically or imported. In the ANPRM, we discussed exhaust and evaporative emissions from boats using only sterndrive or inboard engines. As discussed later in Section IV, we are not proposing exhaust emission standards for these engines at this time. We are, however, proposing to expand the scope of the evaporative emission standards discussed in the ANPRM, because we see no significant technological differences between fuel tanks and hoses used for sterndrive or inboard engines and those used for other SI marine engines. In fact, fuel tank and hose manufacturers often sell their products without knowing what type of marine engine will be used with it. 1. Why Does This Apply Only to Marine Vessels Using Spark­ Ignition Engines? Spark­ ignition marine engines generally use gasoline fuel while compression­ ignition marine engines generally use diesel fuel. We are proposing evaporative emission standards only for boats using sparkignition engines because diesel fuel has low volatility and, therefore, does not evaporate readily. In fact, the evaporative emissions from boats using diesel fuel are already significantly lower than standards we are proposing for boats using spark­ ignition marine engines. 2. Would the Proposed Standards Apply to All Vessels Using SI Engines or Only to New Vessels? The scope of this proposal is broadly set by Clean Air Act section 213( a)( 3), which instructs us to set emission standards for new nonroad engines and new nonroad vehicles. Generally speaking, the proposed rule is intended to cover all new vessels. Once the emission standards apply to these vessels, individuals or companies must get a certificate of conformity from us before selling them in the United States. This includes importation and any other means of introducing engines and vehicles into commerce. The certificate of conformity (and corresponding label) provide assurance that manufacturers have met their obligation to make engines that meet emission standards over the useful life we specify in the regulations. 3. How Do I Know if My Vessel Is New? We are proposing to define `` new'' consistent with previous rules. Under the proposed definition, a vessel is considered new until its title has been transferred to the ultimate purchaser or the vessel has been placed into service. Imported vessels would also be considered to be new. 4. When Would Imported Vessels Need to Meet the Proposed Emission Standards? The proposed emissions standards would apply to all new vessels in the United States. According to Clean Air Act section 216, `` new'' includes vessels that are imported by any person, whether freshly manufactured or used. All vessels imported for introduction into commerce would need an EPAissued certificate of conformity to clear customs, with limited exemptions (as described below). Any marine vessel built after these emission standards take effect and subsequently imported into the U. S. would be a new vessel for the purpose of the regulations proposed in this document. This means it would need to comply with the applicable emission standards. For example, a marine vessel manufactured in a foreign country in 2004, then imported into the United States in 2008, would be considered `` new. '' This provision is important to prevent manufacturers from avoiding emission standards by building vessels abroad, transferring their title, and then importing them as used vessels. 5. Would the Proposed Standards Apply to Exported Vessels? Vessels intended for export would generally not be subject to the requirements of the proposed emissioncontrol program. However, vessels that are exported and subsequently reimported into the United States would need to be certified. 6. Are There Any New Vessels That Would Not Be Covered? We are proposing to extend our basic nonroad exemptions to the engines and vehicles covered by this proposal. These include the testing exemption, the manufacturer­ owned exemption, the display exemption, and the national security exemption. These exemptions are described in more detail under Section III. E. 3. In addition, the Clean Air Act does not consider vessels used solely for competition to be nonroad vehicles, so they are exempt from meeting the proposed emission standards. C. Proposed Evaporative Emission Requirements Our general goal in designing the proposed standards is to develop a program that will achieve significant emission reductions. The standards are designed to `` achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology the Administrator determines will be available for the engines or vehicles to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of applying such technology within the period of time available to manufacturers and to noise, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such technology. '' Section 213( a)( 3) of the Clean Air Act also instructs us to first consider standards equivalent in stringency to standards for comparable motor vehicles or engines (if any) regulated under section 202, taking into consideration technological feasibility, costs, and other factors. 1. What are the Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards? We are proposing to require reductions in diurnal emissions, fuel tank permeation, and fuel system hose permeation from new vessels beginning in 2008. The proposed standards are presented in Table III. C– 1 and represent more than a 25 percent reduction in diurnal emissions and a 95 percent reduction in permeation from both plastic fuel tanks and from hoses. Section III. F. 1 presents the test procedures associated with these proposed standards. Test temperatures VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53061 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules are presented in Table III. C– 1 because they represent an important parameter in defining the emission levels. The proposed fuel tank venting and permeation standards are based on the total capacity of the fuel tank as described below. The proposed hose permeation standards are based on the inside surface area of the hose. We are not proposing standards for hot soak and refueling emissions, as described above, at this time. TABLE III. C– 1.— PROPOSED EVAPORATIVE STANDARDS Evaporative emission component Proposed emission standard Test temperature Diurnal Venting ............................................................. 1.1 g/ gallon/ day ............................................................ 22.2– 35.6 C (72– 96 F) Fuel tank permeation ................................................... 0.08 g/ gallon/ day .......................................................... 40 C (104 F) Hose permeation .......................................................... 5 g/ m 2 /day .................................................................... (15 g/ m 2 /day with 15% methanol blend) ..................... 23 C (73 F) The proposed emission standards are based on our evaluation of several fuel system technologies (described in Section III. H) which vary in cost and in efficiency. The proposed implementation date gives manufacturers about five years to comply after we expect to issue final standards . As discussed in more detail in Section III. H. 1, this would help minimize costs by allowing fuel tank manufacturers time to implement controls in their tanks as designs normally turnover as opposed to forcing turnover premature to normal business practice. There are a multiplicity of tank sizes and shapes produced every year and the cost and efficiency of the available emission­ control technologies will vary with these different configurations. In determining the proposed standards, we considered costs and focused on straightforward approaches that could potentially be used by all businesses. As discussed in Section H. 3, we believe that the approaches in this proposal would comply with U. S. Coast Guard safety requirements for fuel systems. Given all this, in the 2008 time frame, we believe an average reduction of at least 80 percent in total evaporative emissions from new boats can be achieved, considering the availability and cost of technology, lead time, noise, energy and safety. We request comment on the proposed standards and implementation dates, on the units used for the fuel tank permeation standards (i. e. g/ gallon/ day versus g/ m 2 /day), and on the certification provisions discussed below. We are also interested in comments regarding the cost of implementing the proposed standards. Commenters are encouraged to provide specific data when possible. 2. Will Averaging, Banking and Trading Be Allowed Across a Manufacturer's Product Line? An emission­ credit program is an important factor we take into consideration in setting emission standards that are appropriate under Clean Air Act section 213. An emissioncredit program can reduce the cost and improve the technological feasibility of achieving standards, helping to ensure the attainment of the standards earlier than would otherwise be possible. Manufacturers gain flexibility in product planning and the opportunity for a more cost­ effective introduction of product lines meeting a new standard. Emission­ credit programs also create an incentive for the early introduction of new technology, which would allow certain vessels to be used to evaluate new technology. This can provide valuable information to manufacturers on the technology before they apply it throughout their product line. This early introduction of lower­ emitting technology improves the feasibility of achieving the standards and can provide valuable information for use in other regulatory programs that may benefit from similar technologies. Emission­ credit programs may involve averaging, banking, and trading (ABT). Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify one or more products at an emission level less stringent than the applicable emission standard, as long as the increased emissions are offset by products certified to a level more stringent than the applicable standard. The over­ complying products generate credits that can be used by the undercomplying products. Compliance is determined on a total mass emissions basis to account for differences in production volume and tank sizes among emission families. The average of all emissions for a particular manufacturer's production must be at or below that level of the applicable emission standard. Early banking allows a manufacturer to certify early and generate credits for modifying their fuel system to the 2008 compliance strategy. In 2008 and later, the banking program would allow a manufacturer to generate credits and retain them for future use. Trading involves the sale of banked credits from one company to another. We believe there is a variety of technology options that could be used to meet the proposed standards for diurnal emissions. By using different combinations of these technologies, manufacturers will be able to produce products that achieve a range of emission reductions. However, certain technologies may be more appropriate for different applications. In some cases, manufacturers may need flexibility in applying the emission­ control technology to their products. For this reason, we are proposing that the 1.1 g/ gallon/ day diurnal emission standard be based a corporate average of a manufacturer's total production. To meet this average level, manufacturers would be able to divide their fuel tanks into different emission families and certify each of their emission families to a different Family Emissions Level (FEL). The FELs would then be weighted by sales volume and fuel tank capacity to determine the average level across a manufacturer's total production. An additional benefit of a corporate average approach is that it provides an incentive for developing new technology that can be used to achieve even larger emission reductions. Participation in the ABT program would be voluntary. Any manufacturer could choose to certify each of its evaporative emission control families at levels which would meet the 1.1 g/ gallon/ day proposed standard and would then comply with the average by default. Some manufacturers may choose this approach as the could see it as less complicated to implement. The following is an example of how the proposed averaging program for diurnal emissions could give a boat manufacturer flexibility in its production. Suppose a boat builder was selling 10 boats, three with 100­ gallon fuel tanks and seven with 50­ gallon fuel tanks. In this case, the boat builder constructs its own fuel tanks believes that an open­ vent configuration without any emission control is necessary for the vessel application using the 100 gallon tanks. However, the manufacturer is able to use closed­ vent fuel tanks with a 2.0 psi pressure relief valve in the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53062 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules smaller fuel tanks. Using the design certification levels described in Section III.. F. 3, the 100 gallon fuel tanks would have an FEL of 1.5 g/ gallon/ day and the 50 gallon fuel tanks would have an FEL of 0.7 g/ gallon/ day. The manufacturer would generate debits for the three boats with 100 gallon fuel tanks using the following equation: Debits = (1.5 g/ gallon ¥ 1.1 g/ gallon) × 3 tanks × 100 gallon/ tank = 120 g The manufacturer would need to use credits to cover these debits. The boats certified using a closed vent with a 2.0 psi pressure relief valve in this example would generate the following credits: Credits = (1.1 g/ gallon ¥ 0.7 g/ gallon) × 7 tanks × 50 gallon/ tank = 140 g Because the credits are larger than the debits in this example, the boat builder would meet the proposed corporate average standard by certifying these ten boats. We also propose to allow manufacturers to bank and trade emission credits. We are proposing that emission credits generated under this program have no expiration, with no discounting applied. The credits would belong to the entity that certifies the fuel tank. In the above example, the manufacturer would have 20 grams of credits (140 g ¥ 120 g = 20 g) that it could bank, either for trading or for later model year averaging. Beginning in 2004, we propose to allow early banking for diurnal evaporative emissions. Under this program, manufacturers generate early credits in 2004 through 2007 for adding new evaporative emission control technology which would reduce diurnal emissions. These credits could be banked and then used in 2008 and later. As a precaution against creating an opportunity for windfall credits to be generated from fuel systems already below the average baseline level we would only allow credits to be generated below the proposed standard. The following is an example of how early emission credits could be generated. In this example, a boat builder sells 20 boats in the 2004 to 2007 time period, each with a 50 gallon fuel tank. If this boat builder decided to sell one boat per year with a sealed tank and a 1.5 psi pressure relief valve (0.9 g/ gallon/ test), the boat builder would be able to generate emission credits using the following equation: Credits = (1.1 g/ gallon ¥ 0.9 g/ gallon/ test) × 4 tanks × 50 gallon/ tank = 40 g Over this time period, the boat builder would not generate any emission debits. Therefore, the boat builder would have 40 grams of credits that it could use in 2008 and later. We request comment on the proposed ABT program for diurnal emissions. We are supportive of the concept of ABT in general. An ABT program can reduce cost and improve technological feasibility, and provide manufacturers with additional product planning flexibility. This allows EPA to consider emissions standards with the most appropriate level of stringency and lead time, as well as providing an incentive for the early introduction of new technology. However, while we are open to the idea of including the program in the rule, we are not at this time proposing to allow ABT for meeting the proposed fuel tank and hose permeation standards. In preliminary discussions, manufacturers indicated a desire to meet requirements directly rather than using an ABT concept. From EPA's perspective including an ABT program in the rule creates a long­ term administrative burden that is not worth taking on if the industry does not intend to take advantage of the flexibility. While we believe that all fuel tanks and fuel hoses can meet the proposed permeation standards using straight forward technology as discussed in Section III. H, industry may find value in an early banking program, especially for fuel tanks. Under this concept, industry could certify some tanks early in exchange for time to delay some tanks. This could potentially be done on a oneon one basis, or perhaps on a volumetric exchange basis. In addition, we do not preclude the value of an averaging and trading program as a compliance flexibility to meet the proposed permeation standards which represent a 95 percent reduction in permeation. We request comment on whether we should adopt an ABT program for hose and fuel tank permeation emissions. 3. Would These Standards Apply to Portable Fuel Tanks as Well? For personal watercraft and most boats using SD/ I or large outboard engines, the fuel tanks are permanently mounted in the vessel. However, small boats using outboard engines may have portable fuel tanks that can be removed from the boat and stored elsewhere. Because these fuel tanks are not sold as part of a boat, we would not require boat builders that use only portable fuel tanks to certify to the proposed evaporative emission standards described above for fuel tanks. The fuel tank manufacturer would have to certify to the fuel tank diurnal and permeation standards. For this purpose, we would consider a portable fuel tank to be one that is not permanently mounted on the boat, has a handle, and has no more than 12 gallons of fuel capacity. Portable fuel tanks generally have a quick­ connect that is used to detach the fuel line between the engine and tank. Once the fuel line is detached, this quick­ connect will close. In addition, these tanks generally have a valve that either closes automatically when the tank is disconnected from the engine or a valve that can be closed by the user which will prevent vapors from escaping from the tank when it is stored. We propose to allow design­ based certification of portable fuel tanks to the diurnal emission standard based on the criteria that they seal automatically when the tank is disconnected from the engine and that they meet the proposed fuel tank permeation standard. We believe that the diurnal emissions from a typical portable fuel tank would be well below the proposed standard provided that it is sealed when not in use. Because the emission control depends on user practices, (such as disconnecting the tank after use) we propose not allowing any credits to be generated for diurnal emissions. We request comment on allowing designbased certification of portable fuel tanks that have valves that must be closed by the user. 4. Is EPA Proposing Voluntary `` Blue Sky'' Emissions Standards? Several state and environmental groups and manufacturers of emissions controls have supported our efforts to develop incentive programs to encourage the use of emission control technologies that go beyond federal emission standards. In the final rule for land­ based nonroad diesel engines, we included a program of voluntary standards for low­ emitting engines, referring to these as `` Blue Sky Series'' engines (63 FR 56967, October 23, 1998). Since then, we have included similar programs in several of our other nonroad rules. The general purposes of such programs are to provide incentives to manufacturers to produce clean products as well as create market choices and opportunities for environmental information for consumers regarding such products. The voluntary aspects of these programs, which in part provides an incentive for manufacturers willing to certify their products to more stringent standards than necessary, is an important part of the overall application of `` Blue Sky Series'' programs. We are proposing a voluntary Blue Sky Series standard for diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks. Under this proposal we are targeting VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53063 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 22 `` Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Spark­ Ignition Marine Engine Regulations, '' Mail Out #MSC 99– 15, June 22, 1999 (Docket A– 2000– 01, Document II– A– 27). close to a 95­ percent reduction in diurnal evaporative emissions beyond the proposed mandatory diurnal emission standards as a qualifying level for Blue Sky fuel tanks. The proposed Blue Sky standard is 0.1 g/ gallon/ day, which, as discussed in Section III. F. 3, could be met through the use of technologies such as a low permeation bladder fuel tank. Creating a voluntary standard for low diurnal emissions will be an important step in advancing emission control technology. While these are voluntary standards, they become binding on tanks produced under that certificate once a manufacturer chooses to participate. EPA certification will therefore provide protection against false claims of environmentally beneficial products. A manufacturer choosing to certify a fuel tank under this approach must comply with all the proposed certification requirements including useful life, warranty, and other general compliance provisions. This program would become effective when we finalize this rule. For the program to be most effective, however, incentives should also be in place to motivate the production and sale of lower emitting fuel tanks. We solicit ideas that could encourage the creation and use of these incentive programs by users and state and local governments. We believe it is important that such incentive programs lead to a net benefit to the environment; therefore, we are proposing that fuel tanks with the Blue Sky designation not generate extra ABT credits for demonstrating compliance with this proposed standard. We also request comment on additional measures we could take to encourage development and introduction of low emission control technology. Finally, we request comment on the Blue Sky approach in general as it would apply to marine fuel tanks. 5. What Is Consumer­ Choice Labeling? California ARB has recently proposed consumer/ environmental label requirements for outboard and personal watercraft engines. Under this approach, manufacturers would label their engines or vehicles based on their certified emission level. California has proposed three different labels to differentiate varying degrees of emission control— one for meeting the EPA 2006 standard, one for being 20 percent lower, and one for being 65 percent below. More detail on this concept is provided in the docket. 22 We are considering a similar approach to labeling the vessels subject to this proposal. This would apply especially to consumer products. Consumer­ choice labeling would give people the opportunity to consider varying emission levels as a factor in choosing specific models. This may also give the manufacturer an incentive to produce more of their cleaner models. A difficulty in designing a labeling program is in creating a scheme that communicates information clearly and simply to consumers. Also, some are concerned that other organizations could use the labeling provisions to mandate certain levels of emission control, rather than relying on consumer choice as a market­ based incentive. We request comment on this approach for marine vessels. D. Demonstrating Compliance 1. How Would I Certify My Products? We are proposing to apply our emission standards to vessels, but allow certification of fuel tanks and hoses separately. For both cases, we are proposing a certification process similar to our existing program for other mobile sources. In the existing program, manufacturers test representative prototype designs and submit the emission data along with other information to EPA in an application for a Certificate of Conformity. As discussed in Section III. F. 3, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to certify based on either design (for which there is data) or emissions testing. If we approve the application, then the manufacturer's Certificate of Conformity allows the manufacturer to produce and sell the vessels or fuel systems described in the application in the U. S. We are proposing that manufacturers certify their vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses by grouping them into emission families. Under this approach, vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses systems expected to have similar emission characteristics would be classified in the same emission family. The emission family definition is fundamental to the certification process and to a large degree determines the amount of testing required for certification. To address a manufacturer's unique product mix, we may approve using broader or narrower emission families. Once an emission family is certified, we would require every vessel, fuel tank, or hose a manufacturer produces from the emission family to have a label with basic identifying information. The proposed regulation text details the proposed requirements for design and content of the labels. We request comment on this approach. 2. Who Will be Responsible for Certifying the Vessel or Fuel System? Every boat powered by a sparkignition marine engine and every portable fuel tank would have to be covered by an emissions certificate (or separate certificates for fuel tanks and hoses). The proposed regulations require that compliance to the emission standards must be demonstrated before the sale of the boat (or tank, in the case of portable fuel tanks). However, to allow additional flexibility in complying with standards, we propose to allow tank and hose manufacturers to certify their product lines separately. Therefore, if a boat builder were to use certified fuel tanks and hoses, the boat builder could rely on the tank and hose manufacturers' certificates. The boat builder would only need to state that they are using components that, combined, will meet the proposed standard and properly install the fuel system. We request comment on this approach. 3. How Long Would My Vessel or Fuel System Have To Comply? Manufacturers would be required to build vessels that meet the emission standards over each vessel's useful life. The useful life we adopt by regulation is intended to reflect the period during which vessels are designed to properly function without being remanufactured. We propose a regulatory useful life of ten years for marine evaporative emission control. This is consistent with the regulatory useful life for outboard marine engines. We use the same useful life based on the belief that engines and boats are intended to have the same design life. We request comment on the proposed useful life requirement. 4. What Warranty Requirements Apply to Certified Vessels and Fuel Systems? Consistent with our current emissioncontrol programs, we are proposing that manufacturers provide a design and defect warranty covering emissionrelated components. For marine vessels, we propose that the fuel systems be warranted for five years for the emission related components. The proposed regulations would require that the warranty period must be longer than this minimum period we specify if the manufacturer offers a longer warranty for the fuel system or any of its components; this includes extended warranties on the fuel system or any of its components that are available for an extra price. See the proposed regulation VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53064 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 23 `` Interim Tampering Enforcement Policy, '' EPA memorandum from Norman D. Shulter, Office of General Counsel, June 25, 1974 (Docket A– 2000– 01; document II– B20). 24 EPA acted to adjust the maximum penalty amount in 1996 (61 FR 69364, December 31, 1996). See also 40 CFR part 19. language for a description of which components are emission­ related. We request comment on whether the warranty provisions should apply only to the certificate holder or to all manufacturers of the fuel system components used by the certificate holder. If an operator makes a valid warranty claim for an emission­ related component during the warranty period, the manufacturer is generally obligated to replace the component at no charge to the operator. The manufacturer may deny warranty claims if the operator failed to do prescribed maintenance that contributed to the warranty claim. We are also proposing a defect reporting requirement that applies separate from the emission­ related warranty (see Section III. E. 6). In general, defect reporting applies when a manufacturer discovers a pattern of component failures, whether that information comes from warranty claims, voluntary investigation of product quality, or other sources. We request comment on the proposed warranty and defect reporting requirements. E. General Compliance Provisions This section describes a wide range of compliance provisions that would apply to marine vessels (or fuel tanks or hoses as appropriate) and are the same as those recently proposed for the nonroad engines September 2001 (see 66 FR 51098). Several of these provisions apply not only to manufacturers, but also to operators, and others. The following discussion of the general compliance provisions reflects the organization of the proposed regulatory text. For ease of reference, the subpart designations are provided. We request comment on all these provisions. 1. Miscellaneous Provisions (Part 1068, Subpart A) This proposed regulation contains some general provisions, including general applicability and the definitions that apply to 40 CFR part 1068. Other provisions concern good engineering judgment, how we would handle confidential information; how the EPA Administrator delegates decisionmaking authority; and when we may inspect a manufacturer's facilities, vessels, or records. The process of testing for evaporative emissions (or certifying based on design) and preparing an application for certification requires the manufacturer to make a variety of judgments. Section 1068.5 of the proposed regulations describes the methodology we propose to use to evaluate concerns related to manufacturers' use of good engineering judgment in cases where the manufacturer has such discretion. If we find a problem in these areas, we would take into account the degree to which any error in judgment was deliberate or in bad faith. This subpart is consistent with provisions in the final rule for light­ duty highway vehicles and commercial marine diesel engines. 2. Prohibited Acts and Related Requirements (Part 1068, Subpart B) The proposed provisions in this subpart lay out a set of prohibitions for manufacturers and operators to ensure that vessels comply with the emission standards. These provisions are summarized below, but readers are encouraged to review the proposed regulatory text. These provisions are intended to help ensure that each new vessel or portable tank sold or otherwise entered into commerce in the United States is certified to the relevant standards. a. General prohibitions (§ 1068.100). This proposed regulation contains several prohibitions consistent with the Clean Air Act. Under this proposal, no one may sell a vessel or portable fuel tank in the United States without a valid certificate of conformity issued by EPA, deny us access to relevant records, or keep us from entering a facility to test or inspect vessels or fuel system components. In addition, no one may remove or disable a device or design element that may affect an vessel's emission levels, or manufacture any device that will make emission controls ineffective, which we would consider tampering. We have generally applied the existing policies developed for tampering with highway engines and vehicles to nonroad engines. 23 Other proposed prohibitions reinforce manufacturers' obligations to meet various certification requirements. We would also prohibit selling parts that prevent emission­ control systems from working properly. Finally, for vessels that are excluded for certain applications (i. e. solely for competition), we would generally prohibit using these vessels in other applications. These proposed prohibitions are the same as those that apply to other applications we have regulated in previous rules. Each prohibited act has a corresponding maximum penalty as specified in Clean Air Act section 205. As provided for in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 10– 410, these maximum penalties are in 1970 dollars and should be periodically adjusted by regulation to account for inflation. The current penalty amount for each violation is $27,500. 24 b. In­ service systems (§ 1068.110). The proposed regulations would prevent manufacturers from requiring owners to use any certain brand of aftermarket parts and give the manufacturer responsibility for servicing related to emissions warranty, leaving the responsibility for all other maintenance with the owner. This proposed regulation would also reserve our right to do testing (or require testing) to investigate potential defeat devices, as authorized by the Act. 3. Exemptions (Part 1068, Subpart C) We are proposing to include several exemptions for certain specific situations. Most of these are consistent with previous rules. We highlight the new or different proposed provisions in the following paragraphs. In general, exempted vessels would need to comply with the requirements only in the sections related to the exemption. Note that additional restrictions could apply to importing exempted vessels (see Section III. E. 4). Also, we are also proposing that we may require manufacturers (or importers) to add a permanent label describing that the vessel or fuel system component is exempt from emission standards for a specific purpose. In addition to helping us enforce emission standards, this would help ensure that imported vessels clear U. S. Customs without difficulty. a. Testing. Anyone would be allowed to request an exemption for vessels or fuel system components used only for research or other investigative purposes. b. Manufacturer­ owned vessels and fuel systems. Vessels and fuel system components that are used by manufacturers for development or marketing purposes could be exempted from regulation if they are maintained in the manufacturers' possession and are not used for any revenue­ generating service. They would no longer be exempt if they were later offered for sale. c. Display vessels or fuel systems. Boat builders and fuel system component manufacturers would get an exemption if the vessels or fuel systems are for display only. They would no longer be exempt if they were later offered for sale. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53065 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules d. National security. Manufacturers could receive an exemption for vessels or portable fuel tanks they can show are needed by an agency of the federal government responsible for national defense. For cases where the vessels will not be used on combat applications, the manufacturer would have to request the exemption with the endorsement of the procuring government agency. e. Exported vessels. Vessels and portable fuel tanks that will be exported to countries that don't have the same emission standards as those that apply in the United States would be exempted without need for a request. This exemption would not be available if the destination country has the same emission standards as those in the United States. f. Competition vessels. New vessels that are used solely for competition are excluded from regulations applicable to nonroad equipment. For purposes of our certification requirements, a manufacturer would receive an exemption if it can show that it produces the vessel specifically for use solely in competition. In addition, vessels that have been modified for use in competition would be exempt from the prohibition against tampering described above (without need for request). The literal meaning of the term `` used solely for competition'' would apply for these modifications. We would therefore not allow the vessel to be used for anything other than competition once it has been modified. This also applies to someone who would later buy the vessel, so we would require the person modifying the vessel to remove or deface the original label and inform a subsequent buyer in writing of the conditions of the exemption. The exemption would no longer apply. 4. Imports (Part 1068, Subpart D) In general, the same certification requirements would apply to vessels whether they are produced in the U. S. or are imported. This proposed regulation also includes some additional provisions that would apply if someone wants to import an exempted or excluded vessel. For example, the importer would need written approval from us to import any exempted vessel; this is true even if an exemption for the same reason doesn't require approval for vessels produced in the U. S. All the proposed exemptions described above for new vessels would also apply to importation, though some of these apply only on a temporary basis. If we approve a temporary exemption, it would be available only for a defined period and could require the importer to post bond while the vessel is in the U. S. There are several additional proposed exemptions that would apply only to imported vessels. —Identical configuration: This would be a permanent exemption to allow individuals to import vessels that were designed and produced to meet applicable emission standards. These vessels may not have the emission label only because they were not intended for sale in the United States. —Repairs or alterations: This would be a temporary exemption to allow companies to repair or modify vessels. —Diplomatic or military: This would be a temporary exemption to allow diplomatic or military personnel to use uncertified vessels during their term of service in the U. S. We request comment on all the proposed exemptions for domestically produced and imported vessels. 5. Selective Enforcement Audit (Part 1068, Subpart E) Clean Air Act section 206( b) gives us the authority and discretion in any program with vehicle or engine emission standards to do selective enforcement auditing of production vessels and fuel systems. The proposed regulation text describes the audit procedures in greater detail. We intend generally to rely on inspecting manufacturers' designs to ensure they comply with emission standards. However, we would reserve our right to do selective enforcement auditing if we have reason to question the emission testing conducted or data reported by the manufacturer. 6. Defect Reporting and Recall (Part 1068, Subpart F) We are proposing provisions for defect reporting. Specifically, we are proposing that manufacturers tell us when they learn of a defect occurring 25 times or more for emission families with annual sales up to 10,000 units. This threshold of defects would increase proportionately for larger families. While these thresholds would depend on sales, counting defects would not be limited to a single emission family. For example, if a manufacturer learns that operators reported 25 cases of problems with a limiting orifice from three different low­ volume models spread over five years, that would trigger the need to file a defect report. This information could come from warranty claims, customer complaints, product performance surveys, or anywhere else. The proposed regulation language in § 1068.501 also provides information on the thresholds for triggering a further investigation for where a defect report is more likely to be necessary. We request comment on the proposed defect reporting provisions. Under Clean Air Act section 207, if we determine that a substantial number of vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses within an emission family, although properly used and maintained, do not conform to the appropriate emission standards, the manufacturer will be required to remedy the problem and conduct a recall of the noncomplying emission family. However, we also recognize the practical difficulty in implementing an effective recall program for marine vessels. It would likely be difficult to properly identify all the affected owners. The response rate for affected owners or operators to an emissionrelated recall notice is also a critical issue to consider. We recognize that in some cases, recalling noncomplying marine vessels may not achieve sufficient environmental protection, so our intent is to generally allow manufacturers to nominate alternative remedial measures to address most potential noncompliance situations. We expect that successful implementation of appropriate alternative remediation would obviate the need for us to make findings of substantial nonconformity under section 207 of the Act. We would consider alternatives nominated by a manufacturer based on the following criteria; the alternatives should— (1) Represent a new initiative that the manufacturer was not otherwise planning to perform at that time, with a clear connection to the emission problem demonstrated by the emission family in question; (2) Cost more than foregone compliance costs and consider the time value of the foregone compliance costs and the foregone environmental benefit of the emission family; (3) Offset at least 100 percent of the emission exceedance relative to that required to meet emission standards; and (4) Be possible to implement effectively and expeditiously and to complete in a reasonable time. These criteria would guide us in evaluating projects to determine whether their nature and burden is appropriate to remedy the environmental impact of the nonconformity. However, in no way would the consideration of such a provision diminish our statutory authority to direct a recall if that is deemed the best course of action. We request comment on this approach to addressing the Clean Air Act provisions related to recall. In addition, we request comment on the proposed requirement VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53066 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 25 Reid Vapor Pressure (psi). This is a measure of the volatility of the fuel. 9 RVP represents a typical summertime fuel in northern states. 26 Hot soak emissions are those caused by residual heat in the engine and exhaust system immediately after the engine is shut down. Running loss emissions are those caused by engine and exhaust heat while the engine is operating. 27 Draft SAE Information Report J1769, `` Test Protocol for Evalution of Long Term Permeation Barrier Durability on Non­ Metallic Fuel Tanks, '' (Docket A– 2000– 01, document IV– A– 24). to keep recall­ related records until three years after a manufacturer completes all responsibilities under a recall order. 7. Public Hearings (Part 1068, Subpart G) According to this regulation, manufacturers would have the opportunity to challenge our decision to suspend, revoke, or void an emission family's certificate. This also applies to our decision to reject the manufacturer's use of good engineering judgment (see § 1068.5). Part 1068, subpart G describes the proposed procedures for a public hearing to resolve such a dispute. F. Proposed Testing Requirements In order to obtain a certificate allowing sale of products meeting EPA emission standards, manufacturers generally must show compliance with such standards through emission testing. 40 CFR part 86 details specifications for test equipment and procedures that apply to highway vehicle evaporative emission testing. We propose to base the SI marine evaporative emission test procedures on this part. However, we propose to modify this test procedure somewhat to more accurately reflect the anticipated technology for meeting the evaporative emission standards proposed in this rule. We are also proposing designbased certification as an alternative to performing specific testing. 1. What Are the Proposed Test Procedures for Measuring Diurnal Emissions? We propose that the evaporative emission test will be representative of ambient temperatures ranging from 22 C to 36 C (72 F to 96 F). Emissions would be measured in a Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination (SHED) over a 72­ hour period. The fuel tank would be set up in the SHED and sealed except for the vent( s). The fuel tank would be set up in the SHED with all hoses, seals, and other components attached. The fuel tank would be filled completely and drained to 40­ percent capacity with 9 RVP test fuel and soaked with an open vent until the fuel reached 22 C. 25 Immediately after the fuel reaches this temperature, the SHED would be purged, and the diurnal temperature cycling would begin. The temperature cycle is actually three repeats of a 24­ hour diurnal trace and is described in Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. During the test a minimum of 5 mph wind speed would be simulated using a fan. The final g/ gallon/ day result is based on the highest mass emission rate from these three 24­ hour cycles, divided by the fuel tank capacity. Fuel tank capacity refers the maximum amount of fuel in the tank under in­ use conditions. These proposed test procedures are designed to simulate near worst case conditions for a typical boat. We believe that typical in­ use fuel tanks will rarely be exposed to a temperature cycle larger than 24 F in a single day. However, in special applications where the fuel tank is exposed to direct sunlight, the tank temperature can change much more than 24 F over the course of a single day. Therefore, we are proposing that special test procedures that simulate the radiant effect of sunlight be used to test fuel tanks that will be exposed to direct sunlight. We would not require this for exposed fuel tanks that are shielded from the sun. This diurnal cycle is consistent with the test requirements in 40 CFR part 86 for highway vehicles. However, the test procedure for highway vehicles includes engine operation and hot soaks. 26 One purpose of the engine operation is to purge the charcoal canister that collects evaporative emissions in highway applications. However, we are excluding engine operation from the evaporative test procedures for boats using SI marine engines because we do not anticipate the use of charcoal canisters in these applications. Another purpose of running the engine and the purpose of the hot soaks is to measure evaporative emissions due to the heating of the engine and exhaust system. However, this would significantly increase the difficulty of the SHED testing due to the large size of most boats. Because most boats are operated only 50 hours per year, these running loss and hot soak emissions are considerably smaller than diurnal and permeation emissions. In addition, most of the emission­ control strategies that could be used to meet the proposed standards would also reduce running loss and hot soak emissions. We request comment on the proposed test procedures for determining evaporative emissions from boats using SI marine engines. 2. What Are the Proposed Test Procedures for Measuring Permeation Emissions? a. Fuel tanks. We propose that tank permeation be based on a test procedure consistent with the Coast Guard requirements in 33 CFR 183.620. Specifically, the rate of permeation from the tank will be measured at 40 C using the same test fuel as for the diurnal testing. We request comment on using 40 C as the test temperature or if 23 C should be used to be consistent with the hose testing. Our understanding is that 40 C represents higher temperatures that may be seen in an engine compartment during operation while 23 C represents typical ambient conditions. If a lower test temperature were used, the standards would need to be adjusted appropriately. Based on data presented in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, the standards would have to be reduced on the order of 50 percent for every 10 C reduction in test temperature. We also request comment on using ASTM Fuel `` C'' and a 15% methanol blend to be consistent with the hose permeation test procedures or on using 10% ethanol consistent with on­ highway evaporative emission testing. The tank would have to be filled and soaked for a minimum of 60 days to ensure that permeation emissions are accurately reflected in the test procedure. The tank would be sealed during testing, and care would have to be made that the environment in which the tank was tested was continuously purged of vapor to prevent the saturation of vapor with hydrocarbons around the outside of the tank. Permeation would be measured through weight loss in the tank or using equivalent procedures. We also request comment on whether we should require specific durability test procedures for fuel tanks. Such durability tests could include pressure vacuum cycle testing, slosh testing, and temperature cycling. Information on these tests is included in the docket. 27 b. Hoses. We propose to use the current practices for measuring permeation from marine hoses that are specified in SAE J 1527. Under this procedure, the hose is tested at 23 C with both ASTM Fuel `` C'' (50% toluene, 50% isooctane) and with a blend on fuel `` C'' with 15% methanol. SAE J 1527 sets permeation limits for hose of 100 g/ m 2 /day for fuel C and 300 g/ m 2 /day for the 15% methanol blend. Consistent with this relationship, we propose to allow the permeation rate to VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 22: 38 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm20 PsN: 14AUP2 53067 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules be three times higher than the proposed standard for fuel C when the hose is tested on the 15% methanol blend. Because permeation rates double, roughly, with every 10 C increase in temperature, the test procedure has a large effect on emissions measured for a given hose material. In addition, the temperature effects may be greater for some materials than for others. For low permeation non­ metal fuel lines used in automotive applications, the current practices are specified in SAE J 2260 and SAE J 1737. Under these test procedures, the hose permeation is measured at 60 C with an 85%­ 15% blend of fuel `` C'' and methanol. We request comment on using the higher test temperature in the automotive test procedure. We also request comment on requiring testing using a 10% ethanol blend consistent with on­ highway evaporative emission testing. 3. Could I Certify Based on Engineering Design Rather Than Through Testing? We recognize that performing SHED testing could be cost­ prohibitive for many fuel tank manufacturers or boat builders. In addition, many of the technologies that can be used to reduce evaporative emissions are straightforward design strategies. For these reasons, we propose that manufacturers have the option of certifying to the diurnal evaporative emission requirements based on fuel system designs, as described in the proposed regulations. Test data would be required to certify fuel tanks and hoses to the proposed permeation standards. However, we would allow carryover of test data from year to year for a given emission control design. We believe the cost of testing tanks and hose designs for permeation would be considerably lower than running variable temperature diurnal testing. In addition, the data could be carried over from year to year, and there is a good possibility that the broad emission family concepts under consideration could lead to minimum testing. For instance, a hose manufacturer could test its hose design once, and all the boat builders who use this hose could incorporate this data in their certification applications. We are proposing design based certification to the tank permeation standard for one case. We would consider an aluminum fuel tank to meet the design criteria for a low permeation fuel tank. However, we would not consider this design to be any more effective than a low permeation fuel tank for the purposes of any sort of credit program. Although aluminum is impermeable, seals and gaskets used on the fuel tank may not be. The design criteria for the seals and gaskets would be that either they would not have a total exposed surface area exceeding 1000 mm 2 , or the seals and gaskets would have to be made of a material with a permeation rate of 10 g/ m 2 /day or less at 23 C. The rest of this section discusses designs that we propose to be acceptable for design­ based certification to the proposed diurnal emission standard. The emission data we used to develop these proposed design options are presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. Additional testing may help us more precisely set the appropriate emission levels associated with each design. Manufacturers wanting to use designs other than those we discuss here would have to perform the above test procedures for their design. However, once a new design is proven, we could add this new design to the list of designs for this certification flexibility and assign it to the appropriate averaging bin. For example, if several manufacturers were to pool their resources to test a diurnal emission control strategy and submit this data to EPA, we would consider this particular strategy and emission level as a new design level for design based certification. We request comment on the concept of design­ based certification and on the technologies and associated emission levels discussed below. Section III. H. 3 presents a more detailed description of what each of these technologies are and how they can be used to reduce evaporative emissions. We have identified several technologies for reducing diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks. The design levels proposed below represent our understanding of the effectiveness of various emission control technologies over the proposed test procedure. Table III. F. 1 summarizes design­ based emission levels associated with several emission control strategies. These control strategies are discussed in more detail after the table. Manufacturers would be required to submit information demonstrating that the components they use would be durable over the useful life of the vessel. For tanks that allow pressure build­ up, a low­ pressure vacuum­ relief valve would also be necessary for the engine to be able to draw fuel during operation. Also, in the cases where anti­ siphon valves are used with these designs, the antisiphon system would have to be designed such that fuel could not spill out through this valve when the system is under pressure. TABLE III. F– 1.— EMISSION LEVELS FOR DESIGN BASED CERTIFICATION TO THE PROPOSED DIURNAL EMISSION STANDARD Emission level [g/ gallon/ day] Technology 1.5 ........................ Baseline (open vent with a normal length vent hose). 1.3 ........................ Near zero pressure limited flow orifice and insulation (R­ value 15), or closed vent, 0.5 psi relief valve. 1.1* ....................... Closed vent, 1.0 psi relief valve. 0.9 ........................ Closed vent, 1.5 psi relief valve. 0.7 ........................ Closed vent, 2.0 psi relief valve. 0.5 ........................ Closed vent, 0.5 psi relief valve with a volume compensating air bag. 0.1 ........................ Bladder fuel tank. * Proposed average standard for diurnal emissions. 1.5 g/ gal/ test: Typical fuel tanks used in boats currently have an open vent to the atmosphere through a vent hose. This vent is intended to prevent pressure from building up in the fuel tank. This uncontrolled fuel tank configuration would be considered to be at this level based on the data presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft RSD. 1.3 g/ gal/ test: The design criteria for this level would be a fuel tank with a near zero pressure limited flow orifice and insulation. The limited flow orifice would be defined as having a maximum cross­ sectional area defined by the following equation: Area [mm 2 ] = 0.04 x fuel tank capacity [gallons]. For example, a 20 gallon tank would need an orifice with no more than a 1 mm diameter. This size orifice is sufficient to limit diffusion of hydrocarbons without causing significant pressure to build in the fuel tank. The design criteria for the insulation would be to use insulation having at least an R­ value of 15 (see section III. H. 3. b). 1.3 g/ gal/ test: An alternative design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank with a pressure­ relief valve that would open at a pressure of 0.5 psi. 1.1 g/ gal/ test: The design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank with a pressure­ relief valve that would open at a pressure of 1.0 psi. 0.9 g/ gal/ test: The design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank with a pressure­ relief valve that would open at a pressure of 1.5 psi. 0.7 g/ gal/ test: The design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53068 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules with a pressure­ relief valve that would open at a pressure of 2.0 psi. 0.5 g/ gal/ test: The design criterion for this level would be a volumecompensating air bag used in conjunction with a 0.5 psi pressurerelief valve if the bag is designed to fill 25 percent of the fuel tank capacity when inflated. This bag would have no leaks to the fuel tank and would be constructed out of a non permeable material. 0.1 g/ gal/ test: The design criterion for this level would be to use a bladder tank. The bladder would have to be sealed and built of low permeable material. This bladder would collapse as fuel was drawn out of it and expand when refueled thereby eliminating the vapor space needed for diurnal vapor generation. G. Special Compliance Provisions The scope of this proposal includes many boat and fuel tank manufacturers that have not been subject to our regulations or certification process. Many of these manufacturers are small businesses for which a typical regulatory program may be burdensome. This section describes the proposed special compliance provisions designed to address this concern. As described in Section VIII. B, the report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel addresses the concerns of small manufacturers of gasoline fuel tanks for marine applications and small boat builders that use these tanks. To identify representatives of small businesses for this process, we used the definitions provided by the Small Business Administration for fuel tank manufacturers and boat builders (less than 500 employees). Twelve small businesses agreed to serve as smallentity representatives. These companies represented a cross­ section of both gasoline and diesel engine marinizers, as well as boat builders. In this industry sector, we believe some of the burden reduction approaches presented in the Panel Report should be applied to all businesses. All of the marine fuel tank manufacturers except for one qualify as small businesses. We believe the purpose of these options is to reduce the potential burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed over a large product line. For this reason, we often times also consider the production volume when making decisions regarding flexibilities. The one fuel tank manufacturer not qualifying as a small business still has low production volumes of marine fuel tanks, thus we believe some flexibilities should be made available to this manufacturer as well. Three of the five burden reduction approaches discussed in the Panel Report are design­ based certification, allowance to use emission credits with design­ based certification, and a 5­ year lead time with early banking. As discussed above, we are proposing these approaches for all manufacturers certifying marine fuel tanks to the proposed evaporative emission standards. This section discusses the other two approaches in the Panel Report and how we propose to apply them to the marine industry. 1. Broadly Defined Product Certification Families To certify to the evaporative emission standards, we propose that manufacturers would have to classify their vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses in emission families based on having similar emission characteristics. We would expect to differentiate families by fuel type, diurnal control technology, and the tank and hose material/ treatment. The manufacturer would then certify each of these evaporative emission families. The purpose of emission families has traditionally been to reduce testing burden by allowing a family to be certified based on the test results from its highest­ emitting member. For highway evaporative emission requirements, each manufacturer divides its products into several evaporative emission families based on characteristics of the fuel system. These characteristics include: fuel type, charcoal canister type and capabilities, seals, valves, hoses, and tank material. The manufacturer then has to certify each of these evaporative emission families. Unlike highway vehicles, evaporative emission controls for marine vessels are not likely to rely on charcoal canisters as a control technology. Furthermore, most or all SI marine engines will use gasoline and most manufacturers do not make both plastic and aluminum fuel tanks. Most manufacturers will therefore have very few emission families and it will be unlikely that emission families could be much broader than discussed here. In addition, broadening emission families may not reduce compliance burden, considering the proposed design­ based certification approach. However, we request comment on whether there are reasonable ways to broaden these engine families, and whether or not small businesses would benefit from any such broadened definitions. 2. Hardship Provisions for Small Businesses Producing Marine Fuel Tanks There are two types of hardship provisions. The first type of hardship program would allow small businesses to petition EPA for additional lead time (e. g., up to 3 years) to comply with the standards. A small manufacturer would have to make the case that it has taken all possible business, technical, and economic steps to comply but the burden of compliance costs would have a significant impact on the company's solvency. A manufacturer would be required to provide a compliance plan detailing when and how it would achieve compliance with the standards. Hardship relief could include requirements for interim emission reductions and/ or purchase and use of emission credits. The length of the hardship relief decided during review of the hardship application would be up to one year, with the potential to extend the relief as needed. The second hardship program would allow companies to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply (i. e., supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if the failure to sell the subject vessels would have a major impact on the company's solvency. See the proposed regulatory text in 40 CFR 1068.240 and 1068.241 for additional details. H. Technological Feasibility We believe there are several strategies that manufacturers can use to meet our proposed evaporative emission standards. We have collected and will continue to collect emission test data on a wide range of evaporative emission control technology. The design­ based certification levels discussed above are based on this test data and we may amend the list of approved designs and emission levels as more data become available. 1. Implementation Schedule There are several strategies available to reduce evaporative emissions (diurnal and permeation) from marine fuel tanks. Some of these may require changes to the tank design, structure, and material that would cause a change in the molds used to make the plastic tanks. These molds need to be replaced periodically as part of normal manufacturing practices. Small manufacturers using rotational molding to produce plastic fuel tanks have commented that the molds covering the majority of their production line have about a five­ year life before replacement. However, for the lowVerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53069 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules production fuel tanks, they may use their molds for 10 to 15 years. They have stated that their costs would be greatly reduced if they could turn over fuel tank molds in a manner more consistent with their current business practice, rather than doing so solely in response to an evaporative control requirement. We recognize that tank manufacturers and boat builders will need time to choose and implement the evaporative emission control strategies that work best for them. We believe the implementation date of 2008, coupled with the option for early banking, provides sufficient lead time beyond the anticipated publication of the final rule. This 5­ year lead time is consistent with the general turnover schedule of most molds used in plastic fuel tank production. We request comment whether there are small entities whose product line is dominated by tanks for which the molds are turned over at a slower rate. Surface treatments to reduce tank permeation are widely used today in other container applications and the technology and production facilities needed to conduct this process exist. While there is definitely value in an organized approach to compliance on the part of the manufacturers, the lead time requirement is largely driven by modifications needed to comply with the diurnal requirements. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of implementing the tank permeation requirement in 2006 or 2007. Low permeation marine hose is used today on some vessels that is close to meeting the proposed standards. In addition, the development time for new hose designs is on the order of 1– 2 years. Therefore, we request comment on whether an earlier implementation date for the proposed permeation standards for marine hoses would be appropriate. We are proposing an implementation date for hose permeation standards of 2008, consistent with the fuel tank standards, because hose fitting modifications may be required which could affect tank design. Manufacturers have commented that low permeation hoses require special connection fittings with better tolerances than seen on many fittings today. Automotive fuel lines also already exist that meet the proposed permeation standards. However, manufacturers have raised concerns with the cost of applying these less flexible fuel lines in marine applications. In any case, using these automotive fuel lines would probably also require fitting changes. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of implementing the hose permeation requirement in 2006 or 2007. 2. Standard Levels We tested several diurnal emissioncontrol strategies using the procedures discussed in VI. D. 1. Based on this testing we believe there are several emission­ control technologies that could be used to significantly reduce diurnal emissions. Also, we have identified several strategies for reducing permeation emissions from fuel tanks and hoses. We recognize that some of these technologies may be more desirable than others for some manufacturers, and we recognize that different strategies for equal emission reductions may be better for different applications. Specific examples of technology that could be used to meet the proposed standards would be fuel tank with a 1 psi valve in the vent, a fluorinated plastic fuel tank, and hose constructed with a thermoplastic barrier. We present several other technological approaches below. 3. Technological Approaches We believe several emission­ control technologies can be used to reduce evaporative emissions from marine fuel tanks. In addition, there are a few technologies that are used in other applications that may not be as effective here. The advantages and disadvantages of various emission­ control strategies are discussed below. Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document presents more detail on these technologies and Chapter 5 provides information on the estimated costs. a. Closed fuel vent with pressure relief. Evaporative emissions are formed when the fuel heats up, evaporates, and passes through the vent into the atmosphere. By closing that vent, evaporative emissions are prevented from escaping. However, as vapor is generated, pressure builds up in fuel tank. Once the fuel cools back down, the pressure subsides. The U. S Coast Guard safety regulations (33 CFR part 183) require that fuel tanks be able to withstand pressure up to 3 psi and must be able to pass a pressure­ impulse test which cycles the tank from 0 to 3 psi 25,000 times. The Coast Guard also requires that these fuel tanks be vented such that the pressure in the tank in­ use never exceeds 80 percent of the pressure that the tank is designed to withstand without leaking. The American Boat and Yacht Council makes the additional recommendation that the vent line should have a minimum inner diameter of 7 Ú16 inch (HÐ 24.13). However, these recommended practices also note that `` there may be EPA or state regulations that limit the discharge of hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere from gasoline fuel systems. The latest version of these regulations should be consulted. '' To prevent pressure from building too high, we first considered a 2 psi pressure­ relief valve. This is a typical automotive rating and is within the Coast Guard requirements. With this valve, vapors would be retained in the tank until 2 psi of pressure is built up in the tank due to heating of the fuel. Once the tank pressure reached 2 psi, just enough of the vapor would be vented to the atmosphere to maintain 2 psi of pressure. As the fuel cooled, the pressure would decrease. We estimate that this would achieve about a 55­ percent reduction in evaporative emissions over the proposed test procedure. A 1 psi valve would achieve a reduction of about half of this over the proposed test procedure. However, in use, this reduction could be much greater because the test procedure is designed to represent a hotter than average day. On a more mild day there could be less pressure buildup in the tank and the valve may not even need to open. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, we tested fuel tanks for diurnal emissions with pressure relief valves ranging from 0.4 to 2.2 psi. With the use of a sealed system, a low­ pressure vacuum­ relief valve would also be necessary so air could be drawn into the tank to replace fuel drawn from the tank when the engine is running. Manufacturers of plastic fuel tanks have expressed concern that their tanks are not designed to operate under pressure. For instance, although they will not leak at 3 psi, rotationally molded fuel tanks with large flat surfaces could begin deforming at pressures as low as 0.5 psi. At higher pressures, the deformation would be greater. This deformation would affect how the tank is mounted in the boat. Also, fuel tank manufacturers commented that some of the fittings or valves used today may not work properly under even 2 psi of pressure. Finally, they commented that backup pressure­ relief valves would be necessary for safety. We believe that, with enough lead time, fuel tank manufacturers will be able to redesign their fuel tanks to be more resistant to deformation under pressure. By reducing the size of flat areas on the tank through adding contours to the tank, or by increasing the thickness of the tank walls, the fuel tanks can be designed to resist deformation under pressure. Portable VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53070 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 28 R­ value measures resistance to heat flow and is defined in 16 CFR 460.5. 29 The Ideal Gas Law states that pressure and volume are inversely related. By increasing the volume of the vapor space, the pressure can be held constant. plastic fuel tanks are generally sealed without any pressure relief and are designed to withstand any pressure that may occur under these conditions. We also believe that if certain fittings and valves cannot withstand pressure today, they can be designed to do so. In addition, we are proposing a standard which can be met with a 1 psi valve which we believe would require significantly less modification to current tanks than designing for 3 psi of pressure. In developing this level we considered first 2.0 psi valves which is consistent with on­ highway fuel tanks and is below the Coast Guard tank pressure requirement. However, we proposed a standard based on a 1.0 psi pressure relief valve to give manufacturers some margin to minimize fuel tank deflection under pressure. Although we do not consider this to be a feasibility issue, we recognize that if the tank were to deflect too much in­ use that either the fuel tank compartment would have to be enlarged to accommodate this expansion or a smaller fuel tank would need to be used. We request comment on this issue. Below, we discuss strategies that could be used in conjunction with a sealed system to minimize the build­ up of pressure in the fuel tank. Such technologies are insulation, volumecompensating air bags, and bladder fuel tanks. With the use of these technologies, the same emission reductions could be achieved with a pressure­ relief valve set to allow lower vent pressures. Finally the structure of the proposed standards gives manufacturers the flexibility to meet the emission limits without building up pressure in the fuel tank. b. Limited flow orifice. An alternative to using a pressure­ relief valve to hold vapors in the fuel tank would be to use a limited­ flow orifice. This would essentially be a plug in the vent line with a pin hole in it that would be small enough to limit vapor flow out of the fuel tank. However, the orifice size may be so small that there would be a risk of fouling. In addition, an orifice designed for a maximum of 2 psi under worst­ case conditions may not be very effective at lower temperatures. We tested a 17­ gallon tank with a 75­ micron diameter limited­ flow orifice over the proposed diurnal test procedure and saw close to a 25 percent reduction in diurnal emissions. The peak pressure in this test was 1.6 psi. c. Insulated fuel tank. Another option we evaluated was insulating either the fuel tank or the compartment around the fuel tank. Rather than capturing the vapors in the fuel tank, we minimize the fuel heating, which therefore minimizes the vapor generation. This could be used in conjunction with a limited­ flow orifice to reduce the loss of vapor through the vent line due to diffusion. Our test data suggest that a 50­ percent reduction in emissions over the proposed test procedure can be achieved using insulation with an Rvalue of 15. 28 However, it should be noted that today's fuel tanks, when installed in boats, have some amount of `` inherent insulation. '' This is especially true for boats that remain in the water. This inherent insulation is considered in our baseline emission factors. Additional control could be achieved with the use of a pressure­ relief valve coupled with an insulated tank. Note that an insulated tank could maintain the same emission control while using a pressure­ relief valve that allowed lower peak pressures, compared with a tank that was not insulated. The method of insulation would have to be consistent with U. S. Coast Guard fuel system requirements. These requirements regulate the resistance to fuels, oils and other chemicals, water adsorption, compressive strength, and density of foam used to encase fuel tanks. In addition, the Coast Guard requirements protect against corrosion of metal fuel tanks due to foam pulling away from the fuel tank causing water to be trapped or from improper drainage. There are several methods that could be used to insulate the fuel tank while maintaining safe practices. These methods include an insulation barrier within the walls of the fuel tank, insulating the compartment that the tank is in rather than the tank itself, and foaming the tank in place by filling the entire compartment the tank is in. The Coast Guard requirements and potential insulation strategies are discussed further in Chapter 3 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. d. Volume­ compensating air bag. Another concept for minimizing pressure in a sealed fuel tank is through the use of a volume­ compensating air bag. The purpose of the bag is to fill up the vapor space in the fuel tank above the fuel. By minimizing the vapor space, the equilibrium concentration of fuel vapors occupies a smaller volume, resulting in a smaller mass of vapors. As the equilibrium vapor concentration increases with increasing temperature, the vapor space expands, which forces air out of the bag through the vent to atmosphere. Because the bag volume decreases to compensate for the expanding vapor space, total pressure inside the fuel tank stays very close to atmospheric pressure. 29 Once the fuel tank cools as ambient temperature goes down, the resulting vacuum in the fuel tank will make the bag expand again by drawing air from the surrounding ambient. Our test results showed that pressure could be kept below 0.8 psi using a bag with a capacity equal to 25 percent of the fuel tank capacity. Therefore, the use of a volumecompensating air bag could allow a manufacturer to reduce the pressure limit on its relief valve. We are still investigating materials that would be the most appropriate for the construction of these bags. The bags would have to hold up in a fuel tank for several years and resist permeation, while at the same time being light and flexible. One such material we are considering is fluorosilicon fiber. Also, the bag would have to be positioned to avoid interfering with other fuel system components such as the fuel pick­ up or catching on any sharp edges in the fuel tank. We estimate that this would be more expensive than using a pressure relief valve with some reinforcement of the fuel tank for pressure; however, it is also more effective at emission control and would minimize pressure in the fuel tank. e. Bladder fuel tank. Probably the most effective technology for reducing diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks is through the use of a collapsible fuel bladder. In this concept, a low permeation bladder is installed in the fuel tank to hold the fuel. As fuel is drawn from the bladder, the vacuum created collapses the bladder. Therefore, there is no vapor space and no pressure build up from fuel heating. Because the bladder is sealed, there would be no vapors vented to atmosphere. This option could also significantly reduce emissions during refueling that would normally result from dispensed fuel displacing vapor in the fuel tank. We have received comments that this would be cost­ prohibitive because it could increase costs from 30 to 100 percent depending on tank size. However, bladder fuel tanks have positive safety implications as well and are already sold by at least one manufacturer to meet market demand in niche applications. f. Charcoal canister. The primary evaporative emission­ control device used in automotive applications is a charcoal canister. With this technology, vapor generated in the tank is vented through a charcoal canister. The VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53071 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 30 Society of Automotive Engineers Surface Vehicle Standard, `` Marine Fuel Hoses, '' SAE J 1527 (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IVÐ AÐ 19). activated charcoal collects and stores the hydrocarbons. Once the engine is running, purged air is drawn through the canister and the hydrocarbons are burned in the engine. These charcoal canisters generally are about a liter in size and have the capacity to store three days of vapor over the test procedure conditions. This technology does not appear to be attractive for marine fuel tanks because boats may sit for weeks at a time without the engine running. Once the canister is saturated, it provides no emission control. g. Floating fuel and vapor separator. Another concept used in some stationary engine applications is a floating fuel and vapor separator. Generally small, impermeable plastic balls are floated in the fuel tank. The purpose of these balls is to provide a barrier between the surface of the fuel and the vapor space. However, this strategy does not appear to be effective for marine fuel tanks. Because of the motion of the boat, the fuel sloshes and the barrier would be continuously broken. Even small movements in the fuel could cause the balls to rotate and transfer fuel to the vapor space. In addition, the unique geometry of many fuel tanks could cause the balls to collect in one area of the tank. h. Low permeability fuel tanks. We estimate that more than a quarter of the evaporative emissions from boats with plastic fuel tanks come from permeation through the walls of the fuel tanks. In highway applications, non­ permeable plastic fuel tanks are produced by blow molding a layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol or nylon between two layers of polyethylene. However, blow molding has high fixed costs and therefore requires high production volumes to be cost effective. For this reason, this manufacturing technique is generally only used for portable fuel tanks which are generally produced in higher volumes. For these tanks, however, multi­ layer fuel tank construction may be an inexpensive and effective approach to controlling permeation emissions Manufacturers of rotationally molded plastic fuel tanks generally have low production volumes and have commented that they could not produce their tanks with competitive pricing in any other way. Currently, they use cross­ link polyethylene which is a low density material that has relatively high rate of permeation. One material that could be used as a low permeation alternative in the rotational molding process is nylon. The use of nylon in the construction of these fuel tanks would reduce permeation by more than 95 percent when compared to cross­ link polyethylene such as is used today. Another type of barrier technology for fuel tanks would be to treat the surfaces of a plastic fuel tanks with fluorine. The fluorination process causes a chemical reaction where exposed hydrogen atoms are replaced by larger fluorine atoms which a barrier on surface of the fuel tank. In this process, fuel tanks are be stacked in a steel container. The container is then be voided of air and flooded with fluorine gas. By pulling a vacuum in the container, the fluorine gas is forced into every crevice in the fuel tanks. As a result of this process, both the inside and outside surfaces of the fuel tank would be treated. As an alternative, for tanks that are blow molded, the inside surface of the fuel tank can be exposed to fluorine during the blow molding process. A similar barrier strategy is called sulfonation where sulfur trioxide is used to create the barrier by reacting with the exposed polyethylene to form sufonic acid groups on the surface. Either of these processes can be used to reduce gasoline permeation by more than 95 percent. Achieving reductions at this level repeatedly would require tanks with consistent material quality, amount, and composition including pigments and any additive packages. This would enable process and efficiency optimization and consistency in the effectiveness of surface treatment processes. Over the first month or so of use, polyethylene fuel tanks can expand by as much as three percent due to saturation of the plastic with fuel. Manufacturers have raised the concern that this hydrocarbon expansion could affect the effectiveness of surface treatments like fluorination or sulfonation. We believe that this will not have a significant effect on the effectiveness of these surface treatments. The California Air Resources Board has performed extensive permeation testing on portable fuel containers with and without these surface treatments. Prior to the permeation testing, the tanks were prepared by first performing a durability procedure where the fuel container is cycled a minimum of 1000 times between 5 psi and ­1 psi. In addition, the fuel containers are soaked with fuel for a minimum of four weeks prior to testing. Their test data, presented in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, show that fluorination and sulfonation are still effective after this durability testing. The U. S. Coast Guard has raised the issue that any process applied to marine fuel tanks to reduce permeation would also need to pass Coast Guard flame resistance requirements. We are not aware of any reason that a fluorination or sulfonation surface treatment would affect the flame resistance of a marine fuel tank. Since this issue was raised, we contracted to have a fluorinated fuel tank tested. This tank passed the U. S. Coast Guard flame resistance test. Also, about a third of marine fuel tanks used today are made of aluminum. Hydrocarbons do not permeate through aluminum. We request comment on the lowpermeable materials and strategies discussed above, and other options that are available, for use in marine fuel tanks and on their cost and effectiveness. i. Low permeability hoses. We also estimate that permeation through fuel and vapor hoses make up more 40 percent of the evaporative emissions from boats. This fraction is higher for boats using aluminum fuel tanks, because they are inherently low in tank permeation emissions. By replacing rubber hoses with low permeability hoses, evaporative emissions through the fuel supply and vent hoses can be reduced by more than 95 percent. Marine fuel hoses are designated as either Type A or B and eitherClass 1 or 2. 30 Type A hose passes the U. S. Coast Guard fire test while Type B represents hose that has not passed this test. Class 1 hose is intended for fuel feed lines where the hose is normally in contact with fuel and has a permeation limit of 100 g/ m2/ day at 23 C. Class 2 hose is intended for vent lines and fuel fill necks where fuel is not continuously in contact with the hose and has a permeation limit of 300 g/ m2/ day at 23 C. In general practice, most boat builders use Class 1 hose for vent lines as well as fuel lines to prevent having to carry two hose types. However, most fuel fill necks, which have a much larger diameter and are constructed differently, are Class 2 hose. Marine hose with permeation rates of less than one tenth of the Class 1 permeation limit is also used by some boat builders today for fuel and vent lines. Given sufficient lead time, we believe that hose manufacturers can modify their designs to use thicker barriers or lower permeating materials to further reduce the permeation rates from this hose. Low permeability fuel supply and vent hoses produced today are generally constructed in one of two ways: either with a low permeability layer or by using a low permeability rubber blend. One hose design, already used in some marine applications, uses a VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53072 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules thermoplastic layer between two rubber layers to control permeation. This thermoplastic barrier may either be nylon or ethyl vinyl acetate. In automotive applications, other barrier materials are used such as fluoroelastomers and fluoroplastics such as Teflon . An added benefit of low permeability lines is that some fluoropolymers can be made to conduct electricity and therefore can prevent the buildup of static charges. Currently, fuel fill necks used in marine applications generally are not made with barrier layers and permeate more than fuel supply lines. However, hoses are produced for chemical applications by the same companies, using the same process, that include barrier layers. This same production methodology could be used for marine fuel hoses. Also, EPA also expects low permeability fill neck hoses to be used in automotive applications in the 2004 as a result of the Tier 2 motor vehicle evaporative emission standards. An alternative approach to reducing the permeability of marine hoses would be fluorination. This process would be performed in a manner similar to discussed above for fuel tanks. Fuel lines used to meet the proposed standards would also have to meet Coast Guard specifications in 33 CFR 183 which include a flame resistance test. Although the automotive standard, SAE J 2260, does not specifically include a flame resistance test like that included in the Coast Guard specifications, manufacturers generally design (and test) their hoses to be flame resistant. 4. Summary EPA believes that the proposed standards for evaporative emissions from boats using spark­ ignition marine engines reasonably reflect what manufacturers can achieve through the application of available technology. Marine fuel tank manufacturers and boat builders will need to use the five years of lead time to select, design, and produce evaporative emission­ control strategies that will work best for their product line. We expect that meeting these requirements will pose a challenge, but one that is feasible taking into consideration the availability and cost of technology, lead time, noise, energy, and safety. The role of these factors is presented in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of the draft RSD. We believe there are several options that can be used to reduce diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks. This, coupled with the proposed emissioncredit program for diurnal emissions, gives manufacturers flexibility in how they choose to comply with the proposed standards. We believe the most likely approach meeting the proposed emission diurnal standard will be for manufacturers to use a closed vent with a 1 psi pressure relief valve. Although we evaluated several technologies that have the potential to achieve larger emission reductions, we believe that more stringent standards are not appropriate at this time. This industry is primarily made up of small manufacturers and would likely need more time to develop technology options for further emission control. In addition, there are a wide range of fuel tank designs and applications in the recreational marine market, and the technologies discussed above may not be appropriate for all applications. Given these issues, and U. S. Coast Guard requirements, we believe that the flexibility given in the proposed diurnal requirements is appropriate. The proposed permeation standards are based on the effective application of low permeable materials or surface treatments. This is essentially a step change in technology; therefore, we believe that even if we were to propose a less stringent permeation standard, these technology options would likely still be used. In addition, this technology is relatively inexpensive and can achieve meaningful emission reductions. The proposed standards are expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in permeation emissions from marine fuel tanks and hoses. We believe that more stringent standards could result in significantly more expensive materials without large additional emission reduction. We request comment on our proposed permeation emission standards. IV. Sterndrive and Inboard Marine Engines This section describes our current thinking regarding exhaust emissions from sterndrive and inboard marine engines (SD/ I). We are not proposing SD/ I exhaust emission standards at this time. We are investigating whether the application of catalysts on marine engines could be a cost­ effective way to control emissions. We believe, that setting catalyst­ forcing standards now would be premature, given the open issues related to catalyst use in the marine environment. However, we are continuing our efforts to develop and demonstrate catalytic control on SD/ I marine engines in the laboratory and inuse and will place new information in the docket when it is available. In fact, we intend to follow with another rulemaking in the future that will address exhaust emissions from SD/ I engines once we have collected more information. We intend to include outboards and personal watercraft in this rulemaking as well. There are three primary approaches that we believe could be used to reduce exhaust emissions from sterndrive and inboard marine engines. The first is through lower emission calibration of the engine, especially through the use of electronic fuel injection. This could be implemented quickly, but would only result in small emission reductions. The second approach would be through the use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) which could be used to get a 40 to 50­ percent reduction in NOX. Although this would be feasible, it would not be nearly as effective at controlling emissions as the third approach of using catalytic control. We believe catalytic control could be used to achieve much larger emission reductions than either of the first two approaches; therefore, we intend to implement catalyst­ based standards as soon as we believe it is feasible. We believe we can implement these stringent standards sooner if we do not set an interim standard based on EGR. Manufacturers have raised concerns that if they were to focus on designing for an EGR­ based standard, it would divert resources needed for catalyst development. We are in the process of resolving technical issues with the use of catalysts in a marine environment. Ongoing testing has shown promising results; we believe that, in the near future, continued efforts will resolve the remaining issues raised by the marine industry and by Coast Guard. One issue is that operation in the marine environment could result in unique durability problems for catalysts. Another issue to be addressed in developing this technology is ensuring that salt water does not reach the catalyst so that salt does not accumulate on the catalyst and reduce its efficiency. A third issue is addressing any potential safety concerns. As discussed in Section I. F, California ARB has recently put into place HC+ NOX exhaust emission standards for SD/ I marine engines. These standards include a cap on baseline emission levels in 2003 followed by catalystforcing standards (5 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX) phased in from 2007 through 2009. These standards are contingent on technology reviews in 2003 and 2005. ARB and industry have agreed on a catalyst development program for marine engines over the next several years. We will participate in and monitor catalyst development efforts for marine engines over the next few years. Since the ANPRM, we have collected laboratory emission data on a SD/ I VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53073 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 31 Carroll, J., White, J., `` Marine Gasoline Engine Testing, '' Prepared by Southwest Research Institute for the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, EPA Contract 68Ð CÐ 98Ð 169, WA 2Ð 11, September 2001 (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IVÐ AÐ 91). marine engine through a joint effort with ARB, engine marinizers, and Southwest Research Institute. 31 We collected baseline emission data as well as emission data from closed­ loop control, exhaust gas recirculation, and several catalyst concepts. This work included catalyst packaging strategies designed to prevent water reversion to the catalyst. With the combination of closed­ loop electronic control and EGR, we saw a reduction of 22 percent HC+ NOX and 39 percent CO from baseline. A catalyst was placed in a stock riser extension which resulted in a 74­ percent reduction in HC+ NOX and 46­ percent reduction in CO from baseline. Other catalyst configurations were also tested with varying emissions reductions depending on their design. In the testing discussed above, the 74 percent reduction in HC+ NOX was achieved using a two catalysts with a combined volume of less than 1.5 liters on a SD/ I engine with a 7.4 liter total engine displacement. SD/ I marine engines sold today generally range from 3.0 to 8.1 liters of total cylinder displacement. A smaller engine would need less catalyst volume for the same emissions reduction. Further information on the emission reductions associated with SD/ I emission control strategies and associated costs will be included in future rulemaking documents. As discussed above, we are working with the marine industry, ARB, and Coast Guard on technology assessment of catalytic converters on sterndrive and inboard marine engines. However, we do not believe this technology has been sufficiently demonstrated for us to set national standards based on implementation of catalyst technology at this time. We will also need to consider other factors such as cost and energy impacts in determining appropriate levels of standards. As we work towards low emission marine engines through catalyst technology for SD/ I we also intend to investigate this technology for use on outboards and personal watercraft (OB/ PWC). We believe many of the same issues with applying catalysts to SD/ I marine engines also apply to OB/ PWC marine engines. In addition, the annual emissions contribution of OB/ PWC marine is several times larger than the contribution from SD/ I marine engines so there is the potential for significant additional reductions from OB/ PWC. Therefore, we intend to look into the feasibility and cost effectiveness of applying catalytic control to outboards and personal watercraft as well. Manufacturers have argued that the development effort required for EGR may detract resources from catalyst development. We are sensitive to this issue and are not proposing EGR­ based standards at this time as it could ultimately slow industry's ability to meet catalyst­ based standards. Clearly, the greatest potential for emission reductions is through the use of catalysts and we wish to implement standards as soon as feasible. However, if it were to become apparent that catalysts would not be feasible for SI marine engines in the time frame of the California ARB technology reviews, we would contemplate proposal of a standard based on EGR. EGR has been used in automotive applications for decades and we believe there are no significant technical hurdles for applying this inexpensive technology to marine engines. Although current marine engines do not generally have a port for exhaust gas recirculation, the electronic fuel injection systems are capable of controlling an EGR valve and control feedback loop. Given enough lead time, we believe manufacturers could apply this technology effectively on SI marine engines. We request comment on the feasibility of applying electronic fuel injection, exhaust gas recirculation, catalysts, or other technology that could be used to reduce emissions from SI marine engines. We also request comment on the costs and corresponding potential emission reductions from using these technologies, as well as any potential effects on engine performance, safety, and durability. V. Highway Motorcycles We are proposing revised exhaust emission standards for highway motorcycles. This section includes background material, a description of the proposed standards and other important provisions, and a discussion of the technological feasibility of the proposed standards. A. Overview In general, we are proposing to harmonize the federal exhaust emission standards for all classes of motorcycles with those of the California program, but on a delayed schedule relative to implementation in California. For Class I and Class II motorcycles, this would mean meeting exhaust emission standards that apply today in California. For Class III motorcycles, this would mean meeting the two tiers of exhaust emission standards that California ARB has put in place for future model years. The existing federal CO standard of 12.0 g/ km would remain unchanged. The process by which manufacturers certify their motorcycles, the test procedures, the driving cycle, and other elements of the federal program would also remain unchanged. We are also proposing standards for the currently unregulated category of motorcycles with engines of less than 50cc displacement. 1. What Are Highway Motorcycles and Who Makes Them? Motorcycles come in a variety of two­ and three­ wheeled configurations and styles. For the most part, however, they are two­ wheeled, self­ powered vehicles. EPA regulations currently define a motorcycle as `` any motor vehicle with a headlight, taillight, and stoplight and having: two wheels, or three wheels and a curb mass less than or equal to 793 kilograms (1749 pounds) '' (See 40 CFR 86.402Ð 98). Both EPA and California regulations sub­ divide highway motorcycles into classes based on engine displacement. Table V. AÐ 1 below shows how these classes are defined. TABLE V. A– 1.— MOTORCYCLE CLASSES Motorcycle class Engine displacement (cubic centimeters) Class I ....................... 50*– 169 Class II ...................... 170– 279 Class III ..................... 280 and greater * This proposal would extend Class I to include <50cc. It is important to note that this definition excludes off­ highway motorcycles from the regulatory definition of motorcycle. This is because the term `` motor vehicle, '' as used in the Act, applies only to vehicles `` designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway'' (CAA section 216). In addition, EPA has promulgated regulations, in 40 CFR 85.1703, that elaborate on the Act's definition of motor vehicles and set forth three criteria, which, if any one is met, would cause a vehicle not to be considered a motor vehicle under the regulations, and therefore not subject to requirements applicable to motor vehicles. These criteria are: (1) The vehicle cannot exceed a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour over a level paved surface; or (2) The vehicle lacks features customarily associated with safe and practical street or highway use, including such things as a reverse gear (except motorcycles), a differential, or VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53074 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 32 `` 2000 Motorcycle Statistical Annual'', Motorcycle Industry Council (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IIÐ DÐ 192). 33 DealerNews, volume 37, no. 2, February 2001 (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IIÐ DÐ 190). safety features required by state and/ or Federal law; or (3) The vehicle exhibits features which render its use on a street or highway unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely, including tracked road contact means, an inordinate size, or features ordinarily associated with military combat or tactical vehicles such as armor and/ or weaponry. Thus, vehicles not meeting the criteria noted above are not covered by the proposed emission standard for motorcycles, because they fail to meet the definition of motor vehicle in the Clean Air Act and in 40 CFR 85.1703. Vehicles that are not considered to be a motor vehicle under these statutory and regulatory provisions are generally considered under the Clean Air Act to be nonroad vehicles. In an earlier proposal, we discussed proposed emission standards for nonroad recreational vehicles, a category which includes off­ highway motorcycles (66 FR 51098, October 5, 2001). Also falling into the nonroad definition category are the mopeds and scooters that do not meet the definition of `` motor vehicle, '' i. e., the smaller cousins of the mopeds and scooters that are currently considered highway motorcycles and certified as Class I motorcycles. In other words, if a moped or scooter or similar `` motorbike'' cannot exceed 25 miles per hour, it is not considered a motor vehicle, but it is instead categorized as a nonroad recreational vehicle and would be subject to the emission standards recently proposed for offhighway motorcycles. Furthermore, vehicles that otherwise meet the motorcycle definition (i. e., are highway motorcycles as opposed to offhighway motorcycles) but have engine displacements less than 50 cubic centimeters (cc) (generally, youth motorcycles, most mopeds, and some motor scooters) are currently not required to meet EPA standards. Also currently excluded are motorcycles which, `` with an 80 kg (176 lb) driver, * * * cannot: (1) Start from a dead stop using only the engine; or (2) Exceed a maximum speed of 40 km/ h (25 mph) on level paved surfaces'' (e. g., some mopeds). Most scooters and mopeds have very small engine displacements and are typically used as short­ distance commuting vehicles. Motorcycles with larger engine displacement are more typically used for recreation (racing or touring) and may travel long distances. The currently regulated highway category includes motorcycles termed `` dual­ use'' or `` dual­ sport, '' meaning that their designs incorporate features that enable them to be competent for both street and nonroad use. Dual­ sport motorcycles generally can be described as street­ legal dirt bikes, since they often bear a closer resemblance in terms of design features and engines to true offhighway motorcycles than to highway cruisers, touring, or sport bikes. These dual­ sport motorcycles tend to fall in Class I or Class II. The larger displacement Class III motorcycles are by far the most common motorcycles in the current U. S. market. Of the 175 engine 2002 families certified as of January 2002 by manufacturers for sale in the U. S., 151 fall in the Class III category, representing more than 93 percent of projected sales. Most of these are quite far from the bottom limit of Class III motorcycles (280cc); more than three­ quarters of projected 2002 highway motorcycle sales are above 700cc, with engine displacements exceeding 1000cc for the most powerful `` superbikes, '' large cruisers, and touring bikes. The average displacement of all certified engine families is about 980cc, and the average displacement of certified Class III engine families is above 1100cc. The sales­ weighted average displacement of 2002 highway motorcycles is about 1100cc. Class I and Class II motorcycles, which together make up less than seven percent of projected 2002 sales and only 24 out of 175 certified 2002 engine families, consist mostly of dual­ sport bikes, scooters, and entry­ level sportbikes and cruisers. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, in 1998 there were about 5.4 million highway motorcycles in use in the United States (565,000 of these were dual­ sport). Total sales in 1999 of highway motorcycles was estimated to be about 387,000, or about 69 percent of motorcycle sales. About 15,000 of these were dual­ sport motorcycles. 32 Recent figures for the 2000 calendar year show that retail sales approached 438,000 highway motorcycles, about 19,000 of which were dual­ sport bikes. 33 Six companies account for about 95 percent of all motorcycles sold (Honda, Harley Davidson, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and BMW). All of these companies except Harley­ Davidson and BMW also manufacture off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs for the U. S. market. Harley­ Davidson is the only company of these six that is manufacturing highway motorcycles in the U. S. for the domestic market. Dozens of other companies make up the remaining five percent. Many of these are small U. S. companies manufacturing anywhere from a few dozen to a few thousand motorcycles, although importers and U. S. affiliates of larger international companies also contribute to the remaining five percent. See the draft Regulatory Support Document for more information regarding the makeup of the industry. As of the 2002 model year, all highway motorcycles with engines greater than 50cc displacement are powered by four­ stroke engines. (Prior to the 2002 model year, Kawasaki was certifying a 100cc two­ stroke dual­ sport motorcycle to the federal emission standards.) In the scooter and moped segment with engines under 50cc displacement, two­ stroke engines have traditionally outnumbered four­ strokes, although that appears to be changing. In particular, Honda is now marketing a 2002 49cc four­ stroke scooter. Of the several dozen manufacturers in the under 50cc market, about a third are offering four­ stroke engines. Therefore, as of the 2002 model year, it appears that about one third of the sales of scooters and mopeds under 50cc are powered by four­ stroke engines. 2. What Is the History of Emission Regulations for Highway Motorcycles? Emissions from highway motorcycles have been regulated for more than 20 years. While the federal requirements have remained unchanged since the initial standards were adopted more than 20 years ago, regulations in California, Europe, and many nations around the world have been periodically updated to reflect the availability of technology and the need for additional emission reductions. a. EPA regulations. In 1977 EPA issued a Final Rule (42 FR 1126, Jan. 5, 1977), which established interim exhaust emission standards effective for the 1978 and 1979 model years and ultimate standards effective starting with the 1980 model year. The interim standards ranged from 5.0 to 14.0 g/ km HC depending on engine displacement, while the CO standard of 17.0 g/ km applied to all motorcycles. The standards and requirements effective for 1980 and later model year motorcycles, which do not include NOX emission standards, remain in effect today. While the final standards did not differ based on engine displacement, the useful life over which these standards must be met ranged from 12,000 km (7,456 miles) for Class I motorcycles to 30,000 km (18,641 miles) for Class III motorcycles. Crankcase emissions from motorcycles have also been prohibited since 1980. There are no current federal standards for evaporative emissions from VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53075 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 34 California ARB, October 23, 1998 `` Proposed Amendments to the California On­ Road Motorcycle Regulation'' Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IIÐ DÐ 12). 35 The ECEÐ 40 cycle is used by several countries around the world for motorcycle emission testing. It has its origins in passenger car driving, being derived from the European ECEÐ 15 passenger car cycle. The speed­ time trace is simply a combination of straight lines, resulting in a `` modal'' cycle, rather than the transient nature of the U. S. Federal Test Procedure (FTP). motorcycles. The current federal standards are shown in Table V. AÐ 2. TABLE V. A– 2.— CURRENT FEDERAL EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOTORCYCLES Engine size HC (g/ km) CO (g/ km) All .................................. 5.0 12.0 b. California ARB regulations. Motorcycle exhaust emission standards in California were originally identical to the federal standards that applied to 1978 through 1981 model year motorcycles. The definitions of motorcycle classes used by California ARB continue to be identical to the federal definitions. However, California ARB has revised its standards several times in bringing them to their current levels (see Table V. AÐ 3). In the 1982 model year the standards were modified to tighten the HC standard from 5.0 g/ km to 1.0 or 1.4 g/ km, depending on engine displacement. California adopted an evaporative emission standard of 2.0 g/ test for all three motorcycle classes for 1983 and later model year motorcycles. California later amended the regulations for 1988 and later model year motorcycles to further lower emissions and to make the compliance program more flexible for manufacturers. The 1988 and later standards could be met on a corporate­ average basis, and the Class III bikes were split into two separate categories: 280 cc to 699 cc and 700 cc and greater. These are the standards that apply in California now. Like the federal standards, there are currently no limits on NOX emissions for highway motorcycles in California. Under the corporate­ average scheme, no individual engine family is allowed to exceed a cap of 2.5 g/ km HC. Like the federal program, California also prohibits crankcase emissions. TABLE V. A– 3.— CURRENT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS Engine size (cc) HC (g/ km) CO (g/ km) 50– 279 .......................... 1.0 12.0 280– 699 ........................ 1.0 12.0 700 and above .............. 1.4 12.0 In November 1999, California ARB adopted new exhaust emission standards for Class III motorcycles that would take effect in two phases Tier 1 standards starting with the 2004 model year, followed by Tier 2 standards starting with the 2008 model year (see Table V. AÐ 4). Existing California standards for Class I and Class II motorcycles, which have been in place since 1982, remain unchanged, as does their evaporative emissions standard. As with the current standards in California, manufacturers will be able to meet the requirements on a corporate­ average basis. Perhaps most significantly, California ARB's Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards control NOX emissions for the first time by establishing a combined HC+ NOX standard. California ARB made no changes to the CO emission standard, which remains at 12.0 g/ km, equivalent to the existing federal standard. In addition, California ARB is providing an incentive program to encourage the introduction of Tier 2 motorcycles before the 2008 model year. This incentive program allows the accumulation of emission credits that manufacturers can use to meet the 2008 standards. Like the federal program, these standards will also apply to dualsport motorcycles. TABLE V. A– 4.— TIER 1 AND TIER 2 CALIFORNIA CLASS III HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS Model year Engine displacement HC+ NOX (g/ km) CO (g/ km) 2004 through 2007 (Tier 1) ............................................... 280 cc and greater ........................................................... 1.4 12.0 2008 and subsequent (Tier 2) .......................................... 280 cc and greater ........................................................... 0.8 12.0 California ARB also adopted a new definition of small­ volume manufacturer that will take effect with the 2008 model year. Currently and through the 2003 model year, all manufacturers must meet the standards, regardless of production volume. Smallvolume manufacturers, defined in California ARB's recent action as a manufacturer with California sales of combined Class I, Class II, and Class III motorcycles not greater than 300 units annually, do not have to meet the new standards until the 2008 model year, at which point the Tier 1 standard applies. California ARB intends to evaluate whether the Tier 2 standard should be applied to small­ volume manufacturers in the future. 34 c. International regulations. The European Commission (EC) recently finalized a new phase of motorcycle standards, which will start in 2003, and the EC intends a second phase to start in 2006. Whereas the current European standards make a distinction between two­ stroke and four­ stroke engines, the proposed standards would apply to all motorcycles regardless of engine type. The 2003 standards would require emissions to be below the values shown in Table V. AÐ 5, as measured over the European ECEÐ 40 test cycle. 35 The standards considered for 2006 are still in a draft form and have not yet been officially proposed, but the expectation is that they will be considerably more stringent. In addition to taking another step in reducing motorcycle emissions, the 2006 standards may incorporate an improved motorcycle test cycle, as noted below. The standards in the following table apply to motorcycles of less than 50cc (e. g., scooters and mopeds) only if the motorcycle can exceed 45 kilometers per hour (28 miles per hour). Starting in 2002 motorcycles of less than 50cc that cannot exceed 45 kilometers per hour (28 miles per hour) are subject to a new HC+ NOX standard of 1.2 grams per kilometer and a CO standard of 1.0 gram per kilometer. TABLE V. A– 5.— EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2003 MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS HC (g/ km) CO (g/ km) NOX (g/ km) 1.2 5.5 0.3 Many other nations around the world, particularly in South Asia where twostroke mostly small displacement motorcycles can be a majority of the vehicle population, have also recently improved their emission standards or are headed that way in the next several years. For example, Taiwan has adopted an HC+ NOX standard of 1.0 gram per VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53076 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 36 The IDC, although not a transient cycle like the FTP, appears to be the only cycle currently in use that is based on actual measurements of motorcycles in use. 37 A motorcycle is a `` motor vehicle'' as defined under section 216 of the Clean Air Act, which states that ``[ t] he motor vehicle' means any self­ propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway. '' 38 See Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A, Interim Tampering Enforcemetn Policy, Office of Enforcement and General Council, June 25, 1974 (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IVÐ AÐ 27). (http:// www. epa. gov/ oeca/ aed/ comp/ hcomp. html) kilometer for all two­ strokes starting in 2003 (as tested on the European ECEÐ 40 test cycle). (Four­ stroke motorcycle engines will have to meet at standard of 2.0 grams per kilometer.) India has proposed a standard for all motorcycles of 1.3 grams per kilometer HC+ NOX in 2003 and 1.0 grams per kilometer HC+ NOX in 2005 (as tested on the Indian Drive Cycle, or IDC). 36 China has adopted the European standards described above, implementing them in 2004, a year later than Europe. d. Test cycle. In the ANPRM we requested comment on the adequacy of the current test cycle (the Federal Test Procedure, or FTP) for representing the highway motorcycle operation. We suggested that the existing US06 test cycle (more aggressive accelerations and higher speeds than the FTP) or another more representative test cycle might be appropriate for highway motorcycles. In addition, we noted the effort underway under the auspices of the United Nations/ Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ ECE) to develop a global harmonized world motorcycle test cycle (WMTC), and requested comment on adopting such a test cycle. The objective of the WMTC project is to develop a scientifically supported test cycle that accurately represents the in­ use driving characteristics of highway motorcycles. The advantages of such a test cycle are numerous. First, the industry could have a single test cycle to meet emission standards in many countries (the process recognizes that nations will have differing emission standards due the varying air­ pollution concerns). Second, the test cycle could potentially be better than the existing FTP in that it intends to better represent how a wide range of riders drive their motorcycles. Similar comments were submitted on this issue by the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) and by Harley­ Davidson Motor Company. In general MIC and Harley­ Davidson stated that while pursuing a global emissions test procedure for motorcycles makes good business sense, the timing of the ongoing international process is not consistent with the current EPA rulemaking to establish new motorcycle standards. At this time we are not proposing any modifications to the highway motorcycle test cycle. We continue to be involved in the WMTC process and are hopeful that a test cycle meeting the stated objectives can be agreed on by the international participants. Although a draft test cycle has been developed, several issues remain unresolved and it will likely be a couple of years before a new cycle can be issued as a global technical regulation under the process established by a 1998 international agreement. Under that process, if a test cycle is brought to a vote and the United States votes in the affirmative, we will then be committed to initiating a rulemaking that may lead to a proposal to adopt the new test cycle. We request comment on the best way to transition to a new global test cycle in the future, should that time come. Among the many options we could consider are: an immediate transition; a phasing in of the new cycle and a phasing out of the FTP; or a phasing in of the new cycle while maintaining the FTP as an option for a specified number of years. e. Consumer modifications. Many motorcycle owners personalize their motorcycles in a variety of ways. This is one of the aspects of motorcycle ownership that is appealing to a large number of motorcycle owners, and they take their freedom to customize their bikes very seriously. However, there are some forms of customization that are not legal under the provisions of Clean Air Act section 203( a), which states that it is illegal: `` for any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this title ... after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser* * *'' In other words, under current law, owners of motor vehicles 37 cannot legally make modifications that cause the emissions to exceed the applicable emissions standards, and they cannot remove or disable emission­ control devices installed by the manufacturer. 38 We use the term `` tampering'' to refer specifically to actions that are illegal under Clean Air Act section 203; the term, and the prohibition, do not apply generally to the wide range of actions that a motorcycle enthusiast can take to personalize his or her motorcycle, but only to actions that remove or disable emission control devices or cause the emissions to exceed the standards. We know, from anecdotal reports and from some data collected from in­ use motorcycles, that a portion of the motorcycle riding population has removed, replaced, or modified the original equipment on their motorcycles. This customization can include changes that can be detrimental (or, in some cases, possibly beneficial) to the motorcycle's emission levels. The ANPRM sought comments and data that could better help us understand the nature of the issue, such that our proposal could be made with the best understanding possible of current consumer practices. We did not intend to suggest that we would be revising the existing tampering restrictions to prohibit many of the things that motorcycle owners are now doing legally. The proposed emissions standards, if adopted by EPA, would not change this `` tampering'' prohibition, which has been in place for more than 20 years. Owners would still be free generally to customize their motorcycles in any way, as long as they do not disable emission controls or cause the motorcycle to exceed the emission standards. They would also be free, as they are now, to perform routine maintenance on their motorcycles to restore or maintain the motorcycle engine and related components in their original condition and configuration. This proposal would increase the number of motorcycle models employing emission reduction technologies such as sequential fuel injection, pulse air injection, and catalytic converters. We request comment on the impact, if any, that these technologies could have on the difficulty and/ or cost of routine maintenance or other legal modifications performed by or for the consumer. As discussed below and in the draft RSD, we do not anticipate detrimental impacts to the performance ch aracteristics of motorcycles that will meet the proposed emission standards. We request comment and supporting data on potential performance impacts (positive and negative) of these technologies. B. Motorcycles Covered by This Proposal Highway, or `` street­ legal, '' motorcycles are covered by the proposal described in this section. EPA regulations currently define a `` motorcycle'' as `` any motor vehicle with a headlight, taillight, and stoplight and having: two wheels, or three wheels and a curb mass less than or equal to 793 kilograms (1749 pounds). '' (See 40 CFR 86.402Ð 98). This definition would continue to apply; therefore, the term `` motorcycle'' would continue to refer only to highway motorcycles. In VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53077 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules addition, these `` motorcycles'' that are currently subject to emissions standards would be subject to the proposed standards. However, we are also proposing to modify the regulations to include some motorcycles that are currently excluded from the emission regulations, as described below. EPA regulations currently exclude motorcycles (i. e., motor vehicles that meet the definition of `` motorcycle'' stated above) from the emission standards requirements based on several criteria laid out in 40 CFR 86.401­ 97. First, motorcycles are excluded if they have an engine displacement of less than 50cc. Second, a motorcycle is excluded if, with an 80 kg (176 lb) driver, it cannot start from a dead stop using only the engine or exceed 40 kph (25 mph) on a level paved surface. These provisions have the effect of excluding many mopeds, youth motorcycles, and some scooters from having to comply with any emission standards requirements. As discussed above, motorcycle­ like vehicles that cannot exceed 25 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles, and thus would be regulated under the nonroad recreational vehicle standards proposed earlier this year (66 FR 51098, October 5, 2001). Highway motorcycles with engine displacements less than 50cc are generally most mopeds, as well as some motor scooters (`` scooters, '' or sometimes, `` motorbikes''). Many of these vehicles are powered by 49cc twostroke engines, although four­ stroke engines are becoming more popular. Honda, for example, will no longer be marketing any two­ stroke street­ use motorcycles as of the 2003 model year; everything, including their 49cc scooter, will be powered by a four­ stroke engine. We are proposing to revise two aspects of the regulations such that we would require most of these currently excluded vehicles to meet emission standards in the future. First, the general exclusion for motorcycles under 50cc would be changed such that no motorcycles would be excluded from the emission standards on the basis of engine displacement alone. Second, the definition of Class I motorcycles would be revised to accommodate motorcycles under 50cc (i. e., a Class I motorcycle would be defined as a motorcycle with an engine displacement of less than 170cc). The standards that would apply to these vehicles are described in the following section. It is important to note that the motorcycle­ like vehicles under 50cc that cannot be defined as a motor vehicle (e. g., one that can't exceed 25 mph), continue to be excluded from these standards; they would, however, be covered by the recently proposed standards for nonroad recreational vehicles (66 FR 51098, October 5, 2001). We request comment on our proposed regulation of this previously unregulated category of motorcycle. The cost per ton of controlling emissions from motorcycles with less than 50cc displacement engines is higher than for the proposed standards for larger motorcycles. However, the scooters and mopeds are very likely to be operated exclusively within populated urban areas. Scooters and mopeds, by virtue of their limited speeds, are not appropriate for use on highways; these small two­ wheelers are often purchased for limited commuting within large urban areas or college campuses. Thus, it is likely that the air quality benefits of controlling emissions from these engines would be greater than indicated by the cost per ton comparison alone. We request comments on the merits of applying standards to these vehicles. Parties have raised concerns regarding the potential for losses in environmental benefits from the highway use of offhighway motorcycles. Because the standards are different today offhighway motorcycles do not currently have emissions standards) and would be somewhat different under our proposed standards, emissions reductions potentially could be lost if consumers purchased off­ highway motorcycles for highway use on a widespread basis. State requirements vary considerably and in some states it may be difficult to meet requirements by modifying an offhighway motorcycle, while in others it may require only a few minor modifications. We request comment on current practices and the potential for this to occur in the future. We also request comment on steps we could reasonably take to address air pollution concerns associated with highway use of off­ highway motorcycles. C . Proposed Standards 1. What Are the Proposed Standards and Compliance Dates? In general, we are proposing to harmonize the federal exhaust emission standards for all classes of motorcycles with those of the California program, but on a delayed schedule relative to implementation in California. (The exception would be motorcycles with engines of less than 50cc displacement, which are not currently regulated by California, for which we are also proposing standards.) For Class I and Class II motorcycles as currently defined, this would mean meeting exhaust emission standards that apply now in California (and have applied since 1982). For Class III motorcycles, this would mean meeting the two tiers of exhaust emission standards that California ARB has put in place for future model years. The existing federal CO standard of 12.0 g/ km would remain unchanged. The process by which manufacturers certify their motorcycles, the test procedures, the driving cycle, and other elements of the federal program would remain unchanged. In the development of this proposal following the publication of the ANPRM we considered several regulatory alternatives. These included: no revision to the standards, harmonization with one of the `` tiers'' of California standards (current, 2004 Tier­ 1, 2008 Tier­ 2), more stringent standards than those in place in California, or possibly different implementation timing. We also considered various alternatives designed to reduce the burden on small manufacturers (these are presented in section VII. B on the Regulatory Flexibility Act). After considering comments on the ANPRM, we believe that the standards should be revised. The existing Federal standards were established more than twenty years ago, and it is clear that emission control technology has advanced a great deal in that time. California has continued to revise their standards to maintain some contact with current technology, and manufacturers have generally (but not uniformly) responded by producing motorcycles for sale nationwide that meet the more stringent California standards. Thus, in large part the existing federal standards has been superseded because of the preponderance of manufacturers that have responded in this way. Those arguing against new emission standards often cite the fact that motorcycles are typically far cleaner than the existing federal standards require. Although we agree, we see this fact as a reason for improving emission standards and as evidence that the current federal standards are out of touch with the reality of today's technology. We believe it is most appropriate at this time to propose harmonizing with the California exhaust emission standards, as opposed to other options discussed in the ANPRM. For example, the dissimilarities between on­ and offhighway motorcycles do not encourage a one­ size­ fits­ all approach for all motorcycles (this opinion is supported by a significant number of those who commented on the ANPRM). Offhighway motorcycles are powered predominantly by two­ stroke engines, whereas highway motorcycles are all powered by four­ stroke engines as of the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53078 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 39 See comments on the ANPRM from HarleyDavidson and the Motorcycle Industry Council, available in the public docket for review (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IIÐ DÐ 48). 40 Based on analysis of motorcycle emissions certification data. 2002 model year. On­ and off­ highway motorcycle engines also lie at vastly different ends of the size spectrum. The average highway motorcycle sold today has a displacement of nearly 1000cc, whereas almost 90 percent of offhighway motorcycle engines have an engine displacement of less than 350cc. In addition, on­ and off­ highway motorcycles are used in very different ways; finding a set of standards and a test procedure that adequately represents the typical range of operation for both types would therefore be extremely challenging. On­ highway motorcycle manufacturers have commented that, to the extent the standards are revised, harmonization with California, rather than a distinctly different set of standards, is preferable because it eliminates the possibility of needing two distinct product lines for California and Federal regulations. 39 Delaying implementation of the California standards on a nationwide basis by two years would provide an opportunity for manufacturers to gain some experience with the technology needed to meet the new standards. Two years provides time for technology optimization and cost reduction. Providing a longer delay could potentially provide the option of a further decrease in the level of the emission standards, given that the technological feasibility of the California standards has been adequately demonstrated (at least one manufacturer is already selling a motorcycle meeting the 2008 California standards). However, this would be a tradeoff against a more timely introduction of the new standards. We also evaluated whether the federal motorcycle program should incorporate averaging provisions, as the California program does. Given the desire of most manufacturers to manufacture a motorcycle for nationwide sale, such a program without averaging would not be desirable because it would not provide the flexibility needed to meet the California and federal requirements together and could have at least potentially led to a somewhat less stringent Federal standard. Therefore, we are proposing to provide an averaging program comparable to California's. EPA uses the term `` useful life'' to describe the period (usually years and/ or miles) over which the manufacturer must demonstrate the effectiveness of the emission control system. For example, the `` useful life'' of current passenger cars is 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs. It does not mean that a vehicle is no longer useful or that the vehicle must be scrapped or turned in once these limits are reached. The term has no effect on the owners' ability to ride their motorcycles for as long as they want. In the ANPRM we requested comment on whether the current definitions of useful life for the three motorcycle classes remains appropriate, given that these definitions were established more than 20 years ago. For example, we question whether, given that the average distance traveled per year for highway motorcycles is around 4,200 km (2,600 miles), the useful life for Class III motorcycles of 30,000 km (18,680 miles) is really appropriate. A typical motorcycle would reach the useful life mileage in about seven years at that rate. Based on data received from an industry trade group, we estimated an average operating life of 12.5 years for onhighway motorcycles. We request comment on extending the useful life by up to 10,000 km (6,200 miles) to reflect a value more consistent with actual use. a. Class I and Class II motorcycles. We are proposing that Class I and Class II motorcycles would have to meet the current California ARB exhaust emission standards on a nationwide basis starting with the 2006 model year. These standards, which have been in place in California since 1982, are 1.0 g/ km HC and 12.0 g/ km CO, as measured on the existing Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for motorcycles. In addition to applying to motorcycles currently in Class I and Class II (i. e., those over 50cc), we are also proposing that these standards apply to those motorcycles encompassed by the proposed revised Class I definition, which would include the previouslyexcluded engines under 50cc, as described above. As discussed in further detail below, we are considering ways of including Class I and Class II motorcycles in the overall emissions averaging program, and request comment on this issue. Class I motorcycles as currently defined are currently tested on a version of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) that has lower top speeds and reduced acceleration rates relative to the FTP that is used for Class II and III motorcycles. The Class I FTP has a top speed of just under 60 km/ hr, or around 37 mph, whereas the Class II/ III FTP has a top speed of just over 90 km/ hr, or just above 55 mph. By proposing to define motorcycles with engine displacements of less than 50cc as Class I motorcycles, these `` new'' Class I motorcycles would likewise be tested on the Class I FTP. We believe that this use of this test cycle is feasible and appropriate for the new Class I motorcycles (many are advertised with a top speed in the range of 40Ð 50 mph). We request comment on the feasibility of the proposed test cycle for motorcycles with engine displacements of less than 50cc; in particular, we request comment on whether experience in meeting existing European or Asian requirements provides any insight on this issue. We request comment on alternative test cycles and certification options, including whether the cycle required for low­ speed, small­ displacement scooters and mopeds in Europe should be used or allowed by EPA. Despite the fact that virtually all Class I and Class II motorcycles already meet and certify to these standards, 40 we are proposing nationwide implementation in 2006 for two reasons. First, there are those motorcycles under 50cc that require some lead time to meet new standards. Second, any averaging provisions, if finalized, that would provide flexibility in meeting the Class I and Class II standards would not be useful until the 2006 model year, when some exchange of emission credits between the three motorcycle classes may be allowed (see the request for comment on averaging flexibilities for Classes I and II in section C. 2 below). Nevertheless, we request comment on the 2006 implementation date, and whether it should be earlier for the current Class I and II motorcycles, given that all 2002 motorcycles in these classes are already certified at emission levels that would meet the proposed standards. For example, we could implement standards for the over 50cc motorcycles in 2004 and for those under 50cc in 2006. We recognize, as discussed in detail below, that the U. S. is a small market for scooters and mopeds with engine displacements of under 50cc, and that many of the factors that are currently driving technology development are actions by the governments in the major world markets for these types of twowheelers A U. S. attempt to drive technology to achieve emission limits more stringent or sooner than those applicable in the largest scooter markets (South Asia, Europe) might result in some manufacturers choosing to withdraw from the U. S. market, rather than develop specific technologies to address U. S. requirements. (This appeared to occur in the mid­ to late1980's when new California standards, VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53079 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules combined with fairly active advertising by Honda, drove the European manufacturers from the U. S. market.) For the Class I motorcycles under 50cc, we therefore request comment on the cost and technology that would be associated with standards within a range of 1.0 to 2.0 grams per kilometer HC (or HC+ NOX). We believe that, in view of the standards that apply or will soon apply in many of the major scooter markets around the world (see Table V. AÐ 6), that a standard in this range is similar to standards in other countries and would allow the use of similar technologies for U. S. standards. Standards in this range would be intended to allow the U. S. to be more certain that we would receive the same scooters being marketed in the rest of major scooter markets. TABLE V. A– 6.— SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND FUTURE WORLDWIDE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOTORCYCLES LESS THAN 50CC DISPLACEMENT Country HC CO NOX HC+ NOX Test cycle Notes European Union ...................... ................ 6.0 ................ 3.0 ECE R47 Current (`` Euro1''). ................ 1.0 ................ 1.2 ECE R47 2002 (`` Euro 2''). Switzerland ............................. 0.5 0.5 0.1 ................ ECE R47 Current. India ........................................ ................ 2.0 ................ 2.0 India Drive (IDC) Current. ................ 1.3 ................ 1.3 India Drive (IDC) 2003 Proposed. ................ 1.0 ................ 1.0 India Drive (IDC) 2005 Proposed. China ....................................... ................ 6.0 ................ 3.0 ECE R47 Current. ................ 1.0 ................ 1.2 ECE R47 2005. Japan ...................................... 5.26 14.4 0.14 ................ ISO 6460 Current 2­ stroke. 2.93 20.0 0.51 ................ ISO 6460 Current 4­ stroke. Korea ...................................... 4.0 8.0 0.1 ................ ECE R47 Current. Singapore ................................ 5.0 12.0 ................ ................ FTP Current. Taiwan .................................... ................ 3.5 2.0 ................ ECE R47 Current. ................ 7.0 ................ 1.0 ECE R47 2003 2­ stroke. ................ 7.0 ................ 2.0 ECE R47 2003 4­ stroke. Thailand .................................. 3.0 4.5 ................ ................ ECE R40 Current. b. Class III Motorcycles. We are proposing to harmonize the federal Class III motorcycle standards with the exhaust emission standards of the recently finalized California program. Specifically, we propose to adopt the Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/ km HC+ NOX starting in the 2006 model year, and the Tier 2 standard of 0.8 g/ km starting in the 2010 model year. Because both HC and NOX are ozone precursors, this new standard would better reduce ozone than an HC­ only standard. Implementation on a nationwide basis would therefore take place starting two model years after implementation of identical exhaust emission standards in California, ensuring that manufacturers have adequate lead time to plan for these new standards. As described below in further detail, these standards can be met on a corporate­ average basis. As noted earlier, California ARB plans a technology progress review in 2006 to evaluate manufacturers' progress in meeting the Tier 2 standards. We plan to participate in that review and work with California ARB, intending to make any appropriate adjustments to the standards or implementation schedule if warranted. For example, if California ARB determines in the review process that the standards are achievable, but in 2010 rather than 2008, we could follow with a rulemaking that would consider appropriate adjustment to the federal requirements. 2. Could I Average, Bank, or Trade Emission Credits? To provide flexibility in meeting the standards, we are proposing to adopt an emission­ credit program comparable to the existing California ARB regulations, and requesting comment on some additional flexibility relative to California ARB's program that could be included in our proposed program. There is currently no federal emissioncredit program for highway motorcycles. As proposed, the program allows manufacturers to meet the standards on a fleet­ average basis (i. e., an averaging program). Under the emission­ credit program, manufacturers would be able to balance the certified HC+ NOX emissions of their Class III motorcycles so that the salesweighted HC+ NOX emissions level meets the applicable standard. This means that some engine families may have HC+ NOX emissions below the standards, while others have HC+ NOX emissions higher than the standards. For enforcement purposes, manufacturers are required to specify a certification limit, or `` Family Emission Limit'' for each engine family. For example, one of a manufacturer's Class III engine families could be certified at 1.7 g/ km HC+ NOX; this would be allowable under the California regulations if the sales­ weighted average of all the manufacturer's engine families met the applicable 1.4 or 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOX standard. As discussed below, EPA is proposing early credits provisions where credits may be banked prior to the beginning of the program. In several other emissions control programs, EPA allows manufacturers to bank credits after the start of the program for future use, or trade them to another manufacturer. In general, EPA has been supportive of these additional flexibilities and sees the potential for added value here as a means to reduce cost and provide additional compliance flexibility as needed * * * California's current program, however, does not contain banking (except for early banking) and trading provisions and manufacturers have not shown an interest in such provisions. Harmonization with California has been the overarching concern. Banking and trading provisions VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53080 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules that are out­ of­ step with the California program may have little use because manufacturers plan on carrying over their California products nationwide. In addition, such provisions complicate the certification and compliance protocols because EPA must set up systems for tracking credits and these systems must be established even if the use of the credit provisions is unlikely. Because EPA believes banking and trading provisions would complicate the program, EPA is requesting comment on them rather than proposing them. EPA requests comment on an approach where manufacturers would establish HC+ NOX family emissions limits (FELs) that are either below the standard, for generating credits, or above the standard, for using credits. These FELs, in effect, become the standard for the individual family. This would be similar in nature to the program for heavy­ duty engines (see 40 CFR 86.004Ð 15), but without transient conversion factors. Those commenting in support of credit banking and trading are encouraged to also provide detailed comments on any related provisions which would need to be considered in establishing the program for generating and using credits such as credit life, discounts (if any), cross displacement class trading issues, etc. To maintain equity, California ARB adopted a cap on Family Emission Limits of 2.5 g/ km HC for all individual engine families under the existing emission­ credit program (i. e., for Class III motorcycles). Because the 2.5 g/ km HC­ only standard was in effect in California before the emission­ credit program was adopted, the 2.5 g/ km cap continues to prevent manufacturers from selling motorcycles with emissions higher than the previous standard. Based on this reasoning, we are proposing a similar cap. However, because the current federal standard is 5.0 g/ km, we are proposing an emissions cap on individual engine families of 5.0 g/ km HC+ NOX. This will provide the added benefit of enabling manufacturers to retain some of the federally certified engine families that might otherwise have had some difficulty meeting the somewhat lower cap specified by California. Manufacturers producing these higher­ emitting models would need to offset these emissions with other models certified below the standard. To provide additional flexibility for manufacturers, we are requesting comment on the possible benefits of incorporating Class I and Class II motorcycles into the averaging program described above. This could be done in various ways. One option would be to define the proposed Class I and Class II HC­ only standard of 1.0 g/ km as an averaging standard, either within each class or for Class I and Class II combined. However, we believe this option would be of limited use, given the small number of engine families in these motorcycle classes. A second option would be to develop a credit program similar to that in place for the California Low­ Emission Vehicle Program. Under this type of program, for example, credits accumulated by Class III motorcycles could be used to offset `` debits'' accumulated in one or both of the other classes. Credits would be accumulated by having a sales­ weighted fleet­ average value of the class below the applicable standard, while debits would result from having a class fleetaverage value above the standard. A third option would be to allow the certification of Class I and II motorcycles to the Class III `` averaging set. '' In other words, under this option the combined sales­ weighted fleet average of Class I, II, and III motorcycles would, at the manufacturer's option, be certified to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 fleet average HC+ NOX standards. We request comment on the value of provisions of this nature, and on the advantages and disadvantages of each of these basic approaches. We also request comment on whether there are any adaptations of this averaging program that would improve the flexibility for small volume manufacturers. To encourage early compliance, we are also proposing incentives in the emission­ credit program similar to those in place in California, with timing adjusted due to the differing federal implementation schedule. We believe such incentives will encourage manufacturers to introduce Tier 2 motorcycles nationwide earlier than required by this proposal. In addition, we believe some manufacturers can reduce emissions even further than required by the Tier 2 standard; we would like to encourage the early introduction of these very low­ emission vehicles. This proposal would provide incentives for early compliance by assigning specific multiplier factors based on how early a manufacturer produces a Tier 2 motorcycle and a motorcycle certified at 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOX; these multipliers are shown in Table V. CÐ 1. Because we expect the Tier 2 technologies to become more widespread as 2010 approaches, the multipliers decrease linearly in value from 2006 until 2010, when the early compliance incentive would no longer have any value (i. e., the multiplier has a value of 1.0) and the program would terminate. As shown in Table V. CÐ 1, each unit of early Tier 2 motorcycles (those certified at 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOX) would count as Y motorcycles at 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOX for purposes of corporate averaging in 2010, where Y is 1.5 for those motorcycles sold during model years (MY) 2003 through 2006, 1.375 for those sold in MY 2007, 1.250 for those sold in MY 2008, and 1.125 for those sold in MY 2009. A similar set of multipliers is shown in Table V. CÐ 1 for pre­ MY 2010 motorcycles certified even lower at 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOX. TABLE V. C– 1.— MULTIPLIERS TO ENCOURAGE EARLY COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED TIER 2 STANDARD AND BEYOND Model year sold Multiplier (Y) for use in MY 2010 corporate averaging* Early tier 2 Certified at 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOX 2003 through 2006 1.5 3.0 2007 ........................ 1.375 2.5 2008 ........................ 1.250 2.0 2009 ........................ 1.125 1.5 * Early Tier 2 motorcycles and motorcycles certified to 0.4 g/ km are counted cumulatively toward the MY 2010 corporate average. In 2010 and later model years the program would become a basic averaging program, where each manufacturer would have to meet the applicable HC+ NOX standard on a fleetaverage basis. See the proposed regulations at § 86.449. 3. Is EPA Proposing Blue Sky Standards for These Engines? We are not proposing Blue Sky Standards for motorcycles at this time. Under the proposed averaging program there is an incentive to produce very clean motorcycles early, but it is of limited duration. However, several possible approaches could include a Blue Sky program, such as the ones discussed for marine evaporative emissions earlier in this document. For example, a Blue Sky standard could be set at the 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOX level used under the proposed averaging program. We request comment on whether a Blue Sky program is desirable for motorcycles, and what standards would be appropriate for such a program. 4. Do These Standards Apply to Alternative­ Fueled Engines? The proposed emission standards would apply to all motorcycles, regardless of fuel. Although the federal numerical emission standards have not VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53081 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules been updated in more than twenty years, the regulations were revised twice in the 1990's to apply the standards to certain alternative­ fueled motorcycles. In 1990 the emission standards became applicable to methanol­ fueled motorcycles (see 54 FR 14539, Apr. 11, 1989), and in 1997 the standards became applicable to natural gas­ fueled and liquified petroleum gas­ fueled motorcycles (see 59 FR 48512, Sept. 21, 1994). We propose to apply the emission standards for highway motorcycles, regardless of fuel. This would have the effect of including any motorcycles that operate on diesel fuel. We do not believe the provisions in this proposal create any unique issues for motorcycles powered by alternative fuels. However, we request comment on whether there are unique aspects to motorcycles fueled with these alternative fuels (if there are any such motorcycles) that would make the proposed standards particularly challenging or infeasible. 5. Should Highway and Off­ Highway Regulations Be Integrated? We recognize that many motorcycle manufacturers produce both on­ and offhighway motorcycles and are interested in receiving comment on integrating the two sets of requirements into a single part of the regulations. Currently, EPA regulations for highway motorcycles are in 40 CFR part 86, while the proposed regulations for recreational vehicles and engines are in 40 CFR part 1051. Given that the proposed requirements for offhighway motorcycles and ATVs would duplicate many of the requirements that apply to highway motorcycles (such as test procedures and certification protocol), it may be appropriate to integrate the highway motorcycle requirements with the recreational vehicle requirements in part 1051. This may help manufacturers with both on­ and off­ highway products by eliminating differing or inconsistent paperwork or testing requirements for the different products. We request comment on the value of centralizing the requirements in this way. 6. Is EPA Proposing Production Line Testing Requirements for Highway Motorcycles? Production line testing requirements have never been required for highway motorcycles, but we are seeking comment on them as part of this proposal. However, we recognize that production­ line testing may serve as a valuable tool to ensure that newly assembled engines control emissions at least as well as the prototype models used for certification. We believe testing highway motorcycles from the production line would add little additional burden and could easily be incorporated into the existing production­ line quality checks that most manufacturers routinely perform. In fact, some nonroad engine manufacturers use emission measurements as part of their standard quality­ control protocol at the assembly line to ensure proper engine functioning. Also, we would waive testing requirements for manufacturers with consistently good emission results. We request comment on extending to highway motorcycles the productionline testing requirements recently proposed for nonroad engines and vehicles (66 FR 51098). If such requirements were extended to highway motorcycles, we request comment on the impact of such requirements on smaller manufacturers and whether such requirements should apply to small manufacturers (i. e., those with less than 3,000 annual unit sales). In the absence of production line testing we are not likely to allow post­ certification changes to be made to the Family Emission Limits (FELs) applicable to a given engine family under the emissions averaging program. 7. What Test Fuel Is Specified for Emission Testing of Motorcycles? The specifications for gasoline to be used by the EPA and by manufacturers for emission testing can be found in 40 CFR 86.513Ð 94. These regulations also specify that the fuel used for vehicle service accumulation shall be `` representative of commercial fuels and engine lubricants which will be generally available through retail outlets. '' During the last twenty years of regulation of motorcycle emissions, the fuel specifications for motorcycle testing have been essentially identical to those for automotive testing. However, on February 10, 2000, EPA issued a final rule entitled `` Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements'' (65 FR 6697, Feb. 10, 2000). In addition to finalizing a single set of emission standards that will apply to all passenger cars, light trucks, and larger passenger vehicles (e. g., large SUVs), the rule requires the introduction of lowsulfur gasoline nationwide. To provide consistency with the fuels that will be in the marketplace, the rule amended the test fuel specifications, effective starting in 2004 when the new standards will take effect. The principal change that was made was a reduction in the allowable levels of sulfur in the test fuel, from a maximum of 0.10 percent by weight to a range of 0.0015 to 0.008 percent by weight. Given that low­ sulfur fuel will be the existing fuel in the marketplace when our proposed program would take effect (and therefore required for service accumulation), we propose to amend the motorcycle test fuel to reflect the true nature of the fuels available in the marketplace. Doing so would remove the possibility that a test could be conducted with an unrealistically high level of sulfur in the fuel. 8. Highway Motorcycle Evaporative Emissions In addition to California's exhaust emission standards, California ARB has also established evaporative emission standards for highway motorcycles. These standards took effect with the 1983 model year for Class I and II motorcycles, and the 1984 model year for Class III motorcycles. An initial evaporative emission standard that applied for two model years was set at 6.0 grams of hydrocarbons per test. Following two model years at this level, the standard was reduced to a more stringent 2.0 grams of hydrocarbons per test for all motorcycle classes. This is the currently applicable standard, and it was not changed during California's recent revisions to their motorcycle exhaust emission standards. We believe that it is not necessary at this time to propose adopting broad evaporative emission standards such as California's. The fuel tanks are generally small, resulting in diurnal and refueling emissions that we expect to be proportionately low. The use rates of motorcycles is likewise low, and we expect that hot soak emissions will be low as well. California has unique air quality concerns that may prompt the State to pursue and select emissions controls that we may find unnecessary for a national program. However, our investigation into the hydrocarbon emissions related to permeation of fuel tanks and fuel hoses with respect to marine applications has raised a new emissions concern that has a broad reach across many different vehicle types. Permeation of fuel tanks and hoses is one of four components of a vehicle's evaporative emissions. The other three primary evaporative components are: hot soak emissions, which occur when fuel evaporates from hot engine surfaces; diurnal emissions, which occur when fuel in tanks and hoses heats up in response to increases in ambient temperature; and refueling emissions, which occur when fuel vapors are displaced from the tank during refueling. As described in section III, the permeation emissions VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53082 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules from boats outweigh other evaporative emissions significantly; in fact, permeation from tanks and hoses results in more emissions than the other three types of evaporative emissions combined. Given this, we are assessing other vehicle types, including highway motorcycles, off­ road motorcycles, and all­ terrain vehicles, that may use fuel tanks or hoses with less­ than­ optimal control of permeation emissions. The fact that the fuel tanks in these types of vehicles are generally small does not significantly affect the importance of these emissions; it is the fact that permeation is occurring every hour of every day when there is fuel in the tank that results in the significance of emissions related to permeation. Section III. H of this preamble, as well as the Draft Regulatory Support Document, detail some of the technological strategies that may be employed to reduce fuel permeation. The application of several of these technologies to highway motorcycles appears to be relatively straightforward, with little cost and essentially no adverse performance or aesthetic impacts. These technologies, which are already available and which appear to be relatively inexpensive, could reduce permeation of tanks and hoses by 95 percent or more. In addition, the control technology may pay for itself in many instances due to positive fuel consumption impacts. We request comment on finalizing standards that would require low permeability fuel tanks on highway motorcycles, starting with the 2006 model year. We would presume that the metal fuel tanks that equip most highway motorcycles would already meet the low permeability requirement, and thus, there would be no need for any fuel tank design or material changes on the vast majority of highway motorcycles. However, many if not all of the dual­ sport motorcycles are equipped with plastic fuel tanks, as are some motorcycles in the sport or super­ sport categories. These motorcycles, under the type of regulation that we are requesting comment on, would have to employ metal tanks or plastic fuel tanks using one of the barrier technologies (e. g., a fluorination or sulfonation treatment) described in section III. H to meet the standards. We expect that any standards finalized would be similar in design to those proposed regarding fuel tank permeation for marine engines, as discussed earlier in this preamble. Retail sales data from Dealernews for the 2001 calendar year indicates that sales of motorcycles in the sport category amounted to just over 20 percent of total highway motorcycle sales, and dual­ sport motorcycles were a much smaller 4 percent of the total. We may then conservatively estimate that approximately 25 percent of current motorcycles now have plastic tanks that would need upgrading. This is a conservative estimate for two reasons: (1) Some of these motorcycles are probably using metal tanks; and (2) it is highly likely that some of the existing plastic tanks have already been upgraded with a barrier treatment in order to meet the California evaporative emission requirements. We are interested in collecting more information regarding the degree to which plastic fuel tanks are used on highway motorcycles, and, to the extent they are, what if any measures have been taken by manufacturers to reduce permeation emissions. Highway motorcycle fuel tanks range in capacity from just over one gallon on some small scooters to about 7.5 gallons on some large touring and sport touring motorcycles. Most of the sport and super­ sport motorcycles appear to have fuel tanks that fall generally in the range of 4 to 6 gallons, while dual­ sport motorcycles may be slightly smaller on average, perhaps typically in the 3 to 5 gallon range. If we select 5 gallons as a conservative estimate of the average size of the fuel tanks for those types of motorcycles most likely to have to employ one of the fuel tank barrier technologies, the additional cost per tank (assuming fluorination treatment) is estimated to be about $3.25 (see section 5.2.1 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document). We estimate that shipping, handling, and overhead costs would be an additional $0.85, resulting in a total average cost of about $4.10. Therefore, the average industry­ wide price increase that would be associated with a requirement of this nature would be about $1.00. We also request comment on promulgating standards that would require the use of low permeability fuel hoses on all highway motorcycles, starting in the 2006 model year. Like low permeation fuel tanks, it is very likely that some manufacturers have already addressed permeation from the fuel hoses on some of their product line due to the California evaporative emission requirements. However, we will conservatively estimate that no current motorcycles are equipped with fuel hoses that significantly reduce or eliminate permeation. The cost of a fuel line with low permeation properties is estimated to be about $1.30 per foot (see section 5.2.1 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document). Highway motorcycles are estimated to have about one to two feet of fuel line on average; thus, using the average cost and a fuel line length of 18 inches, we estimate an average industry­ wide price increase associated with a low permeation fuel line requirement to be about $2.00 per motorcycle. We therefore estimate that the total increased cost per motorcycle that would result from requiring low permeation fuel tanks and fuel hoses would be about $3.00. We are interested in collecting more information regarding fuel hoses currently used on highway motorcycles, in particular regarding the typical length, the material, and the permeation properties. We request comment on the form these standards would take (e. g., whether there should be absolute numerical limits or percentage reduction requirements, if we determined they were appropriate.) We also request comment on implementing requirements such as those described above by allowing the manufacturer to submit a statement at the time of certification that the fuel tanks and hoses used on their products meet standards, specified materials, or construction requirements based on testing results. For example, a manufacturer using plastic fuel tanks could state that the engine family at issue is equipped with a fuel tank with a low permeability barrier treatment such as fluorination. Fuel hoses could be certified as being manufactured in compliance with certain accepted SAE specifications. These certification statements could be done on an engine family basis, or possibly a blanket statement could cover a manufacturer's entire product line. EPA expects that 95 percent reductions over uncontrolled emission levels for permeation are achievable for plastic fuel tanks. These reductions imply a tank permeability standard of about 0.024 g/ gal/ day for fuel tanks. For fuel hoses, we would consider the proposed standards for marine hoses of 5 grams per square meter per day. We request comment on these and other options that would enable regulation and enforcement of low permeability requirements. As was discussed earlier regarding marine evaporative emissions, California ARB and EPA have conducted permeation testing with regard to evaporative emissions from HDPE plastic tanks. There are 8 data points for tanks of 3.9 to 7.5 gallons capacity. The permeation rates varied from 0.2 to1.0 grams per gallon per day with an average value of 0.75 g/ gal/ day. This data was based on tests with an average temperature of about 29 C. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, temperature has a first order effect on the rate of permeation. Roughly, VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53083 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules permeation doubles with every 10 C increase in temperature. For the 5 gallon tank discussed above, at 23 C, the average emission rate is about 0.50 g/ gal/ day or 2.5 g/ day. For the purposes of this analysis we assumed a fuel hose with an inside diameter of about 1cm ( 3 Ú8 inch) and a permeation rate of 550 grams per square meter per day at 23 C. This permeation rate is based on the SAE J30 requirement for R7 fuel hose, the type of hose found on a small sample of motorcycles we examined. For the 18 inch hose mentioned above this yields an emission rate of 7.5 g/ day. Combining the average emission rates determined for the fuel tanks and fuel hoses above and adjusting for the 25 percent of tanks that would be affected by permeation standards yields a daily average emission rate of 8.1 g/ day (7.5 g/ day + (0.25 x 2.5 g/ day)). The total combined tank and hose emission rate for those motorcycles that we estimate will require fuel tank treatments (25 percent of motorcycles) is 9.9 g/ day (7.5 g/ day + 2.5 g/ day). Table V. CÐ 2 presents national totals for permeation emissions from motorcycles. These permeation estimates are based on the emission rates discussed above and population, turnover, and temperature projections discussed in Chapter 6 of the draft RSD. TABLE V. C– 2.— PROJECTED MOTORCYCLE PERMEATION HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS [short tons] Calendar year Baseline Control Reduction 2005 .......... 14,600 14,600 0 2010 .......... 16,900 10,800 6,100 2015 .......... 19,200 6,010 13,200 2020 .......... 21,500 1,950 19,600 2030 .......... 26,200 317 25,900 The average lifetime of a typical motorcycle is estimated to be about 12.5 years. Permeation control techniques can reduce emissions by 95 percent for tanks and more than 99 percent for hoses. Multiplying this efficiency and these emission rates by 12.5 years and discounting at 7 percent yields lifetime per motorcycle emission reductions of 0.0013 tons for the fuel tank, 0.017 tons for the fuel hose, and 0.019 tons on average overall. In turn, using the cost estimates above, these emission reductions yield HC cost per ton values of $794 for the 5 gallon tank, $112 for the fuel hose, and $160 for the average overall. Because evaporative emissions are composed of otherwise useable fuel that is lost to the atmosphere, measures that reduce evaporative emissions can result in potentially significant fuel savings. For a motorcycle with a 5 gallon fuel tank, we estimate that the low permeability measures discussed in this section could save 9.6 gallons over the 12.5 year average operating lifetime, which translates to a discounted lifetime savings of $6.75 at an average fuel price of $1.10 per gallon. Combining this savings with an estimated cost per motorcycle of $3.00 results in a discounted lifetime savings per motorcycle of $3.75. The cost per ton of the evaporative emission reductions described above is $160; however, if the fuel savings are included, the estimated cost per ton is actually ­$ 203. This means that the fuel savings are larger than the cost of using low permeation technology. D. Special Compliance Provisions While the highway motorcycle market is dominated by large companies, there are over 30 small businesses manufacturing these products. They are active in both the federal and California markets. California has been much more active than EPA in setting new requirements for highway motorcycles, and indeed, the California requirements have driven the technology demands and timing for highway motorcycle emission controls. We have developed our special compliance provisions partly in response to the technology, timing, and scope of the requirements that apply to the small businesses in California's program. The provisions discussed below would reduce the economic burden on small businesses, allowing harmonization with California requirements in a phased, but timely manner. We propose that the flexibilities described below will be available for small entities with highway motorcycle annual sales of fewer than 3,000 units per model year (combined Class I, II, and III motorcycles) and fewer than 500 employees. These provisions are appropriate because of the significant research and development resources may be necessary to meet the proposed emission standards. These provisions would reduce the burden while ensuring the vast majority of the program is implemented to ensure timely emission reductions. We also understand that many small highway motorcycle manufacturers market `` classic'' and `` custom'' motorcycles, often with a `` retro'' appearance, that tends to make the addition of new technologies a uniquely resourceintensive prospect. 1. Delay of Proposed Standards We propose to delay compliance with the Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/ km HC+ NOX until the 2008 model year for smallvolume manufacturers. We are proposing a Tier 1 standard beginning in the 2006 model year for highway motorcycles. Small manufacturers are required to meet the Tier 1 standard in 2008 in California. Given that the California requirements apply in 2008 for small businesses, we seek comment on whether additional time is needed for small businesses to comply with the federal program. The current California regulations do not require small manufacturers to comply with the Tier 2 standard of 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOX. The California Air Resources Board found that the Tier 2 standard represents a significant technological challenge and is a potentially infeasible limit for these small manufacturers. We share the California ARB's concern regarding this issue. As noted above, many of these manufacturers market a specialty product with a `` retro'' simplicity that may not easily lend itself to the addition of advanced technologies like catalysts. However, the ARB has acknowledged that, in the course of their progress review planned for 2006, they will revisit their small­ manufacturer provisions. Therefore, we plan to participate with the ARB in the 2006 progress review as these provisions are revisited, and delay making decisions on the applicability to small businesses of Tier 2 or other revisions to the federal regulations that are appropriate following the review. 2. Broader Engine Families Small businesses have met EPA certification requirements since 1978. Nonetheless, certifying motorcycles to revised emission standards has cost and lead time implications. Relaxing the criteria for what constitutes an engine or vehicle family could potentially allow small businesses to put all of their models into one vehicle or engine family (or more) for certification purposes. Manufacturers would then certify their engines using the `` worst case'' configuration within the family. This is currently allowed under the existing regulations for small­ volume highway motorcycle manufacturers. We propose that these provisions remain in place. 3. Exemption From Production Line Testing There is currently no mandatory production line testing requirement for highway motorcycles. The current VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53084 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41 `` Emissions Trading for Small Businesses'', Final Report, Jack Faucett Associates, March 2002, http:// www. sba. gov/ advo/ research/ rs216tot. pdf (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IVÐ AÐ 26). regulations allow us to request production vehicles from any certifying manufacturer for testing. We are proposing no changes to these existing provisions at this time. 4. Averaging, Banking, and Trading An emission­ credit program allows a manufacturer to produce and sell engines and vehicles that exceed the applicable emission standards, as long as the excess emissions are offset by the production of engines and vehicles emitting at levels below the standards. The sales­ weighted average of a manufacturer's total production for a given model year must meet the standards. An emission­ credit program typically also allows a manufacturer to bank credits for use in future model years, as well as buy credits from, or sell credits to, other manufacturers. Emission­ credit programs are generally made available to all manufacturers, though special provisions for small businesses could be created to increase flexibility. We therefore propose an emission­ credit program for highway motorcycles similar to that discussed above in V. C. 2. for all motorcycle manufacturers. For the reasons described in section V. C. 2., we are not proposing post implementation emissions credits banking and trading provisions, but are requesting comment on them. This is not consistent with the Panel's recommendations for small entities. We request comment on the usefulness of banking and trading for small entities. For additional information on this subject, commenters may review a report prepared for the Small Business Administration on credits programs, `` Emissions Trading for Small Business'', for ideas on how such programs could be useful for small entities. 41 5. Hardship Provisions We are proposing two types of provisions to address unusual hardship circumstances for motorcycle manufacturers. The first type of hardship program would allow small businesses to petition EPA for additional lead time (e. g., up to 3 years) to comply with the standards. A small manufacturer would have to make the case that it has taken all possible business, technical, and economic steps to comply but the burden of compliance costs would have a significant impact on the company's solvency. A manufacturer would be required to provide a compliance plan detailing when and how it would achieve compliance with the standards. Hardship relief could include requirements for interim emission reductions and/ or purchase and use of emission credits. The length of the hardship relief decided during review of the hardship application would be up to one year, with the potential to extend the relief as needed. The second hardship program would allow companies to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply (i. e., supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if the failure to sell the subject engines would have a major impact on the company's solvency. See the proposed regulatory text in 40 CFR 1068.240 and 1068.241 for additional details. In light of the California requirements, which do not include hardship provisions, we request comment on this alternative. 6. Reduced Certification Data Submittal and Testing Requirements Current regulations allow significant flexibility for certification by manufacturers projecting sales below 10,000 units of combined Class I, II, and III motorcycles. For example, a qualifying manufacturer must submit an application for certification with a statement that their vehicles have been tested and, on the basis of the tests, conform to the applicable emission standards. The manufacturer retains adequate emission test data, for example, but need not submit it. Qualifying manufacturers also need not complete the detailed durability testing required in the regulations. We are proposing no changes to these existing provisions. 7. Nonconformance Penalties Clean Air Act section 206( g) (42 U. S. C. 7525( g)), allows EPA to issue a certificate of conformity for heavyduty engines or for highway motorcycles that exceed an applicable section 202( a) emissions standard, but do not exceed an upper limit associated with that standard, if the manufacturer pays a nonconformance penalty established by rulemaking. Congress adopted section 206( g) in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 as a response to perceived problems with technologyforcing heavy­ duty engine emissions standards. If strict standards were maintained, then some manufacturers, `` technological laggards, '' might be unable to comply initially and would be forced out of the marketplace. Nonconformance penalties were intended to remedy this potential problem. The laggards would have a temporary alternative that would permit them to sell their engines or vehicles by payment of a penalty. There are three criteria for determining the eligibility of emission standards for nonconformance penalties in any given model year. First, the emission standard in question must become more difficult to meet, either by becoming more stringent itself or by its interaction with another emission standard that has become more stringent. Second, substantial work must be required to meet the emission standard. We consider `` substantial work'' to mean the application of technology not previously used in that vehicle or engine class/ subclass, or a significant modification of existing technology, to bring that vehicle/ engine into compliance. We do not consider minor modifications or calibration changes to be classified as substantial work. Third, it must be likely that a company will become a technological laggard. A technological laggard is defined as a manufacturer who cannot meet a particular emission standard due to technological (not economic) difficulties and who, in the absence of nonconformance penalties, might be forced from the marketplace. Nonconformance penalties have been offered on occasion as a compliance option for several heavy­ duty engine emission standards, but they have never been offered for highway motorcycles. However, as noted above, the Clean Air Act provides us with the authority to provide nonconformance penalties for highway motorcycles if they can be justified. While we do not currently believe that the three criteria established by rulemaking could be satisfied with respect to the Tier 1 standard (the `` substantial work'' criterion may not be applicable), there is a greater possibility that the criteria could be satisfied with respect to the Tier 2 standard. We request comment on whether the three criteria noted above could apply to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 standard, and if so, whether nonconformance penalties should be considered as an option. Typically, however, it is impossible at the time of a rulemaking to make the finding that a technological laggard has emerged with respect to a standard taking effect well into the future. For example, the proposed program would provide eight years of lead time to meet the Tier 2 standard, and making a judgment in this rulemaking regarding the existence of a technological laggard is impossible. It would be likely, for example, that we revisit this issue in the context of California ARB's 2006 progress review, or even later. However, VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53085 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 42 The manufacturer taht had certified this twostroke for highway use has typically certified 4Ð 5 other Class I or II engine families; therefore, a basic averaging program could enable them to continue to market their two­ stroke dual­ sport. However, other manufacturers may not have adequate additional engine families in these classes, making a basic average standard less useful to them. 43 Aprilia webstie, http:// www. apriliausa. com/ ridezone/ ing/ models/ scarabeo50dt/ moto. htm. Available in the public docket for review. 44 Improving Urban Air Quality in South Asia by Reducing Emissions from Two­ Stroke Engine Vehicles. Masami Kojima, Carter Brandon, and Jitendra Shah. December 2000. Prepared for the World Bank. Available in the public docket for review (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IIÐ DÐ 191), or on the internet at: http:// www. worldbank. org/ html/ fpd/ esmpa/ publication/ airquality. html. we request comment nevertheless on whether nonconformance penalties would be a desirable option, should conditions develop that warrant them. We also request comment on, given the availability of the hardship provisions described above, whether nonconformance penalties would potentially be needed. E. Technological Feasibility of the Standards 1. Class I and Class II Motorcycles Between 50 and 180cc As noted above, we are proposing to adopt the current California standards for Class I and Class II motorcycles. These standards have been in place in California since 1982. The question of whether or not these standards are technically feasible has been answered in the affirmative, since 21 of the 22 EPA­ certified 2001 model year motorcycle engine families in these classes are already certified to these standards, and all 24 of the 2002 model year engine families meet these standards. These 24 engine families are all powered by four­ stroke engines, with a variety of emission controls applied, including basic engine modifications on almost all engine families, secondary air injection on three engine families, and a two­ way oxidation catalyst on one engine family. In past model years, but not in the 2002 model year, an engine family that does not meet the California standards had certified to the existing federal standards and not sold in California. It was a 100cc dual­ sport motorcycle powered by a two­ stroke engine, with an HC certification level of 3.9 g/ km. This motorcycle no longer appears to be available as of the 2002 model year. Adopting the California standards for these motorcycle classes could preclude this motorcycle or others like it from being certified and sold federally, unless the federal program includes additional flexibility relative to the California program. As discussed above, we are proposing that the HC standard for Class I and Class II motorcycles be an averaging standard, in a departure from California's treatment of these motorcycle classes. This in itself could be of limited use given the low number of Class I and Class II engine families, but, as discussed in Section V. C. 2 above, we are also proposing to allow credits accumulated by certifying Class III engine families to a level lower than the standard to be used to offset Class I or Class II engine families certified to levels above the fleet­ average standard. 42 2. Class I Motorcycles Under 50cc As we have described earlier we are proposing to apply the current California standard for Class I motorcycles to motorcycles with displacements of less than 50cc (e. g., most motor scooters). These motorcycles are currently not subject to regulation by the U. S. EPA or by the State of California. They are, however, subject to emission standards in Europe and much of the rest of the world. Historically these motorcycles have been powered by 2­ stroke engines, but a trend appears to be developing that would result in most of these being replaced by 4­ stroke engines or possibly by advanced technology 2­ stroke engines, in some cases with catalysts. The 4­ stroke engine is capable of meeting our proposed standards. Class I motorcycles above 50cc are already meeting it, most of them employing nothing more than a 4­ stroke engine. For example, the existing Class I scooters certify at levels ranging from 0.4 to 0.8 grams per kilometer HC. All of these achieve the standards with 4­ stroke engine designs, and only one incorporates additional technology (a catalyst). These engines range from 80 to 151cc in displacement, indicating that a smaller engine should encounter few problems meeting the proposed standards. In order to meet more stringent standards being implemented worldwide, manufacturers are developing and implementing a variety of options. Honda, perhaps the largest seller of scooters in the U. S., has entirely eliminated 2­ stroke engines from their scooter product lines as of the 2002 model year. They continue to offer a 50cc model, but with a 4­ stroke engine. Both of Aprilia's 49cc scooters available in the U. S. have incorporated electronic direct injection technology, which, in the case of one model, enables it to meet the `` Euro­ 2'' standards of 1.2 grams per kilometer HC and 0.3 grams per kilometer NOX, without use of a catalytic converter. 43 Piaggio, while currently selling a 49cc basic 2­ stroke scooter in the U. S., expects to begin production of a direct injection version in 2002, and a 4­ stroke 50cc scooter is also in development. Numerous 49cc models marketed by Piaggio in Europe are available either as a 4­ stroke or a 2­ stroke with a catalyst. Piaggio, also an engine manufacturer and seller, is already offering a 50cc 4­ stroke engine to its customers for incorporation into scooters. The U. S. represents a very small portion of the market for small motorcycles and scooters. There are few, if any, manufacturers that develop a small­ displacement motorcycle exclusively for the U. S. market; the domestic sales volumes do not appear large enough at this time to support an industry of this kind. The Italian company Piaggio (maker of the Vespa scooters), for example, sold about as many scooters worldwide in 2000 (about 480,000) as the entire volume of highway motorcycles of all sizes sold in the U. S. in that year. U. S. sales of Vespas in 2000 amounted to about 4800. The largest scooter markets today are in South Asia and Europe, where millions are sold annually. In Taiwan alone almost 800,000 motorcycles were sold domestically. More than one third of these were powered by 2­ stroke engines. Two­ and three­ wheelers constitute a large portion of the transportation sector in Asia, and in some urban areas these vehiclesÑ many of them powered by 2­ stroke enginesÑ can approach 75 percent of the vehicle population. According to a World Bank report, twostroke gasoline engine vehicles are estimated to account for about 60 percent of the total vehicle fleet in South Asia. 44 Many nations are now realizing that the popularity of these vehicles and the high density of these vehicles in urban areas are contributing to severe air quality problems. As a consequence, some of the larger small motorcycle markets in Asia and India are now placing these vehicles under fairly strict regulation. It is clear that actions in these nations will move the emission control technology on small motorcycles, including those under 50cc, in a positive direction. For example, according to the World Bank report, as of 2000 catalytic converters are installed in all new two­ stroke engine motorcycles in India, and 2003 standards in Taiwan will effectively ban new two­ strokes with emission VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53086 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules standards so stringent that only a fourstroke engine is capable of meeting them. Given the emerging international picture regarding emission standards for scooters, we believe that scooter manufacturers will be producing scooters of less than 50cc displacement that meet our proposed standards well in advance of the 2006 model year, the first year we propose to subject this category of motorcycle to U. S. emission standards. We would expect that small entities that import scooters into the U. S. from the larger scooter markets would be able to import complying vehicles. We request comment on this assessment. There are other numerous factors in the international arena that may affect the product offerings in the less than 50cc market segment. For example, the European Union recently changed the requirements regarding insurance and helmet use for under 50cc scooters and mopeds. Previously, the insurance discounts and lack of helmet requirements in Europe provided two relatively strong incentives to purchasers to consider a 49cc scooter. Recently, however, the provisions were changed such that helmets are now required and the insurance costs are comparable to larger motorcycles. The result was a drop of about 30% in European sales of 49cc scooters in 2001 due to customers perceiving little benefit from a 49cc scooter relative to a larger displacement engine. 3. Class III motorcycles a. Tier 1 standards. In the short term, the proposed Tier 1 HC+ NOX standard of 1.4 g/ km HC+ NOX reflects the goal of achieving emission reductions that could be met with reasonably available control technologies, primarily involving engine modifications rather than catalytic converters. As noted earlier, we are proposing that this standard be effective for the 2006 model year. Based on current certification data, a number of existing engine families already comply with this standard or would need relatively simple modifications to comply. In other cases, the manufacturers will need to use control technologies that are available but are not yet used on their particular vehicles (e. g., electronic fuel injection to replace carburetors, changes to cam lobes/ timing, etc.). For the most part, manufacturers will not need to use advanced technologies such as closecoupled closed­ loop three way catalysts. While manufacturers will use various means to meet the Tier 1 standard, there are four basic types of existing, non catalyst­ based, emission­ control systems available to manufacturers. The most important of these is the use of secondary pulse­ air injection. Other engine modifications and systems include more precise fuel control, better fuel atomization and delivery, and reduced engine­ out emission levels from engine changes. The combinations of low­ emission technologies ultimately chosen by motorcycle manufacturers are dependent on the engine­ out emission levels of the vehicle, the effectiveness of the prior emission­ control system, and individual manufacturer preferences. Secondary pulse­ air injection, as demonstrated on current motorcycles, is applied using a passive system (i. e., no air pump involved) that takes advantage of the flow of gases (`` pulse'') in the exhaust pipes to draw in fresh air that further combusts unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust. Engine modifications include a variety of techniques designed to improve fuel delivery or atomization; promote `` swirl'' (horizontal currents) and `` tumble'' (vertical currents); maintain tight control on air­ to­ fuel (A/ F) ratios; stabilize combustion (especially in lean A/ F mixtures); optimize valve timing; and retard ignition timing. Secondary pulse air injection involves the introduction of fresh air into the exhaust pipe immediately after the gases exist the engine. The extra air causes further combustion to occur, thereby controlling more of the hydrocarbons that escape the combustion chamber. This type of system is relatively inexpensive and uncomplicated because it does not require an air pump; air is drawn into the exhaust through a oneway reed valve due to the pulses of negative pressure inside the exhaust pipe. Secondary pulse­ air injection is one of the most effective non­ catalytic emission­ control technologies; compared to engines without the system, reductions of 10 to 40 percent for HC are possible with pulse­ air injection. Sixty­ five of the 151 2001 model year Class III engine families certified for sale in the U. S employ secondary pulse­ air injection to help meet the current California standards. We anticipate that most of the remaining engine families will use this technique to help meet the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. Improving fuel delivery and atomization primarily involves the replacement of carburetors, currently used on most motorcycles, with more precise fuel injection systems. There are several types of fuel injection systems and components manufacturers can choose. The most likely type of fuel injection manufacturers will choose to help meet the Tier 1 standard is sequential multi­ point fuel injection (SFI). Unlike conventional multi­ point fuel injection systems that deliver fuel continuously or to paired injectors at the same time, sequential fuel injection can deliver fuel precisely when needed by each cylinder. With less than optimum fuel injection timing, fuel puddling and intake­ manifold wall wetting can occur, both of which hinder complete combustion. Use of sequentialfuel injection systems help especially in reducing cold start emissions when fuel puddling and wall wetting are more likely to occur and emissions are highest. Motorcycle manufacturers are already beginning to use sequential fuel injection (SFI). Of the 152 Class III motorcycle engine families certified for sale this year, 36 employ SFI systems. We anticipate increased applications of this or similar fuel injection systems to achieve the more precise fuel delivery needed to help meet the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. In addition to the techniques mentioned above, various engine modifications can be made to improve emission levels. Emission performance can be improved, for example, by reducing crevice volumes in the combustion chamber. Unburned fuel can be trapped momentarily in crevice volumes before being subsequently released. Since trapped and re­ released fuel can increase engine­ out emissions, the elimination of crevice volumes would be beneficial to emission performance. To reduce crevice volumes, manufacturers can evaluate the feasibility of designing engines with pistons that have reduced, top `` land heights'' (the distance between the top of the piston and the first ring). Lubrication oil which leaks into the combustion chamber also has a detrimental effect on emission performance since the heavier hydrocarbons in oil do not oxidize as readily as those in gasoline and some components in lubricating oil may tend to foul the catalyst and reduce its effectiveness. Also, oil in the combustion chamber may trap HC and later release the HC unburned. To reduce oil consumption, manufacturers can tighten the tolerances and improve the surface finish on cylinders and pistons, piston ring design and materials, and exhaust valve stem seals to prevent excessive leakage of lubricating oil into the combustion chamber. Increasing valve overlap is another engine modification that can help reduce emissions. This technique helps VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53087 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules reduce NOX generation in the combustion chamber by essentially providing passive exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). When the engine is undergoing its pumping cycle, small amounts of combusted gases flow past the intake valve at the start of the intake cycle. This creates what is essentially a passive EGR flow, which is then either drawn back into the cylinder or into another cylinder through the intake manifold during the intake stroke. These combusted gases, when combined with the fresh air/ fuel mixture in the cylinder, help reduce peak combustion temperatures and NOX levels. This technique can be effected by making changes to cam timing and intake manifold design to optimize NOX reduction while minimizing impacts to HC emissions. Secondary pulse­ air injection and engine modifications already play important parts in reducing emission levels; we expect increased uses of these techniques to help meet the Tier 1 standard. Direct evidence of the extent these technologies can help manufacturers meet the Tier 1 standard can be found in EPA's highway motorcycle certification database. This database is comprised of publiclyavailable certification emission levels as well as some confidential data reported by the manufacturers pursuant to existing motorcycle emission certification requirements. We do not expect any of these possible changes to adversely affect performance. Indeed, the transition to some of these technologies (e. g., advanced fuel injection) would be expected to improve performance, fuel economy, and reliability. A direct comparison of several motorcycle models in the EPA certification database between the `` California'' model (where one is offered; it is the exception rather than the rule that a manufacturer offers a separate engine system for California) and the model sold in the rest of the U. S. reveals no change in the performance characteristics in the database (e. g., rated horsepower, torque). We request comment on the impact these anticipated changes might have on performance­ related factors. b. Tier 2 standards. In the long term, the proposed Tier 2 HC+ NOX standard of 0.8 g/ km would ensure that manufacturers will continue to develop and improve emission control technologies. We are proposing the Tier 2 standard to be effective by the 2010 model year. We believe this standard is technologically feasible, though it will present some challenges for manufacturers. Several manufacturers are, however, already using some of the technologies that will be needed to meet this standard. In addition, our proposed implementation time frame gives manufacturers two years of experience in meeting this standard in California before having to meet it on a nationwide basis. At least one manufacturer already uses closed­ loop, three­ way catalysts on several of its product lines. One manufacturer has already certified a large touring motorcycle to the Tier 2 standards for sale in California. Depending on assumptions regarding NOX levels, other manufacturers have products currently in the market with emission levels close to the Tier 2 standards using two­ way catalysts, fuel injection, secondary pulse­ air injection, and other engine modifications. The current average HC certification level for Class III motorcycles is just under 1.0 g/ km, with a number of motorcycles from a variety of manufacturers at levels of 0.5 g/ km or lower. We expect that the proposed eight years of lead time prior to meeting these standards on a nationwide basis would allow manufacturers to optimize these and other technologies to meet the Tier 2 standard. To meet the proposed Tier 2 standard for HC+ NOX, manufacturers would likely use more advanced engine modifications and secondary air injection. Specifically, we believe manufacturers would use computercontrolled secondary pulse­ air injection (i. e., the injection valve would be connected to a computer­ controlled solenoid). In addition to these systems, manufacturers would probably need to use catalytic converters on some motorcycles to meet the proposed Tier 2 standards. There are two types of catalytic converters currently in use: two­ way catalysts (which control only HC and CO) and three­ way catalysts (which control HC, CO, and NOX). Under the proposed Tier 2 standard, manufacturers would need to minimize levels of both HC and NOX. Therefore, to the extent catalysts are used, manufacturers would likely use a threeway catalyst in addition to engine modifications and computer­ controlled, secondary pulse­ air injection. As discussed previously, improving fuel control and delivery provides emission benefits by helping to reduce engine­ out emissions and minimizing the exhaust variability which the catalytic converter experiences. One method for improving fuel control is to provide enhanced feedback to the computer­ controlled fuel injection system through the use of heated oxygen sensors. Heated oxygen sensors (HO2S) are located in the exhaust manifold to monitor the amount of oxygen in the exhaust stream and provide feedback to the electronic control module (ECM). These sensors allow the fuel control system to maintain a tighter band around the stoichiometric A/ F ratio than conventional oxygen sensors (O2S). In this way, HO2S assist vehicles in achieving precise control of the A/ F ratio and thereby enhance the overall emissions performance of the engine. At least one manufacturer is currently using this technology on several 2001 engine families. In order to further improve fuel control, some motorcycles with electronic controls may utilize software algorithms to perform individual cylinder fuel control. While dual oxygen sensor systems are capable of maintaining A/ F ratios within a narrow range, some manufacturers may desire even more precise control to meet their performance needs. On typical applications, fuel control is modified whenever the O2S determines that the combined A/ F of all cylinders in the engine or engine bank is `` too far'' from stoichiometric. The needed fuel modifications (i. e., inject more or less fuel) are then applied to all cylinders simultaneously. Although this fuel control method will maintain the `` bulk'' A/ F for the entire engine or engine bank around stoichiometric, it would not be capable of correcting for individual cylinder A/ F deviations that can result from differences in manufacturing tolerances, wear of injectors, or other factors. With individual cylinder fuel control, A/ F variation among cylinders will be diminished, thereby further improving the effectiveness of the emission controls. By modeling the behavior of the exhaust gases in the exhaust manifold and using software algorithms to predict individual cylinder A/ F, a feedback fuel control system for individual cylinders can be developed. Except for the replacement of the conventional front O2S with an HO2S sensor and a more powerful engine control computer, no additional hardware is needed in order to achieve individual cylinder fuel control. Software changes and the use of mathematical models of exhaust gas mixing behavior are required to perform this operation. In order to maintain good driveability, responsive performance, and optimum emission control, fluctuations of the A/ F must remain small under all driving conditions including transient operation. Virtually all current fuel systems in automobiles incorporate an adaptive fuel control system that automatically adjusts the system for component wear, varying environmental VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53088 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules conditions, varying fuel composition, etc., to more closely maintain proper fuel control under various operating conditions. For some current fuel control systems, this adaptation process affects only steady­ state operating conditions (i. e., constant or slowly changing throttle conditions). However, most vehicles are now being introduced with adaptation during `` transient'' conditions (e. g., rapidly changing throttle, purging of the evaporative system). Accurate fuel control during transient driving conditions has traditionally been difficult because of the inaccuracies in predicting the air and fuel flow under rapidly changing throttle conditions. Because of air and fuel dynamics (fuel evaporation in the intake manifold and air flow behavior) and the time delay between the air flow measurement and the injection of the calculated fuel mass, temporarily lean A/ F ratios can occur during transient driving conditions that can cause engine hesitation, poor driveability and primarily an increase in NOX emissions. However, by utilizing fuel and air mass modeling, vehicles with adaptive transient fuel control are more capable of maintaining accurate, precise fuel control under all operating conditions. Virtually all cars will incorporate adaptive transient fuel control software; motorcycles with computer controlled fuel injection can also benefit from this technique at a relatively low cost. Three­ way catalytic converters traditionally utilize rhodium and platinum as the catalytic material to control the emissions of all three major pollutants (hydrocarbons (HC), CO, NOX). Although this type of catalyst is very effective at converting exhaust pollutants, rhodium, which is primarily used to convert NOX, tends to thermally deteriorate at temperatures significantly lower than platinum. Recent advances in palladium and tri­ metal (i. e., palladium­ platinum­ rhodium) catalyst technology, however, have improved both the light­ off performance (light­ off is defined as the catalyst bed temperature where pollutant conversion reaches 50­ percent efficiency) and high temperature durability over previous catalysts. In addition, other refinements to catalyst technology, such as higher cell density substrates and adding a second layer of catalyst washcoat to the substrate (dual­ layered washcoats), have further improved catalyst performance from just a few years ago. Typical cell densities for conventional catalysts used in motorcycles are less than 300 cells per square inch (cpsi). To meet the Tier 2 standard, we expect manufacturers to use catalysts with cell densities of 300 to 400 cpsi. If catalyst volume is maintained at the same level (we assume volumes of up to 60 percent of engine displacement), using a higher density catalyst effectively increases the amount of surface area available for reacting with pollutants. Catalyst manufacturers have been able to increase cell density by using thinner walls between each cell without increasing thermal mass (and detrimentally affecting catalyst light­ off) or sacrificing durability and performance. In addition to increasing catalyst volume and cell density, we believe that increased catalyst loading and improved catalyst washcoats will help manufacturers meet the Tier 2 standard. In general, increased precious metal loading (up to a certain point) will reduce exhaust emissions because it increases the opportunities for pollutants to be converted to harmless constituents. The extent to which precious metal loading is increased will be dependent on the precious metals used and other catalyst design parameters. We believe recent developments in palladium/ rhodium catalysts are very promising since rhodium is very efficient at converting NOX, and catalyst suppliers have been investigating methods to increase the amount of rhodium in catalysts for improved NOX conversion. Double layer technologies allow optimization of each individual precious metal used in the washcoat. This technology can provide reduction of undesired metal­ metal or metal­ base oxide interactions while allowing desirable interactions. Industry studies have shown that durability and pollutant conversion efficiencies are enhanced with double layer washcoats. These recent improvements in catalysts can help manufacturers meet the Tier 2 standard at reduced cost relative to older three­ way catalysts. New washcoat formulations are now thermally stable up to 1050 ° C. This is a significant improvement from conventional washcoats, which are stable only up to about 900 ° C. With the improvements in light­ off capability, catalysts may not need to be placed as close to the engine as previously thought. However, if placement closer to the engine is required for better emission performance, improved catalysts based on the enhancements described above would be more capable of surviving the higher temperature environment without deteriorating. The improved resistance to thermal degradation will allow closer placement to the engines where feasible, thereby providing more heat to the catalyst and allowing them to become effective quickly. It is well established that a warmedup catalyst is very effective at converting exhaust pollutants. Recent tests on advanced catalyst systems in automobiles have shown that over 90 percent of emissions during the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are now emitted during the first two minutes of testing after engine start up. Similarly, the highest emissions from a motorcycle occur shortly after start up. Although improvements in catalyst technology have helped reduce catalyst light­ off times, there are several methods to provide additional heat to the catalyst. Retarding the ignition spark timing and computer­ controlled, secondary air injection have been shown to increase the heat provided to the catalyst, thereby improving its cold­ start effectiveness. In addition to using computercontrolled secondary air injection and retarded spark timing to increase the heat provided to the catalyst, some vehicles may employ warm­ up, precatalysts to reduce the size of their main catalytic converters. Palladium­ only warm­ up catalysts (also known as `` pipe catalysts'' or `` Hot Tubes'') using ceramic or metallic substrates may be added to further decrease warm­ up times and improve emission performance. Although metallic substrates are usually more expensive than ceramic substrates, some manufacturers and suppliers believe metallic substrates may require less precious metal loading than ceramic substrates due to the reduced light­ off times they provide. Improving insulation of the exhaust system is another method of furnishing heat to the catalyst. Similar to closecoupled catalysts, the principle behind insulating the exhaust system is to conserve the heat generated in the engine for aiding catalyst warm­ up. Through the use of laminated thin­ wall exhaust pipes, less heat will be lost in the exhaust system, enabling quicker catalyst light­ off. As an added benefit, the use of insulated exhaust pipes will also reduce exhaust noise. Increasing numbers of manufacturers are expected to utilize air­ gap exhaust manifolds (i. e., manifolds with metal inner and outer walls and an insulating layer of air sandwiched between them) for further heat conservation. Besides the hardware modifications described above, motorcycle manufacturers may borrow from other current automobile techniques. These include using engine calibration changes such as a brief period of substantial ignition retard, increased VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53089 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 45 See written testimony of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association on the Proposed Rulemaking on Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark­ Ignited Engines and Recreational Engines. Available in the public docket for review (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IVÐ DÐ 213). cold idling speed, and leaner air­ fuel mixtures to quickly provide heat to a catalyst after cold­ starts. Only software modifications are required for an engine which already uses a computer to control the fuel delivery and other engine systems. For these engines, calibration modifications provide manufacturers with an inexpensive method to quickly achieve light­ off of catalytic converters. When combined with pre­ catalysts, computer­ controlled secondary air injection, and the other heat conservation techniques described above, engine calibration techniques may be very effective at providing the required heat to the catalyst for achieving the Tier 2 standard. These techniques are currently in use on most low emission vehicle (LEV) automobiles and may have applications in on­ road motorcycles. The nature of motorcycling makes riders particularly aware of the many safety issues that confront them. Many riders that submitted comments to us following the publication of the ANPRM in December of 2000 questioned whether catalytic converters could be implemented on motorcycles without increasing the risk of harm to the rider and/ or passenger. The primary concern is regarding the close proximity of the riders to hot exhaust pipes and the catalytic converter. Protecting the rider from the excessive heat is a concern for both riders and manufacturers. The current use of catalytic converters on a number of motorcycles (accounting for tens of thousands of motorcycles in the current U. S. fleet and over 15 million worldwide) already indicates that these issues are not insurmountable on a variety of motorcycle styles and engine sizes. Countries that have successfully implemented catalyst­ based emission control programs for motorcycles (some of which have many years of experience) do not report any safety issues associated with the use of catalytic converters on motorcycles under real­ world conditions. 45 A number of approaches to shielding the rider from the heat of the catalytic converter are possible, such as exterior pipe covers, shielded foot rests, and similar components. Some manufacturers have found that placing the converter on the underside of the engine can keep it adequately distant from the rider. Others may use doublepipe systems that reduce overall heat loss while remaining cooler on the exterior. Based on the significant lead time proposed that would be allowed for meeting these standards, as well as on the two years of prior experience in California before meeting the requirements federally, we believe that these issues can be satisfactorily resolved for the proportion of motorcycles for which catalytic converters would likely be used to meet the proposed standards. We do not expect any of these possible changes to adversely affect performance. Indeed, the transition to some of these technologies (e. g., advanced fuel injection) would be expected to improve performance, fuel economy, and reliability. A direct comparison of several motorcycle models in the EPA certification database between the `` California'' model (where one is offered; it is the exception rather than the rule that a manufacturer offers a separate engine system for California) and the model sold in the rest of the U. S. reveals no change in the performance characteristics in the database (e. g., rated horsepower, torque). We request comment on the impact these anticipated changes might have on performance­ related factors. VI. Projected Impacts This section summarizes the projected impacts of the proposed emission standards. The anticipated environmental benefits are compared with the projected cost of the program for an assessment of the cost per ton of reducing emissions for this proposal. A. Environmental Impact Diurnal evaporative emission factors from marine vessels were developed using established equations for determining evaporative emission factors as a function of ambient conditions and fuel tank size. Permeation emissions were developed based on known material permeation rates as a function of surface area and temperature. Other inputs for these calculations were taken from the latest version of our NONROAD model. Emission estimates for highway motorcycles were developed using information on the emission levels of current motorcycles and updated information on motorcycle use provided by the motorcycle industry. A more detailed description of the methodology used for projecting inventories and projections for additional years can be found in the Chapter 6 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. We request comment on all aspects of the emission inventory analysis, including the usage rates and other inputs used in the analysis. Tables V. AÐ 1 and V. AÐ 2 contain the projected emission inventories for the years 2010 and 2020, respectively, from the engines and vehicles subject to this proposal. The inventories are presented for the base case which assumes no change from current conditions (i. e., without the proposed standards taking effect) and assuming the proposed standards take effect. The inventories for 2010 and 2020 include the effect of growth. The percent reductions based on a comparison of estimated emission inventories with and without the proposed emission standards are also presented. TABLE VI. A– 1.— 2010 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORIES [Thousand short tons] Category NOX HC* Base case With proposed standards Percent reduction Base case With proposed standards Percent reduction Marine SI Evap ................................................................ 0 0 0 106 91 14 Highway motorcycles ....................................................... 11 10 9 46 41 11 Total ...................................................................... 11 10 9 152 132 13 *Evaporative HC for marine SI; exhaust HC for highway motorcycles. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53090 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 46 For further information on learning curves, see previous final rules for Tier 2 highway vehicles (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), marine diesel engines (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999), nonroad diesel engines (63 FR 56968, October 23, 1998), and highway diesel engines (62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997). TABLE VI. A– 2.— 2020 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORIES [Thousand short tons] Category NOX HC* Base case With proposed standards Percent reductions Base case With proposed standards Percent reduction Marine SI Evap ................................................................ 0 0 0 114 50 56 Highway motorcycles ....................................................... 14 7 50 58 29 50 Total ...................................................................... 14 7 50 172 79 53 *Evaporative HC for marine SI; exhaust HC for highway motorcycles. As described in Section II, there will also be environmental benefits associated with reduced haze in many sensitive areas. Finally, anticipated reductions in hydrocarbon emissions will correspond with reduced emissions of the toxic air emissions referenced in Section II. In 2020, the projected reduction in hydrocarbon emissions should result in an equivalent percent reduction in air toxic emissions. B. Economic Impact In assessing the economic impact of setting emission standards, we have made a best estimate of the technologies and their associated costs to meet the proposed standards. In making our estimates we have relied on our own technology assessment, which includes information supplied by individual manufacturers and our own in­ house testing. Estimated costs include variable costs (for hardware and assembly time) and fixed costs (for research and development, retooling, and certification). We projected that manufacturers will recover the fixed costs over the first five years of production and used an amortization rate of 7 percent in our analysis. The analysis also considers total operating costs, including maintenance and fuel consumption. Cost estimates based on the projected technologies represent an expected change in the cost of engines as they begin to comply with new emission standards. All costs are presented in 2001 dollars. Full details of our cost analysis can be found in Chapter 5 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. We request comment on this cost information. Cost estimates based on the current projected costs for our estimated technology packages represent an expected incremental cost of vehicles in the near term. For the longer term, we have identified factors that would cause cost impacts to decrease over time. First, as noted above, we project that manufacturers will spread their fixed costs over the first five years of production. After the fifth year of production, we project that the fixed costs would be retired and the per unit costs would be reduced as a result. For highway motorcycles above 50cc, the analysis also incorporates the expectation that manufacturers and suppliers will apply ongoing research and manufacturing innovation to making emission controls more effective and less costly over time. Research in the costs of manufacturing has consistently shown that as manufacturers gain experience in production and use, they are able to apply innovations to simplify machining and assembly operations, use lower cost materials, and reduce the number or complexity of component parts. 46 (see the Draft Regulatory Support Document for additional information). The cost analysis generally incorporates this learning effect by decreasing estimated variable costs by 20 percent starting in the third year of production and an additional 20 percent starting in the sixth year of production. Long­ term impacts on costs are expected to decrease as manufacturers fully amortize their fixed costs and learn to optimize their designs and production processes to meet the standards more efficiently. The learning curve has not been applied to the marine evaporative controls or the motorcycles under 50cc because we expect manufacturers to use technologies that will be well established prior to the start of the program. We request comment on the methodology used to incorporate the learning curve into the analysis. Evaporative emission controls for boats with marine SI engines have an average projected cost of about $36 per boat. While manufacturers may choose from a wide variety of technologies to meet emission standards, we base these cost estimates on all boats using limited flow orifices for diurnal emission control, fluorination for fuel tank permeation control and low permeability barrier for fuel hose permeation control. Under the proposed emission­ credit program, manufacturers would have the option of offering different technologies to meet emission standards. Where there is a current demand for more sophisticated fuel­ tank technology, we would expect a greater cost impact than from the lower­ cost, high­ production models. Emissions are reduced by preventing evaporation of fuel, so these controls translate directly into a fuel savings, which we have estimated to be about $27 per boat (net present value at the point of sale). Therefore, we get an average cost of $9 per boat when the fuel savings are considered. We project average costs of $26 per Class III highway motorcycle to meet the Tier 1 standard and $35 to meet the Tier 2 standards. We anticipate the manufacturers will meet the proposed emission standards with several technology changes, including electronic fuel injection, catalysts, pulse­ air systems, and other general improvements to engines. For motorcycles with engines of less than 50cc, we project average costs of $44 per motorcycle to meet the proposed standards. We anticipate the manufacturers of these small motorcycles (mostly scooters) will meet the proposed emission standards by transitioning any remaining two­ stroke engines to four­ strokes. The costs are based on the conversion to 4­ stroke because we believe this to be the most likely technology path for the majority of scooters. Manufacturers could also choose to employ advanced technology two­ stroke (e. g., direct injection and/ or catalysts) designs. The process of developing clean technologies is very much underway already as a result of regulatory actions in Europe and the rest of world where the primary markets for VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53091 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules small motorcycles exist. Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document describes these technologies further. Because several models are already available with the anticipated long­ term emission­ control technologies, we believe that manufacturers and consumers will be able to bear the added cost associated with the new emission standards. The above analysis presents unit cost estimates for each engine type. These costs represent the total set of costs the engine manufacturers will bear to comply with emission standards. With current and projected estimates of engine and equipment sales, we translate these costs into projected direct costs to the nation for the new emission standards in any year. A summary of the annualized costs to manufacturers by equipment type is presented in Table VI. BÐ 1. (The annualized costs are determined over the first twenty­ years that the proposed standards would be effective.) The annual cost savings for marine vessels and highway motorcycles (< 50cc only) are due to reduced fuel costs. The total fleetwide fuel savings start slowly, then increase as greater numbers of compliant vessels or motorcycles (< 50cc only) enter the fleet. Table VI. BÐ 1 presents a summary of the annualized reduced operating costs as well. TABLE VI. B– 1.— ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST TO MANUFACTURERS AND ANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS DUE TO THE PROPOSED STANDARDS [Millions/ year] Category Annualized cost to manufacturers Annual fuel savings Marine SI Evap ....... $27.5 $15.6 Highway Motorcycles .................. 18.8 0.2 Aggregate* .............. 42.0 13.3 * Because of the different proposed implementation dates for the two classes, the aggregate is based on a 22 year (rather than 20 year) annualized cost. Therefore, the aggregate is not equal to the sum of the costs for the two engine types. C. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced We calculated the cost per ton of emission reductions for the proposed standards. For these calculations, we attributed the entire cost of the proposed program to the control of ozone precursor emissions (HC or NOX or both). Table VI. CÐ 1 presents the discounted cost­ per­ ton estimates for this proposal. Reduced operating costs offsets a portion of the increased cost of producing the cleaner marine vessels and highway motorcycles (< 50cc only). TABLE VI. C– 1.— ESTIMATED COST­ PER­ TON OF THE PROPOSED EMISSION STANDARDS Category Effective date Discounted reductions per engine (short tons) Pollutants Discounted cost per ton Without fuel savings With fuel savings Marine SI: Diurnal .......................................................................... 2008 0.01 Evaporative HC .................. $745 $382 Tank permeation .......................................................... 0.02 523 160 Hose permeation ......................................................... 0.04 367 4 Aggregate .................................................................... 0.07 478 115 Highway motorcycles >50cc ............................................... 2006 0.03 Exhaust HC+ NOX ............... 970 970 Highway motorcycles >50cc ............................................... 2010 0.03 Exhaust HC+ NOX ............... 1,230 1,230 Highway motorcycles >50cc ............................................... 2006 0.02 Exhaust HC ........................ 2,130 1,750 Because the primary purpose of costeffectiveness is to compare our program to alternative programs, we made a comparison between the cost per ton values presented in this chapter and the cost­ effectiveness of other programs. Table VI. CÐ 2 summarizes the cost effectiveness of several recent EPA actions for controlled emissions from mobile sources. Additional discussion of these comparisons is contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis. TABLE VI. C– 2— COST­ EFFECTIVENESS OF PREVIOUSLY IMPLEMENTED MOBILE SOURCE PROGRAMS [Costs adjusted to 2001 dollars] Program $/ ton Tier 2 vehicle/ gasoline sulfur 1,437– 2,423 2007 Highway HD diesel ...... 1,563– 2,002 2004 Highway HD diesel ...... 227– 444 Off­ highway diesel engine .... 456– 724 TABLE VI. C– 2— COST­ EFFECTIVENESS OF PREVIOUSLY IMPLEMENTED MOBILE SOURCE PROGRAMS— Continued [Costs adjusted to 2001 dollars] Program $/ ton Tier 1 vehicle ........................ 2,202– 2,993 NLEV .................................... 2,069 Marine SI engines ................ 1,255– 1,979 On­ board diagnostics ........... 2,480 Marine CI engines ................ 26– 189 D. Additional Benefits For the marine evaporative emission standards, we expect there will be a fuel savings as manufacturers redesign their vessels to comply with the proposed standards. This savings is the result of preventing fuel from evaporating into the atmosphere. Overall, the fuel savings associated with the anticipated changes in technology are estimated to be about 31 million gallons per year once the program is fully phased in. For the motorcycle emission standards, we expect there will be a fuel savings as manufacturers redesign their engines to comply with the proposed standards. This savings is the result of converting motorcycles <50cc from 2­ stroke designs to more fuel efficient 4­ stroke designs. Overall, the fuel savings associated with the anticipated changes in technology are estimated to be about 0.3 million gallons per year once the program is fully phased in. The controls in this rule are a highly cost­ effective means of obtaining reductions in HC and NOX emissions. A related subject concerns the value of the health and welfare benefits these reductions might produce. While we have not conducted a formal benefitcost analysis for this rule, we believe the benefits of this rule clearly will greatly outweigh any cost. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53092 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules Ozone causes a range of health problems related to breathing, including chest pain, coughing, and shortness of breath Exposure to PM (including secondary PM formed in the atmosphere from NOX and NMHC emissions) is associated with premature death, increased emergency room visits, and increased respiratory symptoms and disease Children, the elderly, and individuals with pre­ existing respiratory conditions are most at risk regarding both ozone and PM. In addition, ozone, NOX, and PM adversely affect the environment in various ways, including crop damage, acid rain, and visibility impairment. In two recent mobile­ source control rules, for light­ duty vehicles (the Tier 2/ Gasoline Sulfur rule) and for highway heavy­ duty engines and diesel fuel, we conducted a full analysis of the expected benefits once the rules were fully implemented. These rules, which primarily reduced NOX and NMHC emissions, were seen to yield health and welfare benefits far exceeding the costs. Besides reducing premature mortality, there were large projected reductions in chronic bronchitis cases, hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular causes, asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms, and a variety of other effects. Given the similarities in pollutants being controlled, we would expect this rule to produce substantial benefits compared to its cost. VII. Public Participation This rule was proposed under the authority of section 307( d) of the Clean Air Act. We request comment on all aspects of this proposal. This section describes how you can participate in this process. A. How Do I Submit Comments? We are opening a formal comment period by publishing this document. We will accept comments for the period indicated under DATES above. If you have an interest in the program described in this document, we encourage you to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking. We request comment on various topics throughout this proposal. We attempted to incorporate all the comments received in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, though not all comments are addressed directly in this document. Anyone who has submitted comments on the Advance Notice, or any previous publications related to this proposal, and feels that those comments have not been adequately addressed is encouraged to resubmit comments as appropriate. Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. If you disagree with parts of the proposed program, we encourage you to suggest and analyze alternate approaches to meeting the air quality goals described in this proposal. You should send all comments, except those containing proprietary information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES) before the end of the comment period. If you submit proprietary information for our consideration, you should clearly separate it from other comments by labeling it `` Confidential Business Information. '' You should also send it directly to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT instead of the public docket. This will help ensure that no one inadvertently places proprietary information in the docket. If you want us to use your confidential information as part of the basis for the final rule, you should send a nonconfidential version of the document summarizing the key data or information. We will disclose information covered by a claim of confidentiality only through the application of procedures described in 40 CFR part 2. If you don't identify information as confidential when we receive it, we may make it available to the public without notifying you. B. Will There Be a Public Hearing? We will hold a public hearing for issues related to highway motorcycles on July 16 in Dulles, VA. We will hold a public hearing for issues related to marine vessels on July 18 in Ann Arbor, MI. The hearings will start at 9: 30 a. m. and continue until testimony is complete. See ADDRESSES above for location and phone information. If you would like to present testimony at a public hearing, we ask that you notify the contact person listed above at least ten days before the hearing. You should estimate the time you need for your presentation and identify any needed audio/ visual equipment. We suggest that you bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA panel and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy of your statement or other materials before the hearing. We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based on the notification we receive. This schedule will be available on the morning of each hearing. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony. We will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of evidence won't apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary information. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court reporter. VII. Administrative Requirements A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis (Executive Order 12866) Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a `` significant regulatory action'' as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: 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; Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. A Draft Regulatory Support Document has been prepared and is available in the docket for this rulemaking and at the internet address listed under ADDRESSES above. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a `` significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Overview 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 Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53093 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 47 `` Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission StudyÑ Report and Appendices, '' EPAÐ 21AÐ 201, November 1991 (available in Air docket AÐ 91Ð 24). It is also available through the National Technical Information Service, referenced as document PB 92Ð 126960. 48 59 FR 31306 (July 17, 1994). 49 See Final Finding, `` Control of Emissions from New Nonroad Spark­ Ignition Engines Rated above 19 Kilowatts and New Land­ Based Recreational Spark­ Ignition Engines'' for EPA's finding for Large SI engines and recreational vehicles (65 FR 76790, December 7, 2000). EPA's findings for marine engines are contained in 61 FR 52088 (October 4, 1996) for gasoline engines and 64 FR 73299 (December 29, 1999) for diesel engines. certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meet the definition for business based on SBA size standards; (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 forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The following table provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected by this regulation. TABLE VIII. B– 1.— PRIMARY SBA SMALL BUSINESS CATEGORIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED REGULATION Industry NAICS 1 codes Defined by SBA as a small business If: 2 Motorcycles and motorcycle parts manufacturers .............................................................................. 336991 <500 employees. Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and parts ................................................................ 421110 <100 employees. Boat Building and Repairing ............................................................................................................... 336612 < 500 employees. Fuel Tank Manufacturers .................................................................................................................... 336211 <1000 employees. 1 North American Industry Classification System. 2 According to SBA's regulations (13 CFR part 121), businesses with no more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are considered `` small entities'' for purposes of a regulatory flexibility analysis. 2. Background In accordance with Section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact. In preparing this IRFA, we looked at both the effect of this proposal and the October 5, 2001 proposal for other nonroad categories (66 FR 51098). The IRFA is available for review in the docket and is summarized below. The process of establishing standards for nonroad engines began in 1991 with a study to determine whether emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from new and existing nonroad engines, equipment, and vehicles are significant contributors to ozone and CO concentrations in more than one area that has failed to attain the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and CO. 47 In 1994, EPA finalized its finding that nonroad engines as a whole `` are significant contributors to ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations'' in more than one ozone or carbon monoxide nonattainment area. 48 Upon this finding, the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) requires EPA to establish standards for all classes or categories of new nonroad engines that cause or contribute to air quality nonattainment in more than one ozone or carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area. Since the finding in 1994, EPA has been engaged in the process of establishing programs to control emissions from nonroad engines used in many different applications. Nonroad categories already regulated include: Land­ based compression ignition (CI) engines (e. g., farm and construction equipment), Small land­ based spark­ ignition (SI) engines (e. g., lawn and garden equipment, string trimmers), Marine engines (outboards, personal watercraft, CI commercial, CI engines <37kW), and Locomotive engines. On December 7, 2000, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the control of emissions from nonroad large SI engines, recreational vehicles (marine and land­ based), and highway motorcycles. As discussed in the ANPRM, the proposal under development will be a continuation of the process of establishing standards for nonroad engines and vehicles, as required by CAA section 213( a)( 3). If, as expected, standards for these engines and vehicles are established, essentially all new nonroad engines will be required to meet emissions control requirements. This proposal is the second part of an effort to control emissions from nonroad engines that are currently unregulated and for updating Federal emissions standards for highway motorcycles. The first part of this effort was a proposal published on October 5, 2001 for emission control from large sparkignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport tugs; recreational vehicles using spark­ ignition engines such as off­ highway motorcycles, allterrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. EPA found that the nonroad engines described above cause or contribute to air quality nonattainment in more than one ozone or carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area. 49 CAA section 213 (a)( 3) requires EPA to establish standards that achieve the greatest degree of emissions reductions achievable taking cost and other factors into account. EPA plans to propose emissions standards and related programs consistent with the requirements of the Act. In addition to proposing standards for the nonroad vehicles and engines noted above, this proposal reviews EPA requirements for highway motorcycles. The emissions standards for highway motorcycles were established twentythree years ago. These standards allow motorcycles to emit about 100 times as much per mile as new cars and light trucks. California recently adopted new emissions standards for highway motorcycles, and new standards and testing cycles are being considered internationally. There may be opportunities to reduce emissions in a cost­ effective way. The program under consideration will cover engines and vehicles that vary in design and use, and many readers may only be interested in one or two of the applications. There are various ways EPA could group the engines and present information. For purposes of the proposed rule EPA has chosen to group engines by common applications (e. g, recreational land­ based engines, marine VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53094 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules engines, large spark ignition engines used in commercial applications). 3. Summary of Regulated Small Entities The small entities directly regulated by this proposed rule are the following: a. Highway Motorcycles. Of the numerous manufacturers supplying the U. S. market for highway motorcycles, Honda, Harley Davidson, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and BMW are the largest, accounting for 95 percent or more of the total U. S. sales. All of these companies except Harley­ Davidson and BMW also manufacture off­ road motorcycles and ATVs for the U. S. market. Harley­ Davidson is the only company manufacturing highway motorcycles exclusively in the U. S. for the U. S. market. Since highway motorcycles have had to meet emission standards for the last twenty years, EPA has good information on the number of companies that manufacture or market highway motorcycles for the U. S. market in each model year. In addition to the big six manufacturers noted above, EPA finds as many as several dozen more companies that have operated in the U. S. market in the last couple of model years. Most of these are U. S. companies that are either manufacturing or importing motorcycles, although a few are U. S. affiliates of larger companies in Europe or Asia. Some of the U. S. manufacturers employ only a few people and produce only a handful of custom motorcycles per year, while others may employ several hundred and produce up to several thousand motorcycles per year. The proposed emission standards impose no new development or certification costs for any company producing compliant engines in California. If fact, implementing the California standards with a two­ year delay also allows manufacturers to streamline their production to further reduce the cost of compliance. The estimated hardware costs are less than one percent of the cost of producing a highway motorcycle, so none of these companies should have a compliance burden greater than one percent of revenues. We expect that a small number of companies affected by EPA emission standards will not already be certifying products in California. For these companies, the modest effort associated with applying established technology will add compliance costs representing between 1 and 3 percent of revenues. The flexible approach we are proposing to limit testing, reporting, and recordkeeping burden prevent excessive costs for all these companies. b. Marine Vessels. Marine vessels include the boat, engine, and fuel system. The evaporative emission controls discussed above may affect the boat builders and/ or the fuel tank manufacturers. Exhaust emission controls including NTE requirements, as addressed in the August 29, 1999 SBAR Panel Report, would affect the engine manufacturers and may affect boat builders. EPA has less precise information about recreational boat builders than is available about engine manufacturers. EPA has utilized several sources, including trade associations and Internet sites when identifying entities that build and/ or sell recreational boats. EPA has also worked with an independent contractor to assist in the characterization of this segment of the industry. Finally, EPA has obtained a list of nearly 1,700 boat builders known to the U. S. Coast Guard to produce boats using engines for propulsion. At least 1,200 of these companies install engines that use gasoline fueled engines and would therefore be subject to the evaporative emission control program discussed above. More than 90% of the companies identified so far would be considered small businesses as defined by SBA. EPA continues to develop a more complete picture of this segment of the industry and will provide additional information as it becomes available. Based on information supplied by a variety of recreational boat builders, fuel tanks for boats using SI marine engines are usually purchased from fuel tank manufacturers. However, some boat builders construct their own fuel tanks. The boat builder provides the specifications to the fuel tank manufacturer who helps match the fuel tank for a particular application. It is the boat builder's responsibility to install the fuel tank and connections into their vessel design. For vessels designed to be used with small outboard engines, the boat builder may not install a fuel tank; therefore, the end user would use a portable fuel tank with a connection to the engine. EPA has determined that total sales of tanks for gasoline marine applications is approximately 550,000 units per year. The market is broken into manufacturers that produce plastic tanks and manufacturers that produce aluminum tanks. EPA has determined that there are at least seven companies that make plastic fuel tanks with total sales of approximately 440,000 units per year. EPA has determined that there at least four companies that make aluminum fuel tanks with total sales of approximately 110,000 units per year. All but one of these plastic and aluminum fuel tank manufacturers is a small business as defined under SBA. EPA has determined that there are at least 16 companies that manufacture CI diesel engines for recreational vessels. Nearly 75 percent of diesel engines sales for recreational vessels in 2000 can be attributed to three large companies. Six of the 16 identified companies are considered small businesses as defined by SBA. Based on sales estimates for 2000, these six companies represent approximately 4 percent of recreational marine diesel engine sales. The remaining companies each comprise between two and seven percent of sales for 2000. EPA has determined that there are at least 24 companies that manufacture SD/ I gasoline engines (including airboats and jet boats) for recreational vessels. Seventeen of the identified companies are considered small businesses as defined by SBA. These 17 companies represent approximately 6 percent of recreational gasoline marine engines sales for 2000. Approximately 70Ð 80 percent of gasoline SD/ I engines manufactured in 2000 can be attributed to one company. The next largest company is responsible for about 10Ð 20 percent of 2000 sales. For any boat builders that would certify to the proposed requirements, the costs of compliance would be much less than one percent of their revenues. Incremental costs of fuel tanks are dwarfed by the capital and variable costs associated with manufacturing power boats. Of the six known small businesses producing plastic fuel tanks for gasoline­ powered marine vessels, these companies would have costs approaching 10 percent of revenues. While this is a large percentage, it comes predominantly from increasing variable costs to upgrade the fuel tanks. Capital expenses to upgrade to compliant products are relatively small. Also, to the extent that tank manufacturers certify their products, they will be increasing the value of their product for their customers, who would otherwise need to assume certification responsibilities. As a result, we believe that these companies will be able to largely recover their compliance costs over time. The net cost absorbed by tank manufacturers will be much less than one percent. For this proposal as a whole, there are hundreds of small businesses that will have total compliance costs less than 1 percent of their annual revenues. We estimate that three companies will have compliance costs between 1 and 3 percent of revenues and six companies VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53095 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules will have compliance costs exceeding 3 percent of revenues. 4. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance For any emission control program, EPA must have assurances that the regulated engines will meet the standards. Historically, EPA programs have included provisions placing manufacturers responsible for providing these assurances. The program that EPA is considering for manufacturers subject to this proposal may include testing, reporting, and record keeping requirements. Testing requirements for some manufacturers may include certification (including deterioration testing), and production line testing. Reporting requirements would likely include test data and technical data on the engines including defect reporting. Manufacturers would likely have to keep records of this information. 5. Related Federal Rules The Panel is aware of several other current Federal rules that relate to the proposed rule under development. During the Panel's outreach meeting, SERs specifically pointed to Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations covering ATVs, and noted that they may be relevant to crafting an appropriate definition for a competition exclusion in this category. The Panel recommends that EPA continue to consult with the CPSC in developing a proposed and final rule in order to better understand the scope of the Commission's regulations as they may relate to the competition exclusion. Other SERs, representing manufacturers of marine engines, noted that the U. S. Coast Guard regulates vessel tanks, most notably tank pressure and anti­ siphoning requirements for carburetted engines. Tank manufacturers would have to take these requirements into account in designing evaporative control systems. The Panel recommends that EPA continue to work with the Coast Guard to evaluate the safety implications of any proposed evaporative emissions standards and to avoid interference with Coast Guard safety regulations. The Panel is also aware of other Federal rules that relate to the categories that EPA would address with the proposed rule, but are not likely to affect policy considerations in the rule development process. For example, there are now EPA noise standards covering off­ road motorcycles; however, EPA expects that most emission control devices are likely to reduce, rather than increase, noise, and that therefore the noise standards are not likely to be important in developing a proposed rule. OTAQ is currently developing a proposal that would revise the rule assigning fees to be paid by parties required to certify engines in return for continuing Government oversight and testing. Among other options, EPA could propose to extend the fee structure to several classes of non­ road engines for which requirements are being established for the first time under the Recreation Rule. The Panel understands that EPA will carefully examine the potential impacts of the Fees Rule on small businesses. The Panel also notes that EPA's Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards (OAQPS) is preparing a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard for Engine Testing Facilities, which is a related matter. 6. Significant Panel Findings The Panel considered a wide range of options and regulatory alternatives for providing small businesses with flexibility in complying with the proposed emissions standards and related requirements. As part of the process, the Panel requested and received comment on several ideas for flexibility that were suggested by SERs and Panel members. The major options recommended by the Panel are summarized below. The complete set of recommendations can be found in Section 9 of the Panel's full Report. The panel recommendations for motorcycles described below were developed for the exhaust emission standards. Potential controls for permeation emissions from motorcycles were not part of the panel process, because review of the need for such controls resulted from comments received on the related recreational vehicles proposal and further investigation by EPA following the end of the panel process. However, EPA believes that the potential permeation emission controls on motorcycles would not, if promulgated, have a significant effect on the burdens of this rule on regulated entities, or on small entities in particular, due to the relatively low cost and the availability of materials and treatment support by outside vendors. Low permeation fuel hoses are available from vendors today, and we would expect that surface treatment for tanks would be applied through an outside company. We request comment on the need for flexibilities for the potential permeation standards, if they are adopted. If the comments or other information the Agency receives indicate that flexibilities similar to (or the same as) those for the motorcycle exhaust standards are appropriate for the motorcycle permeation standards, then we will adopt such flexibilities as part of our final rule if we adopt such permeation standards. Many of the flexible approaches recommended by the Panel can be applied to either marine vessels or highway motorcycles. These approaches are listed below: 1. Additional lead time for compliance. 2. Hardship provisions. 3. Certification flexibility. 4. Broadly defined product certification families. 5. Averaging, banking, and trading. Based on consultations with SERs, the Panel believes that the first two provisions listed above are likely to provide the greatest flexibility for many small entities. These provisions are likely to be most valuable because they either provide more time for compliance (e. g., additional lead time and hardship provisions). The remaining three approaches have the potential to reduce near­ term and even long­ term costs once a small entity has a product it is preparing to certify. These are important in that the reducing costs of testing several emission families and/ or developing deterioration factors. Small businesses could also meet an emission standard on average or generate credits for producing engines which emit at levels below the standard; these credits could then be sold to other manufacturers for compliance or banked for use in future model years. During the consultation process, it became evident that, in a few situations, it could be helpful to small entities if unique provisions were available. Two such provisions are described below. a. Marine Vessel Tanks. Most of this sector involves small fuel tank manufacturers and small boat builders. The Panel recommends that the program be structured with longer lead times and an early credit generation program to enable the fuel tank manufacturers to implement controls on tanks on a schedule consistent with their normal turnover of fuel tank molds. Also, the panel recommends that the program allow small businesses have the option of certifying to the evaporative emission performance standards based on fuel tank design characteristics designed to reduce emissions. b. Highway Motorcycles. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has found that California's Tier 2 standard is potentially infeasible for small manufacturers. Therefore, the Panel recommends that EPA delay making decisions on the applicability to small businesses of Tier 2 or other such VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53096 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules revisions to the federal regulations until California's 2006 review is complete. 7. Summary of SBREFA Process and Panel Outreach As required by section 609( b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. On May 3, 2001, EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened this Panel under Section 609( b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). In addition to the Chair, the Panel consisted of the Director of the Assessment and Standards Division (ASD) within EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the Deputy Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. As part of the SBAR process, the Panel met with small entity representatives (SERs) to discuss the potential emission standards and, in addition to the oral comments from SERs, the Panel solicited written input. In the months preceding the Panel process, EPA conducted outreach with small entities from each of the five sectors as described above. On May 18, 2001, the Panel distributed an outreach package to the SERs. On May 30 and 31, 2001, the Panel met with SERs to hear their comments on preliminary alternatives for regulatory flexibility and related information. The Panel also received written comments from the SERs in response to the discussions at this meeting and the outreach materials. The Panel asked SERs to evaluate how they would be affected under a variety of regulatory approaches, and to provide advice and recommendations regarding early ideas for alternatives that would provide flexibility to address their compliance burden. SERs representing companies in each of the sectors addressed by the Panel raised concerns about the potential costs of complying with the rules under development. For the most part, their concerns were focused on two issues: (1) The difficulty (and added cost) that they would face in complying with certification requirements associated with the standards EPA is developing, and (2) the cost of meeting the standards themselves. SERs observed that these costs would include the opportunity cost of deploying resources for research and development, expenditures for tooling/ retooling, and the added cost of new engine designs or other parts that would need to be added to equipment in order to meet EPA emission standards. In addition, in each category, the SERs noted that small manufacturers (and in the case of one category, small importers) have fewer resources and are therefore less well equipped to undertake these new activities and expenditures. Furthermore, because their product lines tend to be smaller, any additional fixed costs must be recovered over a smaller number of units. Thus, absent any provisions to address these issues, new emission standards are likely to impose much more significant adverse effects on small entities than on their larger competitors. The Panel discussed each of the issues raised in the outreach meetings and in written comments by the SERs. The Panel agreed that EPA should consider the issues raised by the SERs and that it would be appropriate for EPA to propose and/ or request comment on various alternative approaches to address these concerns. The Panel's key discussions centered around the need for and most appropriate types of regulatory compliance alternatives for small businesses. The Panel considered a variety of provisions to reduce the burden of complying with new emission standards and related requirements. Some of these provisions would apply to all companies (e. g., averaging, banking, and trading), while others would be targeted at the unique circumstances faced by small businesses. A complete discussion of the regulatory alternatives recommended by the Panel can be found in the Final Panel Report. Copies of the Final Report can be found in the docket for this rulemaking or at http:// www. epa. gov/ sbrefa. Summaries of the Panel's recommended alternatives for each of the sectors subject to this action can be found in the respective sections of the preamble. As required by section 609( b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened this on May 3, 2001. In addition to the Chair, the Panel consisted of the Director of the Assessment and Standards Division (ASD) within EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the Deputy Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. The proposal being developed includes marine sterndrive and inboard (SD/ I) engines and boats powered by SI marine engines. In addition, EPA also intends to update EPA requirements for highway motorcycles. Finally, the proposal being developed included evaporative emission control requirements for gasoline fuel tanks and systems used on marine vessels. The Panel met with Small Entity Representatives (SERs) to discuss the potential emissions standards and, in addition to the oral comments from SERs, the Panel solicited written input. In the months preceding the Panel process, EPA conducted outreach with small entities from each of the five sectors as described above. On May 18, 2001, the Panel distributed an outreach package to the SERs. On May 30 and 31, 2001, the Panel met with SERs to hear their comments on preliminary options for regulatory flexibility and related information. The Panel also received written comments from the SERs in response to the discussions at this meeting and the outreach materials. The Panel asked SERs to evaluate how they would be affected under a variety of regulatory approaches, and to provide advice and recommendations regarding early ideas to provide flexibility. See Section 8 of the Panel Report for a complete discussion of SER comments, and Appendices A and B for summaries of SER oral comments and SER written comments. Consistent with the RFA/ SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small­ entity comments on issues related to the elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in the docket for this proposed rule. The following are Panel recommendations adopted by the Agency. Please note all Panel recommendations were adopted for this proposal. a. Related Federal Rules. The Panel recommends that EPA continue to consult with the CPSC in developing a proposed and final rule in order to better understand the scope of the Commission's regulations as they may relate to the competition exclusion. In addition, the Panel recommends that EPA continue to work with the Coast Guard to evaluate the safety implications of any proposed evaporative emissions standards and to avoid interference with Coast Guard safety regulations. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53097 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules b. Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives. The Panel recommends that EPA consider and seek comments on a wide range of alternatives, including the flexibility options described below. (i) Marine Vessels. (A) Smooth Transition to Proposed Standards. The Panel recommends that EPA propose an approach that would implement any evaporative standards five years after a regulation for marine engines takes effect. The Panel also recommends that EPA seek comment on this five year period and on whether there are small entities whose product line is dominated by tanks that turn over at a time rate slower time than five years. (B) Design­ Based Certification. The Panel recommends that EPA propose to grant small businesses the option of certifying to the evaporative emission performance requirements based on fuel tank design characteristics that reduce emissions. The Panel also recommends that EPA seek comment on and consider proposing an approach that would allow manufacturers to use this averaging approach with designs other than those listed in the final rule. (C) ABT of Emission Credits with Design­ Based Certification. The Panel recommends that EPA allow manufacturers using design­ based certification to generate credits. The Panel also recommends that EPA provide adequately detailed design specifications and associated emission levels for several technology options that could be used to certify. (D) Broadly Defined Product Certification Families. The Panel recommends that EPA take comment on the need for broadly defined emission families and how these families should be defined. (E) Hardship Provisions. The Panel recommends that EPA propose two types of hardship programs for marine engine manufacturers, boat builders and fuel tank manufacturers: (1) Allow small businesses to petition EPA for additional lead time to comply with the standards; and (2) allow small businesses to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply (i. e. supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if the failure to sell the subject fuel tanks or boats would have a major impact on the company's solvency. The Panel also recommends that EPA work with small manufacturers to develop these criteria and how they would be used. (ii) Highway Motorcycles. The Panel recommends that EPA include the flexibilities described below for small entities with highway motorcycle annual sales of less than 3,000 units per model year (combined Class I, II, and III motorcycles) and fewer than 500 employees. (A) Delay of Proposed Standards. The Panel recommends that EPA propose to delay compliance with the Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/ km HC+ NOX until the 2008 model year for small volume manufacturers. The Panel also recommends that EPA seek comment on whether additional time is needed for small businesses to comply with the Federal program. The Panel recommends that EPA participate with CARB in the 2006 progress review as these provisions are revisited, and delay making decisions on the applicability to small businesses of Tier 2 or other revisions to the federal regulations that are appropriate following the review. The Panel also recommends that any potential Tier 2 requirements for small manufacturer motorcycles consider potential test procedure changes arising from the ongoing World Motorcycle Test Cycle work described in the Panel Report. (B) Broader Engine Families. The Panel recommends that EPA keep the current existing regulations for small volume highway motorcycle manufacturers. (C) Exemption from Production Line Testing. The Panel recommends that EPA keep the current provisions for no mandatory production line testing requirement for highway motorcycles and allow the EPA to request production vehicles from any certifying manufacturer for testing. (D) Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT). The Panel recommends that EPA propose an ABT program for highway motorcycles. (E) Hardship Provisions. The Panel recommends that EPA propose two types of hardship programs for highway motorcycles: (1) Allow small businesses to petition EPA for additional lead time to comply with the standards; and (2) allow small businesses to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply (i. e. supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if failure to sell the subject engines or vehicles would have a major impact on the company's solvency. The Panel also recommends that EPA request comment on the California requirements, which do not include hardship provisions. (F) Reduced Certification Data Submittal and Testing Requirements. The Panel recommends that EPA keep current EPA regulations allow significant flexibility for certification by manufacturers who project fewer than 10,000 unit sales of combined Class I, II, and III motorcycles. We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. Information Collection Requests (ICR No. 1897.03 for marine vessels and 0783.43 for highway motorcycles) have been prepared by EPA, and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epamail. epa. gov, or by calling (202) 566Ð 1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http:/ /www. epa. gov. icr. The information being collected is to be used by EPA to ensure that new marine vessels and fuel systems and new highway motorcycles comply with applicable emissions standards through certification requirements and various subsequent compliance provisions. For marine vessels, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6 hours per response, with collection required annually. The estimated number of respondents is 810. The total annual cost for the first 3 years of the program is estimated to be $230,438 year and includes no annualized capital costs, $14,000 in operating and maintenance costs, at a total of 4,838 hours per year. For highway motorcycles, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 228 hours per response, with collection required annually. The estimated number of respondents is 73. The total annual cost for the first 3 years of the program is estimated to be $3,430,908 per year and includes no annualized capital costs, $2,728,000 in operating and maintenance costs, at a total of 16,647 hours per year. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 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 collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjusting the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53098 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able 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 EPA's regulations are displayed 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 August 14, 2002, a comment to OMB is best ensured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by September 13, 2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. D. Intergovernmental Relations 1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104Ð 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, EPA 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 one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA 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 EPA 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 of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This rule contains no Federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this rule contains federal mandates that may result in expenditures of less than $100 million to the private sector in any single year. EPA believes that the proposal represents the least costly, most cost­ effective approach to achieve the air quality goals of the rule. The costs and benefits associated with the proposal are discussed in Section VI and in the Draft Regulatory Support Document. 2. 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. This rule contains no federal mandates for tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. However, in the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, we specifically solicit additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law 104Ð 113, § 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rule involves technical standards. The following paragraphs describe how we specify testing procedures for engines subject to this proposal. We are proposing to test highway motorcycles with the Federal Test Procedure, a chassis­ based transient test. There is no voluntary consensus standard that would adequately address engine or vehicle operation for suitable emission measurement. For marine vessels, we are proposing to use an evaporative emission test procedure based on the highway Federal Test Procedure. There is no voluntary consensus standard for testing evaporative emission from marine vessels. In addition, we are proposing the option of using design­ based certification. F. Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045) Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53099 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules (1) is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, Section 5Ð 501 of the Order directs the Agency to 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 considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. The effects of ozone and PM on children's health were addressed in detail in EPA's rulemaking to establish the NAAQS for these pollutants, and EPA is not revisiting those issues here. EPA believes, however, that the emission reductions from the strategies proposed in this rulemaking will further reduce air toxics and the related adverse impacts on children's health. G. Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 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. '' Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not have federalism implications (i. e., the rules 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). Those requirements include providing all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility. 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. Although Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with representatives of various State and local governments in developing this rule. EPA has also consulted representatives from STAPPA/ ALAPCO, which represents state and local air pollution officials. 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. H. Energy Effects (Executive Order 13211) This rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The proposed standards have for their aim the reduction of emission from certain nonroad engines, and have no effect on fuel formulation, distribution, or use. Generally, the proposed program leads to reduced fuel usage due to the reduction of wasted fuel through evaporation. I. Plain Language This document follows the guidelines of the June 1, 1998 Executive Memorandum on Plain Language in Government Writing. To read the text of the regulations, it is also important to understand the organization of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CFR uses the following organizational names and conventions. Title 40Ñ Protection of the Environment Chapter IÑ Environmental Protection Agency Subchapter CÑ Air Programs. This contains parts 50 to 99, where the Office of Air and Radiation has usually placed emission standards for motor vehicle and nonroad engines. Subchapter UÑ Air Programs Supplement. This contains parts 1000 to 1299, where we intend to place regulations for air programs in future rulemakings. Part 1045Ñ Control of Emissions from Marine Spark­ ignition Engines and Vessels Part 1068Ñ General Compliance Provisions for Engine Programs. Provisions of this part apply to everyone. Each part in the CFR has several subparts, sections, and paragraphs. The following illustration shows how these fit together. Part 1045 Subpart A Section 1045.1 (a) (b) (1) (2) (i) (ii) (A) (B) A cross reference to § 1045.1( b) in this illustration would refer to the parent paragraph (b) and all its subordinate paragraphs. A reference to ``§ 1045.1( b) introductory text'' would refer only to the single, parent paragraph (b). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 86 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements 40 CFR Part 90 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties 40 CFR Part 1045 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53100 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties 40 CFR Part 1051 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 1068 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Imports, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties. Dated: July 25, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth below: PART 86— CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN­ USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES AND ENGINES 1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401Ð 7521( l) and 7521( m)Ð 7671q. Subpart E—[ Amended] 2. A new § 86.401Ð 2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows: § 86.401– 2006 General applicability. This subpart applies to 1978 and later model year, new, gasoline­ fueled motorcycles built after December 31, 1977, and to 1990 and later model year, new methanol­ fueled motorcycles built after December 31, 1989, and to 1997 and later model year, new natural gasfueled and liquefied petroleum gasfueled motorcycles built after December 31, 1996, and to 2006 and later model year new motorcycles, regardless of fuel. 3. Section 86.402Ð 78( a) is amended by adding a definition for `` Motor vehicle'' in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 86.402– 78 Definitions. (a) * * * Motor vehicle has the meaning we give in 40 CFR 85.1703. * * * * * 4. A new § 86.410Ð 2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows: § 86.410– 2006 Emission standards for 2006 and later model year motorcycles. (a)( 1) Exhaust emissions from Class I and Class II motorcycles shall not exceed the standards listed in the following table: TABLE E.— 2006.1 CLASS I AND II MOTORCYCLE EMISSION STANDARDS Model year Emission standards (g/ km) HC CO 2006 and later .......... 1.0 12.0 (2) Exhaust emissions from Class III motorcycles shall not exceed the standards listed in the following table: TABLE E.— 2006.2 CLASS III MOTORCYCLE EMISSION STANDARDS Tier Model year Emission standards (g/ km) HC+ NOX CO 1 ....... 2006– 2009 1.4 12.0 2 ....... 2010 and later. 0.8 12.0 (b) The standards set forth in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section refer to the exhaust emitted over the driving schedule as set forth in subpart F and measured and calculated in accordance with those procedures. (c) Compliance with the HC+ NOX standards set forth in paragraph (a)( 2) of this section may be demonstrated using the averaging provisions of § 86.449. (d) No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any new motorcycle subject to this subpart. (e) Manufacturers with fewer than 500 employees and producing fewer than 3000 motorcycles per year are considered small­ volume manufacturers for the purposes of this section. The following provisions apply for these small­ volume manufacturers: (1) Small­ volume manufacturers are not required to comply with the Tier 1 standards until model year 2008. (2) Small­ volume manufacturers are not required to comply with the Tier 2 standards. 5. A new § 86.419Ð 2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows: § 86.419– 2006 Engine displacement, motorcycle classes. (a)( 1) Engine displacement shall be calculated using nominal engine values and rounded to the nearest whole cubic centimeter, in accordance with ASTM E 29Ð 67 (incorporated by reference in § 86.1). (2) For rotary engines, displacement means the maximum volume of a combustion chamber between two rotor tip seals, minus the minimum volume of the combustion chamber between those two rotor tip seals, times three times the number of rotors, according to the following formula: cc = (max. chamber volume ¥ min. chamber volume) × 3 × no. of rotors (b) Motorcycles will be divided into classes based on engine displacement. (1) Class IÑ 0 to 169 cc (0 to 10.4 cu. in.). (2) Class IIÑ 170 to 279 cc (10.4 to 17.1 cu. in.). (3) Class IIIÑ 280 cc and over (17.1 cu. in. and over). (c) At the manufacturer's option, a vehicle described in an application for certification may be placed in a higher class (larger displacement). All procedures for the higher class must then be complied with, compliance withemission standards will be determined on the basis of engine displacement. 6. A new § 86.445Ð 2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows: § 86.445– 2006 What temporary provisions address hardship due to unusual circumstances? (a) After considering the circumstances, we may permit you to introduce into commerce highway motorcycles that do not comply with emission standards if all the following conditions and requirements apply: (1) Unusual circumstances that are clearly outside your control and that could not have been avoided with reasonable discretion prevent you from meeting requirements from this chapter. (2) You exercised prudent planning and were not able to avoid the violation; you have taken all reasonable steps to minimize the extent of the nonconformity. (3) Not having the exemption will jeopardize the solvency of your company. (4) No other allowances are available under the regulations to avoid the impending violation. (b) To apply for an exemption, you must send the Designated Officer a written request as soon as possible before you are in violation. In your request, show that you meet all the conditions and requirements in paragraph (a) of this section. (c) Include in your request a plan showing how you will meet all the applicable requirements as quickly as possible. (d) You must give us other relevant information if we ask for it. (e) We may include reasonable additional conditions on an approval granted under this section, including provisions to recover or otherwise address the lost environmental benefit or VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 22: 38 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm20 PsN: 14AUP2 53101 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules paying fees to offset any economic gain resulting from the exemption. For example, we may require that you meet standards less stringent than those that currently apply. 7. A new § 86.446Ð 2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows: § 86.446– 2006 What are the provisions for extending compliance deadlines for smallvolume manufacturers under hardship? (a) After considering the circumstances, we may extend the compliance deadline for you to meet new or revised emission standards, as long as you meet all the conditions and requirements in this section. (b) To be eligible for this exemption, you must qualify as a small­ volume manufacturer under § 86.410Ð 2006( e). (c) To apply for an extension, you must send the Designated Officer a written request. In your request, show that all the following conditionsand requirements apply: (1) You have taken all possible business, technical, and economic steps to comply. (i) In the case of importers, show that you are unable to find a manufacturer capable of supplying complying products. (ii) For all other manufacturers, show that the burden of compliance costs prevents you from meeting the requirements of this chapter. (2) Not having the exemption will jeopardize the solvency of your company. (3) No other allowances are available under the regulations to avoidthe impending violation. (d) In describing the steps you have taken to comply under paragraph (c)( 1) of this section, include at least the following information: (1) Describe your business plan, showing the range of projects active or under consideration. (2) Describe your current and projected financial standing, with and without the burden of complying with regulations. (3) Describe your efforts to raise capital to comply with regulations. (4) Identify the engineering and technical steps you have taken or planto take to comply with regulations. (5) Identify the level of compliance you can achieve. For example, you may be able to produce engines that meet a somewhat less stringent emission standard than the regulations require. (e) Include in your request a plan showing how you will meet all the applicable requirements as quickly as possible. (f) You must give us other relevant information if we ask for it. (g) An authorized representative of your company must sign the request andinclude the statement: `` All the information in this request is true andaccurate, to the best of my knowledge. '' (h) Send your request for this extension at least nine months before new standards apply. Do not send your request before the regulations in question apply to other manufacturers. (i) We may include reasonable requirements on an approval granted underthis section, including provisions to recover or otherwise address the lostenvironmental benefit. For example, we may require that you meet a less stringent emission standard or buy and use available emission credits. (j) We will approve extensions of up to one year. We may review and revisean extension as reasonable under the circumstances. 8. A new § 86.447Ð 2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows: § 86.447– 2006 What are the provisions for exempting motorcycles under 50 cc from the requirements of this part if they use engines you certify under other programs? (a) This section applies to you if you manufacture engines under 50 cc for installation in a highway motorcycle. See § 86.448Ð 2006 if you are not the engine manufacturer. (b) The only requirements or prohibitions from this part that apply to a motorcycle that is exempt under this section are in this section and § 86.448Ð 2006. (c) If you meet all the following criteria regarding your new engine, itis exempt under this section: (1) You must produce it under a valid certificate of conformity for one of the following types of engines or vehicles: (i) Class II engines under 40 CFR part 90. (ii) Recreational vehicles under 40 CFR part 1051. (2) You must not make any changes to the certified engine that we could reasonably expect to increase its exhaust emissions. For example, if you make any of the following changes to one of these engines, you do not qualify for this exemption: (i) Change any fuel system parameters from the certified configuration. (ii) Change any other emission­ related components. (iii) Modify or design the engine cooling system so that temperatures or heat rejection rates are outside the original engine's specified ranges. (3) You must make sure the engine has the emission label we require under 40 CFR part 90 or part 1051. (4) You must make sure that fewer than 50 percent of the engine model'stotal sales, from all companies, are used in highway motorcycles. (d) If you produce only the engine, give motorcycle manufacturers anynecessary instructions regarding what they may or may not change under paragraph (c)( 2) of this section. (e) If you produce both the engine and motorcycle under this exemption, you must do all of the following to keep the exemption valid: (1) Make sure the original emission label is intact. (2) Add a permanent supplemental label to the engine in a position where it will remain clearly visible after installation in the vehicle. In your engine's emission label, do the following: (i) Include the heading: `` Highway Motorcycle Emission ControlInformation''. (ii) Include your full corporate name and trademark. (iii) State: `` THIS ENGINE WAS ADAPTED FOR HIGHWAY USE WITHOUT AFFECTING ITS EMISSION CONTROLS. ''. (iv) State the date you finished installation (month and year). (3) Send the Designated Officer a signed letter by the end of each calendar year (or less often if we tell you) with all the following information: (i) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone number. (ii) List the models you expect to produce under this exemption in the coming year. (iii) State: `` We produce each listed model as a highway motorcycle without making any changes that could increase its certified emission levels, as described in 40 CFR 86.447.''. (f) If your vehicles do not meet the criteria listed in paragraph (c) of this section, they will be subject to the standards and prohibitions of this part. Producing these vehicles without a valid exemption or certificate of conformity would violate the prohibitions in Clean Air Act section 203 (42 U. S. C. 7522). (g) If we request it, you must send us emission test data on the duty cycle for Class I motorcycles. You may include the data in your application for certification or in your letter requesting the exemption. (h) Vehicles exempted under this section are subject to all the requirements affecting engines and vehicles under 40 CFR part 90 or part 1051, as applicable. The requirements and restrictions of 40 CFR part 90 or 1051 apply to anyone manufacturing these engines, anyone manufacturing vehicles that use these engines, and all other persons in the same manner as if VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53102 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules these engines were used in a nonroad application. 9. A new § 86.448Ð 2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows: § 86.448– 2006 What are the provisions for producing motorcycles under 50 cc with engines already certified under other programs? (a) You may produce a highway motorcycle under 50 cc using a nonroad engine if you meet three criteria: (1) The engine or vehicle is certified to 40 CFR part 90 or part 1051. (2) The engine is not adjusted outside the manufacturer's specifications, as described in § 86.447Ð 2006( c)( 2) and (d). (3) The engine or vehicle is not modified in any way that may affect its emission control. (b) This section does not apply if you manufacture the engine yourself; see § 86.447Ð 2006. 10. A new § 86.449 is added to subpart E to read as follows: § 86.449 Averaging provisions. (a) Compliance with the HC+ NOX standards set forth in § 86.410Ð 2006( a)( 2) may be demonstrated using the averaging provisions of this section. To do this you must show that your average emission levels are at or below the applicable standards in § 86.410Ð 2006. Family emission limits (FELs) may not exceed 5.0 g/ km. (b) Do not include any exported vehicles in the certification averaging program. Include only motorcycles certified under this subpart. (c) To use the averaging program, do the following things: (1) Certify each vehicle to a family emission limit. (2) Calculate a preliminary average emission level according to paragraph (d) of this section using projected production volumes for your application for certification. (3) After the end of your model year, calculate a final average emission level according to paragraph (d) of this section for each type of recreational vehicle or engine you manufacture or import. Use actual production volumes. (d) Calculate your average emission level for each type of recreational vehicle or engine for each model year according to the following equation and round it to the nearest tenth of a g/ km. Use consistent units throughout the calculation. (1) Calculate the average emission level as: Emission level = FEL Production UL i i i ( ) × ( ) × ( ) ( ) × ( ) UL oduction i i i i Pr Where: FELi = The FEL to which the engine family is certified. ULi = The useful life of the engine family. Productioni = The number of vehicles in the engine family. (2) Use production projections for initial certification, and actual production volumes to determine compliance at the end of the model year. (e)( 1) Maintain and keep five types of properly organized and indexed records for each group and for each emission family: (i) Model year and EPA emission family. (ii) FEL. (iii) Useful life. (iv) Projected production volume for the model year. (v) Actual production volume for the model year. (2) Keep paper records of this information for three years from the due date for the end­ of­ year report. You may use any additional storage formats or media if you like. (3) Follow paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section to send us the information you must keep. (4) We may ask you to keep or send other information necessary to implement this subpart. (f) Include the following information in your applications for certification: (1) A statement that, to the best of your belief, you will not have a negative credit balance for any type of recreational vehicle or engine when all credits are calculated. This means that if you believe that your average emission level will be above the standard (i. e., that you will have a deficit for the model year), you must have banked credits pursuant to paragraph (j) of this section to offset the deficit. (2) Detailed calculations of projected emission credits (zero, positive, or negative) based on production projections. If you project a credit deficit, state the source of credits needed to offset the credit deficit. (g) At the end of each model year, send an end­ of­ year report. (1) Make sure your report includes three things: (i) Calculate in detail your average emission level and any emission credits based on actual production volumes. (ii) If your average emission level is above the allowable average standard, state the source of credits needed to offset the credit deficit. (2) Base your production volumes on the point of first retail sale. This point is called the final product­ purchase location. (3) Send end­ of­ year reports to the Designated Officer within 120 days of the end of the model year. If you send reports later, you are violating the Clean Air Act. (4) If you generate credits for banking pursuant to paragraph (j) of this section and you do not send your end­ of­ year reports within 120 days after the end of the model year, you may not use or trade the credits until we receive and review your reports. You may not use projected credits pending our review. (5) You may correct errors discovered in your end­ of­ year report, including errors in calculating credits according to the following table: If. . . And if. . . Then we . . . (i) Our review discovers an error in your end of­ year report that increases your credit bal ance. the discovery occurs within 180 days of re ceipt. restore the credits for your use. (ii) You discover an error in your report that increases your credit balance. the discovery occurs within 180 days of re ceipt. restore the credits for your use. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 EP14AU02.000</ GPH> 53103 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules If. . . And if. . . Then we . . . (iii) We or you discover an error in your report that increases your credit balance. the discovery occurs more than 180 days after receipt. do not restore the credits for your use. (iv) We discover an error in your report that reduces your credit balance. at any time after receipt ................................. reduce your credit balance. (h) Include in each report a statement certifying the accuracy and authenticity of its contents. (i) We may void a certificate of conformity for any emission family if you do not keep the records this section requires or give us the information when we ask for it. (j) You may include motorcycles that you certify with HC+ NOX emissions below 0.8 g/ km in the following optional early banking program: (1) To include a motorcycle in the early banking program, assign it an emission rate of 0.8 g/ km when calculating your average emission level for compliance with the Tier 1 standards. (2)( i) Calculate bankable credits from the following equation: Bonus credit = Y x [ (0.8 g/ kmÑ Certfied emission level) ]x [( Production volume of engine family) x (Useful life) ] (ii) The value of Y is defined by the model year and emission level, as shown in the following table: Model year Multiplier (Y) for use in MY 2010 or later corporate averaging If your certified emission level is less than 0.8 g/ km, but greater than 0.4 g/ km, then Y = . . . If your certified emission level is less than 0.4 g/ km, then Y = . . . 2003 through 2006 ................................................................................................................ 1.5 3.0 2007 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.375 2.5 2008 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.250 2.0 2009 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.125 1.5 (3) Credits banked under this paragraph (j) may be used for compliance with any 2010 or later model year standards as follows: (i) If your average emission level is above the average standard, calculate your credit deficit according to the following equation, rounding to the nearest tenth of a gram: Deficit = (Emission Level ¥ Average Standard) x (Total Annual Production) (ii) Credits deficits may be offset using banked credits. Subpart F—[ Amended] 11. A new § 86.513Ð 2004 is added to subpart F to read as follows: § 86.513– 2004 Fuel and engine lubricant specifications. Section 86.513Ð 2004 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from § 86.513Ð 94. Where a paragraph in § 86.513Ð 94 is identical and applicable to § 86.513Ð 2004, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[ Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.513Ð 94.'' Where a corresponding paragraph of § 86.513Ð 94 is not applicable, this is indicated by the statement ``[ Reserved]. '' (a) Gasoline. (1) Gasoline having the following specifications will be used by the Administrator in exhaust emission testing of gasoline­ fueled motorcycles. Gasoline having the following specifications or substantially equivalent specifications approved by the Administrator, shall be used by the manufacturer for emission testing except that the octane specifications do not apply. TABLE 1 OF § 86.513– 2004.— GASOLINE TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS Item Procedure Value Distillation Range: 1. Initial boiling point, ° C ................................................................................. ASTM D 86– 97 ........................... 23.9— 35.0. 1 2. 10% point, ° C .............................................................................................. ASTM D 86– 97 ........................... 48.9— 57.2 3. 50% point, ° C .............................................................................................. ASTM D 86– 97 ........................... 93.3— 110.0. 4. 90% point, ° C .............................................................................................. ASTM D 86– 97 ........................... 148.9— 162.8. 5. End point, ° C ............................................................................................... ASTM D 86– 97 ........................... 212.8. Hydrocarbon composition: 1. Olefins, volume % ....................................................................................... ASTM D 1319– 98 ....................... 10 maximum. 2. Aromatics, volume % .................................................................................. ASTM D 1319– 98 ....................... 35 minimum. 3. Saturates ..................................................................................................... ASTM D 1319– 98 ....................... Remainder. Lead (organic), g/ liter ............................................................................................. ASTM D 3237 ............................. 0.013 maximum. Phosphorous, g/ liter ................................................................................................ ASTM D 3231 ............................. 0.005 maximum. Sulfur, weight % ..................................................................................................... ASTM D 1266 ............................. 0.08 maximum. Volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure), kPa ..................................................................... ASTM D 3231 ............................. 55.2 to 63.4. 1 1 For testing at altitudes above 1 219 m, the specified volatility range is 52 to 55 kPa and the specified initial boiling point range is 23.9 to 40.6 C. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53104 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules (2) Unleaded gasoline and engine lubricants representative of commercial fuels and engine lubricants which will be generally available though retail outlets shall be used in service accumulation. (3) The octane rating of the gasoline used shall be no higher than 4.0. Research octane numbers above the minimum recommended by the manufacturer. (4) The Reid Vapor Pressure of the gasoline used shall be characteristic of commercial gasoline fuel during the season in which the service accumulation takes place. (b) through (d) [Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.513Ð 94. 12. Section 86.544Ð 90 is amended by revising the text preceding the formula to read as follows: § 86.544– 90 Calculations; exhaust emissions. The final reported text results, with oxides of nitrogen being optional for model years prior to 2006 and required for 2006 and later model years, shall be computed by use of the following formula (The results of all emission tests shall be rounded, in accordance with ASTM E29Ð 90 (incorporated by reference in § 86.1), to the number of places to the right of the decimal point indicated by expressing the applicable standard to three significant figures.): * * * * * Subpart I [Amended] 13. Section 86.884Ð 14 is amended by revising the equation in paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 86.884– 14 Calculations. (a) * * * * * * * * N N/ s m = × ( ) ( ) 100 1 1 100 L L s m / PART 90— CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK­ IGNITION ENGINES 14. The authority for part 90 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601( a). Subpart A—[ Amended] 15. Section 90.1 as proposed at 66 FR 51181 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows: § 90.1 Applicability. * * * * * (f) This part also applies to engines under 50 cc used in highway motorcycles if the manufacturer uses the provisions of 40 CFR 86.447Ð 2006 to meet the emission standards in this part instead of the requirements of 40 CFR part 86. Compliance with the provisions of this part is a required condition of that exemption. Subchapter U— Air Pollution Controls 16. Part 1045 is added to subchapter U as proposed at 66 FR 51189 to read as follows: PART 1045— CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM SPARK­ IGNITION MARINE VESSELS Subpart A— Determining How to Follow This Part Sec. 1045.1 Does this part apply to me? 1045.5 Are any of my vessels excluded from the requirements of this part? 1045.10 What main steps must I take to comply with this part? 1045.15 Do any other regulation parts affect me? 1045.20 Can I certify just the fuel system instead of the entire vessel? Subpart B— Emission Standards and Related Requirements 1045.105 What evaporative emission standards must my vessels meet? 1045.115 What other requirements must my vessels meet? 1045.120 What warranty requirements apply to me? 1045.125 What maintenance instructions must I give to buyers? 1045.130 What installation instructions must I give to vessel manufacturers? 1045.135 How must I label and identify the vessels and fuel systems I produce? 1045.140 What interim provisions apply only for a limited time? 1045.145 What provisions apply to noncertifying manufacturers? Subpart C— Certifying Emission Families 1045.201 What are the general requirements for submitting a certification application? 1045.205 How must I prepare my application? 1045.215 What happens after I complete my application? 1045.225 How do I amend my application to include a new or modified product? 1045.230 How do I select emission families? 1045.235 How does testing fit with my application for a certificate of conformity? 1045.240 How do I determine if my emission family complies with emission standards? 1045.245 What records must I keep and make available to EPA? 1045.250 When may EPA deny, revoke, or void my certificate of conformity? Subpart D—[ Reserved] Subpart E— Testing In­ use Engines 1045.401 What provisions apply for in­ use testing of vessels? Subpart F— Test Procedures 1045.501 What equipment and general procedures must I use to test my vessels? 1045.505 How do I test for diurnal evaporative emissions? 1045.506 How do I test my fuel tank for permeation emissions? Subpart G— Compliance Provisions 1045.601 What compliance provisions apply to these vessels? Subpart H— Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Certification 1045.701 General provisions. 1045.705 How do I average emission levels? 1045.710 How do I generate and bank emission credits? 1045.715 How do I trade or transfer emission credits? 1045.720 How do I calculate my average emission level or emission credits? 1045.725 What information must I keep? 1045.730 What information must I report? Subpart I— Definitions and Other Reference Information 1045.801 What definitions apply to this part? 1045.805 What symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations does this part use? 1045.810 What materials does this part reference? 1045.815 How should I request EPA to keep my information confidential? 1045.820 How do I request a public hearing? Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401Ð 7671( q). Subpart A— Determining How To Follow This Part § 1045.1 Does this part apply to me? (a) This part applies to you if you manufacture or import new sparkignition marine vessels (defined in § 1045.801) or part of a fuel system for such vessels (defined in § 1045.801), unless we exclude the vessels under § 1045.5. You should read § 1045.145 to determine whether we require all manufacturers to meet a specific requirement. (b) See 40 CFR part 90 to meet exhaust­ emission requirements for spark­ ignition marine engines. Note that 40 CFR part 90 does not apply to all spark­ ignition marine engines. (c) Note in subpart G of this part that 40 CFR part 1068 applies to everyone, including anyone who manufactures, owns, operates, or repairs any of the vessels this part covers. (d) You need not follow this part for vessels produced before the 2008 model year, unless you certify voluntarily. See § 1045.105, § 1045.145, and the definition of model year in § 1045.801 VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 EP14AU02.001</ MATH> 53105 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules for more information about the timing of new requirements. (e) See §§ 1045.801 and 1045.805 for definitions and acronyms that apply to this part. (f) For now, ignore references to engines, which will apply when we establish exhaust emission standards in this part for spark­ ignition marine engines. § 1045.5 Are any of my vessels excluded from the requirements of this part? (a) The requirements of this part do not apply to either of two types of marine vessels: (1) Hobby vessels. (2) Vessels fueled with diesel fuel, LPG, natural gas, or other fuel that is not a volatile liquid fuel. (b) See part 1068, subpart C, of this chapter for exemptions of specific vessels. (c) We may require you to label a vessel if this section excludes it and other requirements in this chapter do not apply (for example, hobby vessels). (d) Send the Designated Officer a written request with supporting documentation if you want us to determine whether this part covers or excludes certain vessels. Excluding engines from this part's requirements does not affect other requirements that may apply to them. § 1045.10 What main steps must I take to comply with this part? (a) Every new vessel subject to the standards in this part must be covered by a certificate of conformity before it is sold, offered for sale, introduced into commerce, distributed or delivered for introduction into commerce, or imported into the United States. For evaporative emissions, either the vessel manufacturer or the fuel system manufacturer must apply for a certificate of conformity for each new model year. (b) To get a certificate of conformity and comply with its terms, you must do three things: (1) Show that each vessel will meet one of the individual emission standards and other requirements in subpart B of this part. You may also need to meet a corporate­ average emission standard (see § 1045.105). (2) Apply for certification (see subpart C of this part). (3) Follow our instructions throughout this part. (c) Subpart F of this part and 40 CFR part 86 describe the procedures you must follow to test your vessels. Subpart F of this part and § 1045.20 describe cases for which you may test the fuel system alone instead of testing the entire vessel. (d) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068 of this chapter describe requirements and prohibitions that apply to manufacturers, owners, operators, repairers, and all others associated with spark­ ignition marine vessels. § 1045.15 Do any other regulation parts affect me? (a) Part 86 of this chapter describes how to measure evaporative emissions. Subpart F of this part describes how to apply part 86 of this chapter to show you meet this part's emission standards. (b) Part 1068 of this chapter describes general provisions, including these seven areas: (1) Prohibited acts and penalties for manufacturers and others. (2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket changes. (3) Exemptions for certain vessels. (4) Importing vessels. (5) Selective enforcement audits of your production. (6) Defect reporting and recall. (7) Procedures for public hearing. (c) Other parts of this chapter affect you if referenced in this part. § 1045.20 Can I certify just the fuel system instead of the entire vessel? (a) You may certify only the fuel system if you manufacture part or all of the system for a vessel. Vessels using certified fuel systems do not need to be certified separately. (b) If you certify a fuel system, you must do two things: (1) Use good engineering judgment to ensure the engine will comply with emission standards after it is installed in a vessel. (2) Comply with § 1045.130. (c) Do not use the provisions of this section to circumvent emission standards or other requirements of this part. Subpart B— Emission Standards and Related Requirements § 1045.105 What evaporative emission standards must my vessels meet? Beginning January 1, 2008, each new vessel and new portable fuel tank must be certified to the emission standards of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section (except as allowed by paragraph (c) of this section). Vessel manufacturers may certify vessels directly or use fuel systems certified by fuel­ system manufacturers. (a) Diurnal Emissions. Diurnal emissions from your vessel may not exceed 1.1 grams per gallon per day as measured according to the diurnal evaporative test procedures in subpart F of this part. You may use the averaging provisions in Subpart H of this part to show you meet the standards of this paragraph (a). Emission standards described in this paragraph apply to marine vessels with installed fuel tanks; they do not apply to portable fuel tanks, which are addressed in paragraph (c) of this section. (b) Permeation emissions. Permeation emissions may not exceed the following standards: (1) Permeation emissions from your vessel's fuel tank( s) may not exceed 0.08 grams per gallon per day as measured according to the tank permeation test procedures in subpart F of this part. (2) Permeation emissions from your vessel's fuel lines may not exceed 5 grams per square­ meter per day as measured according to the fuel line permeation test procedures in subpart F of this part. Use the inside diameter of the hose to determine the surface area of the hose. (c) You may certify portable fuel tanks to the diurnal emission standards in paragraph (a) of this section by meeting the following design criteria: (1) The tank may include no more than two vents, which must be readily sealable for pressures up 3 psig. (2) All vents and the fuel­ line connection to the engine must seal automatically when disconnected. (d) You may certify vessels and fuel systems using the control technologies shown in the following tables `` by design. '' This means the design of these technologies certifies them to the standards specified in paragraph (a) of this section: VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53106 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 OF § 1045.105.— DIURNAL LEVELS FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION If the diurnal control technology is . . . Then you may design­ certify with a diurnal emission level of . . . 1. Open­ vented fuel tank ................................................................................................................................................ 1.5 g/ gal/ test. 2. A sealed fuel tank with a pressure­ relief valve that would open at a pressure of 0.5 psi ........................................ 1.3 g/ gal/ test. 3. A sealed insulated fuel tank (R­ value of 15 or better) with a limited flow orifice with a maximum cross­ sectional area defined by the following equation: Area in mm 2 = 0.04 × fuel tank capacity in gallons (Example: A 20 gallon tank with an orifice no more than 1.0 mm in diameter.) 1.3 g/ gal/ test. 4. A sealed fuel tank with a pressure­ relief valve that would open at a pressure of 1.0 psi ........................................ 1.1 g/ gal/ test. 5. A sealed fuel tank with a pressure­ relief valve that would open at a pressure of 1.5 psi ........................................ 0.9 g/ gal/ test. 6. A sealed fuel tank with a pressure­ relief valve that would open at a pressure of 2.0 psi ........................................ 0.7 g/ gal/ test. 7. A sealed fuel tank with a pressure­ relief valve that would open at a pressure of 0.5 psi, and with a volume­ compensating bag made from a low­ permeability material 1 with a bag volume equal to at least 25 percent of the volume of the fuel tank. 0.5 g/ gal/ test. 8. A sealed bladder fuel tank made from a low­ permeability ........................................................................................ 0.1 g/ gal/ test. 1 Permeability of 5 g/ m 2 /day or less. TABLE 2 OF § 1045.105.— TANK PERMEATION LEVELS FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION If the tank permeability control technology is . . . Then you may design­ certify with a tank emission level of . . . 1. A metal fuel tank with no non­ metal gaskets or with gaskets made from a low­ permeability material 1 .................. 0.08 g/ gal/ test­ day. 2. A metal fuel tank with non­ metal gaskets with an exposed surface area of 1000 mm 2 or less ............................... 0.08 g/ gal/ test­ day. 1 Permeability of 10 g/ m 2 /day or less. TABLE 3 OF § 1045.105.— FUEL AND VENT­ LINE PERMEATION LEVELS FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION If the fuel­ line and vent­ line permeability control technology is . . . Then you may design­ certify with a fuel line permeation emission level of . . . Hose meeting SAE 2260 Category 1 permeation level 1 ............................................................................................... 5 g/ m 2 /test­ day. 1 Hose must also meet U. S. Coast Guard Regulations. (e) We may establish additional design certification options based on test data. § 1045.115 What other requirements must my vessels meet? (a) through (d) [Reserved] (e) Prohibited controls. You may not do either of the following things: (1) You may not design engines or vessels with an emission­ control system that emits any noxious or toxic substance that the engine would not emit during operation in the absence of such a system, except as specifically permitted by regulation. (2) You may not design engines or vessels with an emission­ control system that is unsafe. For example, emission controls must comply with all applicable U. S. Coast Guard regulations. (f) Defeat devices. You may not equip your vessels with a defeat device. A defeat device is an auxiliary emission control device or other control feature that degrades emission controls under conditions you may reasonably expect the vessel to encounter during normal operation and use. (g) Evaporative technology. Make sure (by testing or engineering analysis) that technologies used to meet evaporative emission standards keep working for at least 30 days while the boat or engine is not used. Design them to last for the full useful life. The useful life for evaporative controls is ten years. (h) Fuel­ tank location. The test procedures in subpart F of this part do not represent the experience of a vessel with the fuel tank exposed to direct sunlight (sun exposure can cause much greater fuel­ temperature swings, which would increase evaporative emissions). If you design your vessel this way, you must show that you meet emission standards by measuring emissions with a test that incorporates the effect of the sun's radiant heat. Note: This requirement does not apply to portable fuel tanks. § 1045.120 What warranty requirements apply to me? (a) You must warrant to the ultimate buyer that the new vessel meets two conditions: (1) You have designed, built, and equipped it to meet the requirements of this part. (2) It is free from defects in materials and workmanship that may keep it from meeting these requirements. (b) Your emission­ related warranty for evaporative controls must be valid for at least 50 percent of the useful life in years. You may offer a warranty more generous than we require. This warranty may not be shorter than any published or negotiated warranty you offer for the vessel or any of its components. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53107 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 1045.125 What maintenance instructions must I give to buyers? Give the ultimate buyer of each new vessel written instructions for properly maintaining and using the vessel, including the emission­ control system. § 1045.130 What installation instructions must I give to vessel manufacturers? (a) If you sell a certified fuel system for someone else to install in a sparkignition marine vessel, give the buyer of the fuel system written instructions for installing it consistent with the requirements of this part. Make sure these instructions have the following information: (1) Include the heading: `` Emissionrelated installation instructions. '' (2) State: `` Failing to follow these instructions when installing a certified fuel system in a spark­ ignition marine vessel violates federal law (40 CFR 1068.105( b)), subject to fines or other penalties as described in the Clean Air Act. ''. (3) Describe any other instructions to make sure the installed fuel system will operate according to design specifications in your application for certification. (4) State: `` If you obscure the fuel system's emission label, you must attach a duplicate label to your vessel, as described in 40 CFR 1068.105.''. (b) You do not need installation instructions for fuel systems you install in your own vessel. § 1045.135 How must I label and identify the vessels and fuel systems I produce? (a) [Reserved] (b) At the time of manufacture, add a permanent label identifying each tank. To meet labeling requirements, do three things: (1) Attach the label in one piece so it is not removable without being destroyed or defaced. (2) Design and produce it to be durable and readable for the vessel's entire life. (3) Write it in block letters in English. (c) On your fuel tank label, do ten things: (1) Include the heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION. '' (2) Include your full corporate name and trademark. (3) State: `` THIS VESSEL IS CERTIFIED TO OPERATE ON [specify operating fuel or fuels]. ''. (4) State the date of manufacture [DAY (optional), MONTH, and YEAR]. (5) State: `` THIS VESSEL MEETS U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS FOR [MODEL YEAR] VESSELS]. ''. (6) Include EPA's standardized designation for the emission family. (7) Include the model number (or part number) of the fuel tank. (8) Include the part number( s) of the fuel lines. (9) Include the fuel tank capacity in U. S. gallons. (10) Describe other information on proper maintenance and use. (11) Identify any other emission standards to which you have certified the vessel. (d) You may combine the EPA emission control label with the label required by the U. S. Coast Guard. If you are unable to meet the exact labeling requirements described in paragraph (c) of this section for your combined label, you may ask us to modify the requirements consistent with the intent of this section. (e) Some vessels may not have enough space for a label with all the required information. In this case, we may allow you to omit some of the information required if you print it in the owner's manual instead. (f) If you are unable to meet these labeling requirements, you may ask us to modify them consistent with the intent of this section. (g) If you obscure the fuel­ tank label while installing the tank in the vessel, you must place a duplicate label on the vessel. If someone else installs the fuel tank in a vessel, give them duplicate labels if they ask for them (see 40 CFR 1068.105). (h) Non­ metallic fuel lines must be labeled with the name of the fuel line manufacturer and with a permeability classification. § 1045.140 What interim provisions apply only for a limited time? From 2004 to 2007, if you certify to an FEL below the average standard in § 1045.105( a), you may generate early credits. Calculate credits according to § 1045.720( b) by replacing `` Average Standard'' with 1.1 g/ gallon and `` Emission Level'' with the FEL to which the emission family is certified. § 1045.145 What provisions apply to noncertifying manufacturers? (a) General requirements. The following general requirements apply to non­ certifying manufacturers: (1) Every manufacturer is responsible for compliance with the requirements of this part that apply to manufacturers. However, if one manufacturer complies with a requirement, then we will consider all manufacturers to have complied with that specific requirement. (2) Where more than one entity meets the definition of manufacturer for a particular vessel and any one of the manufacturers obtains a certificate of conformity covering the whole vessel, the requirements of subparts C and H of this part and subparts E and F of part 1068 of this chapter apply to the manufacturer that holds the certificate of conformity. Other manufacturers must meet the requirements of subparts C and H of this part and subparts E and F of part 1068 of this chapter only if we say so. In this case, we will allow a reasonable time to meet the requirements that apply. (b) Requirements for permeability treatment. If you treat fuel tanks or fuel lines to reduce permeability but do not hold the certificate, you must keep records of the treatment process for three years after the treatment occurs. You must make these records available to us if we request them. (c) Requirements for fuel system or emission control components. If you manufacture a fuel system component or an emission control component or fuel lines used to reduce permeability but do not hold the certificate, we may require you to keep records of your manufacturing process for three years after the component is manufactured. You must make these records available to us if we request them. (d) Requirements for emission test data. If a certifying manufacturer uses your emission test data to certify, we may require you to give us a signed statement verifying that your tests were conducted using the test procedures in this part. Subpart C— Certifying Emission Families § 1045.201 What are the general requirements for submitting a certification application? (a) Send us an application for a certificate of conformity for each emission family. Each application is valid for only one model year. (b) The application must not include false or incomplete statements or information (see § 1045.250). We may choose to ask you to send us less information than we specify in this subpart, but this would not change your recordkeeping requirements. (c) Use good engineering judgment for all decisions related to your application (see § 1068.005 of this chapter). (d) An authorized representative of your company must approve and sign the application. § 1045.205 How must I prepare my application? In your application, you must do all the following things: (a) Describe the emission family's specifications and other basic VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53108 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules parameters of the design. List the types of fuel you intend to use to certify the emission family (for example, gasoline or methanol). (b) Explain how the emission­ control system operates. Describe in detail all the system's components, auxiliary emission­ control devices, and all fuelsystem components you will install on any production or test system. Explain how you determined that the emissioncontrol system comply with the requirements of § 1045.115, including why any auxiliary emission­ control devices are not defeat devices (see § 1045.115( f)). Do not include detailed calibrations for components unless we ask for them. (c) Describe the vessels, engines, tanks, and/ or hoses you selected for testing and the reasons for selecting them. (d) Describe any special or alternate test procedures you used (see § 1045.501). (e) [Reserved] (f) List the specifications of the test fuel to show that it falls within the required ranges we specify in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C. (g) Identify the emission family's useful life. (h) Propose maintenance and use instructions for the ultimate buyer (see § 1045.125). (i) Propose emission­ related installation instructions if you sell fuel systems for someone else to install in a vessel (see § 1045.130). (j) Propose an emission­ control label. (k) Present emission data for HC to show you meet the emission standards we specify in § 1045.105. (l) Report all test results, including those from invalid tests or from any nonstandard tests. (m) [Reserved] (n) Describe all adjustable operating parameters. (o) If you conducted testing, state that you conducted your emission tests according to the specified procedures and test parameters using the fuels described in the application to show you meet the requirements of this part. (p) If you did not conduct testing, state how your emission family meets the requirements for design certification. (q) State unconditionally that all the vessels in the emission family comply with the requirements of this part, other referenced parts, and the Clean Air Act (42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq.). (r) Include estimates of vessel (or fuel system) production. (s) Add other information to help us evaluate your application if we ask for it. § 1045.215 What happens after I complete my application? (a) If any of the information in your application changes after you submit it, amend it as described in § 1045.225. (b) We may decide that we cannot approve your application unless you revise it. (1) If you inappropriately use the provisions of § 1045.230( c) or (d) to define a broader or narrower emission family, we will require you to redefine your emission family. (2) If your proposed label is inconsistent with § 1045.135, we will require you to change it (and tell you how, if possible). (3) If you require or recommend maintenance and use instructions inconsistent with § 1045.125, we will require you to change them. (4) If we find any other problem with your application, we will tell you how to correct it. (c) If we determine your application is complete and shows you meet all the requirements, we will issue a certificate of conformity for your emission family for that model year. If we deny the application, we will explain why in writing. You may then ask us to hold a hearing to reconsider our decision (see § 1045.820). § 1045.225 How do I amend my application to include a new or modified product? (a) You must amend your application for certification before you take either of the following actions: (1) Add a vessel, engine, or fuel system to a certificate of conformity. (2) Make a design change for a certified emission family that may affect emissions or an emission­ related part over the lifetime of the vessel, engine, or fuel system. (b) Send the Designated Officer a request to amend the application for certification for an emission family. In your request, do all of the following: (1) Describe the model or configuration you are adding or changing. (2) Include engineering evaluations or reasons why the original testing is or is not still appropriate. (3) If the original testing for the emission family is not appropriate to show compliance for the new or modified vessel, include new test data showing that the new or modified product meets the requirements of this part. (c) You may start producing the new or modified product anytime after you send us your request. (d) You must give us test data within 30 days if we ask for more testing, or stop production if you are not able do this. (e) If we determine that the certificate of conformity would not cover your new or modified product, we will send you a written explanation of our decision. In this case, you may no longer produce these vessels, engines, or fuel systems, though you may ask for a hearing for us to reconsider our decision (see § 1045.820). § 1045.230 How do I select emission families? (a) Divide your product line into groups of vessels (or fuel systems) that you expect to have similar emission characteristics. These groups are call emission families. (b) You need a separate emission family for each model year. § 1045.235 How does testing fit with my application for a certificate of conformity? This section describes how to do testing in your effort to apply for a certificate of conformity. (a) Test your vessels using the procedures and equipment specified in subpart F of this part. (1) For evaporative testing, you may test the fuel system without the vessel. (2) For exhaust testing, test the engine without the vessel. (b) Select from each emission family a test vessel for each fuel type with a configuration you believe is most likely to exceed an applicable standard (e. g., the diurnal evaporative standard). Using good engineering judgment, consider the emission levels of all regulated constituents over the full useful life of the vessel. (c) You may submit emission data for equivalent emission families from previous years instead of doing new tests, but only if the data shows that the test vessel would meet all the requirements for the latest models. We may require you to do new emission testing if we believe the latest models could be substantially different from the previously tested vessel. (d) We may choose to measure emissions from any of your test vessels. (1) If we do this, you must provide the test vessel at the location we select. We may decide to do the testing at your plant or any other facility. If we choose to do the testing at your plant, you must schedule it as soon as possible and make available the instruments and equipment we need. This provision does not apply for evaporative emission testing for manufacturers that use the design certification provisions for all of the products under § 1045.105( d). (2) If we measure emissions on one of your test vessels, the results of that testing become the official data for the vessel. Unless we later invalidate this VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53109 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules data, we may decide not to consider your data in determining if your emission family meets the emission standards. (e) We may allow you to certify vessels using existing data from vessels with similarly­ designed fuel systems that you did not manufacture. In those cases, you are not required to emissiontest your vessels or fuel systems. (f) For fuel tanks that are designcertified based on permeability treatments for plastic fuel tanks, you do not need to test each emission family. However, you must use good engineering judgment to determine permeation rates for the tanks. Good engineering judgment requires that at least one fuel tank be tested for each set of treatment conditions. For example, if you treat tanks made from the same material using the identical tretament process, but that are in different emission families, then you would only need to test one tank. § 1045.240 How do I determine if my emission family complies with emission standards? (a) Your emission family complies with the applicable numerical emission standards in § 1045.105 if all emissiondata vessels representing that family have test results showing emission levels at or below all applicable standards, provided you also comply with the average emission standard for your total production. (b) Your emission family does not comply if any emission­ data vessel representing that family has test results showing emission levels above the applicable standards from § 1045.105. (c) If your average emission level is above an applicable standard, then all of emission families with emission levels above the average standard are noncompliant. § 1045.245 What records must I keep and make available to EPA? (a) Organize and maintain the following records to keep them readily available; we may review these records at any time: (1) A copy of all applications and any summary information you sent us. (2) Any of the information we specify in § 1045.205 that you did not include in your application. (3) A detailed history of each emission­ data vessel. In each history, describe the test vessel's construction, including its origin and buildup, steps you took to ensure that it represents production vessels, any components you built specially for it, and all emission­ related components. (b) Keep data from routine emission tests for one year after we issue the associated certificate of conformity. Keep all other information specified in paragraph (a) of this section for eight years after we issue your certificate. (c) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. (d) Send us copies of any vessel maintenance instructions or explanations if we ask for them. § 1045.250 When may EPA deny, revoke, or void my certificate of conformity? (a) We may deny your application for certification if your emission­ data vessels fail to comply with emission standards or other requirements. Our decision may be based on any information available to us. If we deny your application, we will explain why in writing. (b) In addition, we may deny your application or revoke your certificate if you do any of the following: (1) Refuse to comply with any testing or reporting requirements. (2) Submit false or incomplete information (paragraph (d) of this section applies if this is fraudulent). (3) Render inaccurate any test data. (4) Deny us from completing authorized activities despite our presenting a warrant or court order (see § 1068.020 of this chapter). (5) Produce vessels for importation into the United States at a location where local law prohibits us from carrying out authorized activities. (c) We may void your certificate if you do not keep the records we require or do not give us information when we ask for it. (d) We may void your certificate if we find that you committed fraud to get it. This means intentionally submitting false or incomplete information. (e) If we deny your application or revoke or void your certificate, you may ask for a hearing (see § 1045.820). Any such hearing will be limited to substantial and factual issues. Subpart D—[ Reserved] Subpart E— Testing In­ use Engines § 1045.401 What provisions apply for inuse testing of vessels? We may conduct in­ use testing of any vessel (or part of a vessel) subject to the standards of this part. If we determine that a substantial number of vessels do not comply with the regulations of this part, we may order the manufacturer to conduct a recall as specified in 40 CFR part 1068. Subpart F— Test Procedures § 1045.501 What equipment and general procedures must I use to test my vessels? (a) Diurnal testing. Use the equipment specified in 40 CFR part 86 subpart B (i. e., the procedures used to measure diurnal evaporative emissions for gasoline­ fueled highway vehicles). Use the procedures specified in § 1045.505 to measure diurnal emissions. (1) These provisions require placing your vessel or fuel system within a sealed, temperature­ controlled enclosure called a SHED (Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination). (2) You must include a fan to maintain a minimum wind speed of 5 miles per hour across the tank. (b) Permeation testing. Use the following equipment and procedures for measuring permeation emissions: (1) For fuel tank permeation, see § 1045.506. (2) For fuel line permeation, see SAE J1527 (incorporated by reference in § 1045.810). Alternatively, you may use the equipment and procedures specified in SAE J1737 (incorporated by reference in § 1045.810), except that all tests must be conducted at 23 C ± 2 C. (c) Special or alternate procedures. You may use special or alternate procedures, as described in § 1065.010 of this chapter. § 1045.505 How do I test for diurnal evaporative emissions? Measure evaporative emissions by placing the preconditioned vessel or fuel system within a sealed, temperature­ controlled SHED and recording the concentration of fuel vapors within the SHED as the temperature cycles between 22.2 C and 35.6 C. (a) Preconditioning and test preparation. To prepare your vessel or fuel system, follow these seven steps: (1) To precondition the tank, fill it to its nominal capacity and allow it to soak at 30 C ± 5 C for one month. Note: You may omit this step; however, if you omit this step, you may not correct measured emissions for permeation that occurs during the test. (2) Determine the tank's fuel capacity in gallons as configured in the vessel (using at least three significant figures). (3) Fill the fuel tank with the test fuel to its capacity. If you fill the tank within the SHED, do not spill any fuel. (4) Allow the tank and its contents to equilibrate to 22.2 C ± 1 C within the SHED. (5) Connect a fuel siphon to the tank outlet and drain 60 percent of the fuel. You may vent the tank before draining it. Do not spill any fuel. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53110 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules (6) Close the SHED and set the temperature control to 22.2 F. Allow the SHED to equilibrate for two hours. (7) If the fuel tank vent will have an attached vent hose when installed in the vessel, attach a vent hose representative of the shortest length of vent hose that will be used when the tank is installed in the vessel. You may attach the hose at any time before you start the test run (§ 1045.505( b)). (b) Test run. To measure emissions from your vessel or fuel system, follow these six steps: (1) Ensure that the measured temperature within the SHED is 22.2 ± 0.2 C. (2) Ventilate the SHED. (3) Seal the SHED and record the hydrocarbon concentration within the SHED. This is the zero­ hour value. (4) Begin the temperature cycle in Table 1 of § 1045.505. Run the temperature cycle three times. (5) Record the hydrocarbon concentration at the end of each temperature cycle. (6) Use the calculation procedures of 40 CFR 86.143Ð 96 to calculate the mass emissions for each of the three 24­ hour temperature cycles. The highest of the these three is the official test result. If you precondition the tank as specified in § 1045.505( a)( 1), you may correct these results by subtracting the permeation emissions from the total, consistent with good engineering judgment. TABLE 1 OF § 1045.505— 24­ HOUR TEMPERATURE CYCLE FOR EMISSION TESTING Time (hours) Temperature ( C) 0 .................................................... 22.2 1 .................................................... 22.5 2 .................................................... 23.6 3 .................................................... 26.6 4 .................................................... 29.5 5 .................................................... 31.8 6 .................................................... 34.0 7 .................................................... 34.8 8 .................................................... 35.5 9 .................................................... 35.6 10 .................................................. 35.3 11 .................................................. 34.4 12 .................................................. 33.5 13 .................................................. 31.8 14 .................................................. 30.0 15 .................................................. 28.6 16 .................................................. 27.1 17 .................................................. 26.1 18 .................................................. 25.0 19 .................................................. 24.3 20 .................................................. 23.7 21 .................................................. 23.3 22 .................................................. 22.8 23 .................................................. 22.5 24 .................................................. 22.2 § 1045.506 How do I test my fuel tank for permeation emissions? Measure permeation emissions by weighing a sealed fuel tank before and after a temperature controlled soak. (a) Preconditioning. To precondition your fuel tank, follow these six steps: (1) Fill the tank and allow it to soak at 30 C ± 10 C for 60 days. (2) Determine the tank's fuel capacity as configured in the vessel to the nearest tenth of a gallon. (3) Fill the fuel tank with the test fuel to its capacity. If you fill the tank within the SHED, do not spill any fuel. (4) Allow the tank and its contents to equilibrate to 40 C ± 2 C. (5) Seal the fuel tank using nonpermeable fittings, such as metal or Teflon TM . (b) Test run. To measure emissions from your fuel tank, follow these nine steps: (1) Weigh the sealed fuel tank, and record the weight to the nearest 0.1 grams. (You may use less precise weights, provided that the difference in mass from the start of the test to the end of the test has at least three significant figures.) (2) Carefully place the tank within the temperature controlled container or SHED. Do not spill any fuel. (3) Close the container or SHED and record the time. (4) Ensure that the measured temperature within the container or SHED is 40 C ± 2 C. (5) Leave the tank in the container or SHED for 10 to 30 days, consistent with good engineering judgment (based on the expected permeation rate). (6) Hold the temperature of the container or SHED to 40 C ± 2 C and record at least daily. (7) At the end of the soak period, weigh the sealed fuel tank and record the weight to the nearest 0.1 grams. (You may use less precise weights, provided that the difference in mass from the start of the test to the end of the test has at least three significant figures.) (8) Subtract the weight of the tank at the end of the test from the weight of the tank at the beginning of the test, and divide the difference by the capacity of the fuel tank. Divide this gram/ gallon value by the number of test days to calculate the gram/ gallon/ test­ day emission rate. Example: If a 20.4­ gallon tank weighed 31782.3 grams at the beginning of the test, weighed 31760.2 grams after soaking for 25.03 days, then the gram/ gallon/ test­ day emission rate would be: (31882.3 gÑ 31760.2 g) / 20.4 gal / 25.03 test days = 0.239 g/ gal/ test day (9) Round your result to the same number of decimal places as the standard. Subpart G— Compliance Provisions § 1045.601 What compliance provisions apply to these vessels? Vessel manufacturers, as well as owners, operators, and rebuilders of these vessels, and all other persons, must observe the requirements and prohibitions in part 1068 of this chapter. Subpart H— Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Certification § 1045.701 General provisions. (a) You may average, bank, and trade emission credits for certification as described in this subpart to meet the average standards of this part. You must comply with the averaging requirements if you certify with an emission level higher than the applicable average standard. Participation in banking and trading is voluntary. Note: Some standards, such as the tank permeation standard, do not allow you to comply on average. (b) The definitions of Subpart I of this part apply to this subpart. The following definitions also apply: (1) Average standard means the standard that applies on average to all your vessels, engines, or fuel systems that are subject to this part (except portable fuel tanks). (2) Broker means any entity that facilitates a trade between a buyer and seller. (3) Buyer means the entity that receives credits as a result of trade or transfer. (4) FEL means the familiy emission limit to which an emission family is certified (5) Group means a group of vessels having the same evaporative control technology, model year, and fuel­ tank capacity. (6) Reserved credits means credits generated but not yet verified by EPA in the end of year report review. (7) Seller means the entity that provides credits during a trade or transfer. (8) Transfer means to convey control of credits an individual tank generatesÑ (i) From a certifying tank manufacturer to a vessel manufacturer that buys the tank; or (ii) To a certifying tank manufacturer from a vessel manufacturer that buys the tank. (c) Do not include any exported vessel, engine, or tank in the certification averaging, banking, and VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53111 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules trading program. Include only vessels, engines, or fuel tanks certified under this part. § 1045.705 How do I average emission levels? (a) As specified in subpart B of this part, certify each emission family that you are including the averaging program to an FEL. (b) Calculate a preliminary average emission level according to § 1045.720 using projected production volumes for your application for certification. (c) After the end of your model year, calculate a final average emission level according to § 1045.720 using actual production volumes. (d) If your preliminary average emission level is below the allowable average standard, see § 1045.710 for information about generating and banking emission credits. These credits will be considered reserved until verified by EPA during the end of year report review. § 1045.710 How do I generate and bank emission credits? (a) If your average emission level is below the average standard, you may calculate credits according to § 1045.720. (b) You may generate credits if you are a certifying manufacturer. You may hold them if you are a fuel tank or vessel manufacturer (c) You may bank unused emission credits, but only after the end of the calendar year and after we have reviewed your end­ of­ year reports. (d) During the calendar year and before you send in your end­ of­ year report, you may consider reserved any credits you originally designate for banking during certification. You may redesignate these credits for trading or transfer in your end­ of­ year report, but they are not valid to demonstrate compliance until verified. (e) You may use for averaging or trading any credits you declared for banking from the previous calendar year that we have not reviewed. But, we may revoke these credits laterÑ following our review of your end­ of­ year report or audit actions. For example, this could occur if we find that credits are based on erroneous calculations; or that emission levels are misrepresented, unsubstantiated, or derived incorrectly in the certification process. § 1045.715 How do I trade or transfer emission credits? (a) You may trade only banked credits, not reserved credits. (b) Whether or not you hold a certificate, you may transfer unbanked credits to a manufacturer that is supplying a fuel tank to you or a vessel manufacturer that is buying a fuel tank from you. (c) How you handle unused transferred credits at the end of a model year depends on whether or not you hold a certificate. (1) If you hold a certificate, you may bank these credits. (2) If you do not hold a certificate, you may not bank these credits; you may only transfer them to a certificate holder. (d) If a negative credit balance results from a credit trade or transfer, both buyers and sellers are liable, except in cases involving fraud. We may void the certificates of all emission families participating in a negative trade. (1) If you buy credits but have not caused the negative credit balance, you must only supply more credits equivalent to the amount of invalid credits you used. (2) If you caused the credit shortfall, you may be subject to the requirements of § 1045.730( b)( 6). § 1045.720 How do I calculate my average emission level or emission credits? (a) Calculate your average emission level for each model year according to the following equation and round it to the nearest tenth of a gram per gallon. Use consistent units throughout the calculation. (1) Calculate the average emission level as: Emission level = FEL Capacity Production Production Capacity i i i i ( ) × ( ) × ( ) ( ) × ( ) i i i Where: FELi = The FEL to which the engine family is certified. Capacityi = The capacity of the fuel tanks. Productioni = The number of fuel tanks produced in that model year with a capacity of Capacityi. (2) Sum the emissions for each unique combination of emission family and fuel tank capacity. (3) Use production projections for initial certification, and actual production volumes to determine compliance at the end of the model year. (b) If your average emission level is below the average standard, calculate credits available for banking according to the following equation and round them to the nearest tenth of a gram: Credit Average standard­ Emission level Production Capacity i i = ( ) [ ] × ( ) × ( ) i (c) If your average emission level is above the average standard, calculate your preliminary credit deficit according to the following equation, rounding to the nearest tenth of a gram: Deficit Emission level­ Average standard Production Capacity i i = ( ) [ ] × ( ) × ( ) i § 1045.725 What information must I keep? (a) Maintain and keep five types of properly organized and indexed records for each group and for each emission family: (1) Model year and EPA emission family. (2) Bin standard. (3) Fuel tank capacity. (4) Projected production volume for the model year. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 EP14AU02.002</ MATH> EP14AU02.003</ MATH> EP14AU02.004</ MATH> 53112 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules (5) Actual production volume for the model year. (b) Keep paper records of this information for three years from the due date for the end­ of­ year report. You may use any additional storage formats or media if you like. (c) Follow § 1045.730 to send us the information you must keep. (d) We may ask you to keep or send other information necessary to implement this subpart. § 1045.730 What information must I report? (a) Include the following information in your applications for certification: (1) A statement that, to the best of your belief, you will not have a negative credit balance when all credits are calculated. This means that if you believe that your average emission level will be above the standard (i. e., that you will have a deficit for the model year), you must have banked credits (or project to have traded credits) to offset the deficit. (2) Detailed calculations of projected emission credits (zero, positive, or negative) based on production projections. (i) If you project a credit deficit, state the source of credits needed to offset the credit deficit. (ii) If you project credits, state whether you will reserve them for banking or transfer them. (b) At the end of each model year, send an end­ of­ year report. (1) Make sure your report includes three things: (i) Calculate in detail your average emission level and any emission credits (zero, positive, or negative) based on actual production volumes. (ii) If your average emission level is above the allowable average standard, state the source of credits needed to offset the credit deficit. (iii) If your average emission level is below the allowable average standard, state whether you will reserve the credits for banking or transfer them. (2) Base your production volumes on the point of first retail sale. This point is called the final product­ purchase location. (3) Send end­ of­ year reports to the Designated Officer within 120 days of the end of the model year. If you send reports later, you are violating the Clean Air Act. (4) If you generate credits for banking and you do not send your end­ of­ year reports within 120 days after the end of the model year, you may not use or trade the credits until we receive and review your reports. You may not use projected credits pending our review. (5) You may correct errors discovered in your end­ of­ year report, including errors in calculating credits according to the following table: If. . . And if. . . Then we. . . (i) Our review discovers an error in your endof year report that increases your credit balance the discovery occurs within 180 days of receipt restore the credits for your use. (ii) You discover an error in your report that increases your credit balance. the discovery occurs within 180 days of receipt restore the credits for your use. (iii) We or you discover an error in your report that increases your credit balance. the discovery occurs more than 180 days after receipt. do not restore the credits for your use. (iv) We discover an error in your report that reduces your credit balance. at any time after receipt .................................... reduce your credit balance. (6) If our review of your end­ of yearreport shows a negative balance, you may buy credits to bring your credit balance to zero. But you must buy 1.1 credits for each 1.0 credit needed. If enough credits are not available to bring your credit balance to zero, we may void the certificates for all families certified to standards above the allowable average. (c) Within 90 days of any credit trade or transfer, you must send the Designated Officer a report of the trade or transfer that includes three types of information: (1) The corporate names of the buyer, seller, and any brokers. (2) Information about the credits that depends on whether you trade or transfer them. (i) For trades, describe the banked credits being traded. (ii) For transfers, calculate the credits in detail and identify the source or use of the credits. (3) Copies of contracts related to credit trading or transfer from the buyer, seller, and broker, as applicable. (d) Include in each report a statement certifying the accuracy and authenticity of its contents. (e) We may void a certificate of conformity for any emission family if you do not keep the records this section requires or give us the information when we ask for it. Subpart I— Definitions and Other Reference Information § 1045.801 What definitions apply to this part? The definitions in this section apply to this part. The definitions apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the meaning the Act gives to them. The definitions follow: Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Adjustable parameter means any device, system, or element of design that someone can adjust (including those which are difficult to access) and that, if adjusted, may affect emissions or vessel performance during emission testing or normal in­ use operation. Aftertreatment means relating to any system, component, or technology mounted downstream of the exhaust valve or exhaust port whose design function is to reduce exhaust emissions. Auxiliary emission­ control device means any element of design that senses temperature, engine rpm, boat speed, transmission gear, atmospheric pressure, manifold pressure or vacuum, or any other parameter to activate, modulate, delay, or deactivate the operation of any part of the emissioncontrol system. This also includes any other feature that causes in­ use emissions to be higher than those measured under test conditions, except as we allow under this part. Broker means any entity that facilitates a trade of emission credits between a buyer and seller. Calibration means the set of specifications and tolerances specific to a particular design, version, or application of a component or assembly capable of functionally describing its operation over its working range. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53113 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules Capacity means the maximum volume of liquid fuel that a fuel tank can hold when installed in a vessel. Certification means obtaining a certificate of conformity for an emission family that complies with the emission standards and requirements in this part. Compression­ ignition means relating to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion vessel that is not a sparkignition vessel. Crankcase emissions means airborne substances emitted to the atmosphere from any part of the vessel crankcase's ventilation or lubrication systems. The crankcase is the housing for the crankshaft and other related internal parts. Designated Officer means the Manager, Engine Compliance Programs Group (6403Ð J), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. Emission­ control system means any device, system, or element of design that controls or reduces the regulated emissions from an vessel. Emission­ data vessel means a vessel, engine, or fuel system that is tested for certification. Emission family means a group of vessels, engines or fuel systems with similar emission characteristics, as specified in § 1045.230. Emission­ related maintenance means maintenance that substantially affects emissions or is likely to substantially affect emissions deterioration. Fuel system means any or all of the components involved in transporting, metering, and mixing the fuel from the fuel tank to the combustion chamber( s), including the fuel tank, fuel tank cap, fuel pump, fuel filters, fuel lines, carburetor or fuel­ injection components, and all fuel­ system vents. Good engineering judgment has the meaning we give it in § 1068.005 of this chapter. Hobby vessel means a recreational vessel that is a reduced­ scale model vessel that is not capable of transporting a person. Hydrocarbon (HC) means the hydrocarbon group on which the emission standards are based for each fuel type. For gasoline­ and LPG­ fueled vessels, HC means total hydrocarbon (THC). For natural gas­ fueled vessels, HC means nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC). For alcohol­ fueled vessels, HC means total hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE). Identification number means a unique specification (for example, model number/ serial number combination) that allows someone to distinguish a particular vessel from other similar vessels. Manufacturer has the meaning given in section 216( 1) of the Act. In general, this term includes any person who manufactures a vessel, engine, or fuel system component for sale in the United States or otherwise introduces a new vessel, engine, or fuel system component into commerce in the United States. This includes importers and entities that treat fuel system components to reduce permeability. Maximum test power means the power output observed with the maximum fueling rate possible at the maximum test speed. Maximum test speed means the speed specified by 40 CFR 1065.515. Model year means one of the following things: (1) For freshly manufactured vessels (see definition of `` new vessel, '' paragraph (1), of this section), model year means one of the following: (i) Calendar year. (ii) Your annual new model production period if it is different than the calendar year. This must include January 1 of the calendar year for which the model year is named. It may not begin before January 2 of the previous calendar year and it must end by December 31 of the named calendar year. (2) For a vessel modified by an importer (not the original vessel manufacturer) who has a certificate of conformity for the imported vessel (see definition of `` new vessel, '' paragraph (2), of this section), model year means one of the following: (i) The calendar year in which the importer finishes modifying and labeling the vessel. (ii) Your annual production period for producing vessels if it is different than the calendar year; follow the guidelines in paragraph (1)( ii) of this definition. (3) For a vessel you import that does not meet the criteria in paragraphs (1) or (2) of the definition of `` new vessel'' in this section, model year means the calendar year in which the manufacturer completed the original assembly of the vessel. In general, this applies to used vessels that you import without conversion or major modification. New vessel means any of the following things: (1) A freshly manufactured vessel for which the ultimate buyer has never received the equitable or legal title. The vessel is no longer new when the ultimate buyer receives this title or the product is placed into service, whichever comes first. (2) An imported vessel covered by a certificate of conformity issued under this part, where someone other than the original manufacturer modifies the vessel after its initial assembly and holds the certificate. The vessel is no longer new when it is placed into service. (3) An imported nonroad vessel that is not covered by a certificate of conformity issued under this part at the time of importation. Noncompliant vessel means a vessel, engine, or fuel system that was originally covered by a certificate of conformity, but is not in the certified configuration or otherwise does not comply with the conditions of the certificate. Nonconforming vessel means a vessel, engine, or fuel system not covered by a certificate of conformity that would otherwise be subject to emission standards. Nonroad means relating to nonroad engines or nonroad vehicles. Nonroad engine has the meaning given in § 1068.025 of this chapter. Oxides of nitrogen means nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Oxides of nitrogen are expressed quantitatively as if the NO were in the form of NO2 (assume a molecular weight for oxides of nitrogen equivalent to that of NO2). Physically adjustable range means the entire range over which a vessel parameter can be adjusted, except as modified by § 1045.115( c). Placed into service means used for its intended purpose. Portable fuel tank means a fuel tank that has a permanently affixed handle, has a fuel capacity no greater than 12 gallons, and is not permanently mounted to a marine vessel. Propulsion marine engine means a marine engine that moves a vessel through the water or directs the vessel's movement. Revoke means to discontinue the certificate for an emission family. If we revoke a certificate, you must apply for a new certificate before continuing to produce the affected vessels. This does not apply to vessels you no longer possess. Round means to round numbers according to ASTM E29Ð 93a, which is incorporated by reference (see § 1045.810), unless otherwise specified. Scheduled maintenance means adjusting, repairing, removing, disassembling, cleaning, or replacing components or systems that is periodically needed to keep a part from failing or malfunctioning. It also may mean actions you expect are necessary to correct an overt indication of failure or malfunction for which periodic maintenance is not appropriate. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53114 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules Spark­ ignition means relating to a type of engine with a spark plug (or other sparking device) and with operating characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical Otto combustion cycle. Spark­ ignition engines usually use a throttle to regulate intake air flow to control power during normal operation. Spark­ ignition marine vessel means marine vessel that is powered by a spark­ ignition engine. Stoichiometry means the proportion of a mixture of air and fuel such that the fuel is fully oxidized with no remaining oxygen. For example, stoichiometric combustion in gasoline vessels typically occurs at an air­ fuel mass ratio of about 14.7. Suspend means to temporarily discontinue the certificate for an emission family. If we suspend a certificate, you may not sell vessels from that emission family unless we reinstate the certificate or approve a new one. Test sample means the collection of vessels selected from the population of an emission family for emission testing. Test vessel means a vessel, engine, or fuel system in a test sample. Total Hydrocarbon Equivalent means the sum of the carbon mass contributions of non­ oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and aldehydes, or other organic compounds that are measured separately as contained in a gas sample, expressed as petroleumfueled vessel hydrocarbons. The hydrogen­ to­ carbon ratio of the equivalent hydrocarbon is 1.85: 1. Ultimate buyer means ultimate purchaser. Ultimate purchaser means, with respect to any new nonroad equipment or new nonroad vessel, the first person who in good faith purchases such new nonroad equipment or new nonroad vessel for purposes other than resale. United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. U. S.­ directed production volume means the number of vessel units, subject to the requirements of this part, produced by a manufacturer for which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was or will be made to ultimate buyers in the Unites States. Useful life means the period during which the vessel or engine is designed to properly function in terms of reliability and fuel consumption, without being remanufactured, specified as a number of hours of operation or calendar years. It is the period during which a new vessel or new engine is required to comply with all applicable emission standards. Vessel means marine vessel as defined in the General Provisions of the United States Code, 1 U. S. C. 3. Void means to invalidate a certificate or an exemption. If we void a certificate, all the vessels produced under that emission family for that model year are considered noncompliant, and you are liable for each vessel produced under the certificate and may face civil or criminal penalties or both. If we void an exemption, all the vessels produced under that exemption are considered uncertified (or nonconforming), and you are liable for each vessel produced under the exemption and may face civil or criminal penalties or both. You may not produce any additional vessels using the voided exemption. Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel other than diesel or biodiesel that is a liquid at atmospheric pressure. § 1045.805 What symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations does this part use? The following symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations apply to this part: ° C degrees Celsius. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials. ATV all­ terrain vessel. cc cubic centimeters. CO carbon monoxide. CO2 carbon dioxide. EPA Environmental Protection Agency. FEL Family emission limit. g/ kW­ hr grams per kilowatt­ hour. LPG liquefied petroleum gas. m meters. mm Hg millimeters of mercury. NMHC nonmethane hydrocarbon. NMHCE nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent. NOX oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2). psig pounds per square inch of gauge pressure. rpm revolutions per minute. SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SHED Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination. SI spark­ ignition. THC total hydrocarbon. THCE total hydrocarbon equivalent U. S. United States U. S. C. United States Code. § 1045.810 What materials does this part reference? We have incorporated by reference the documents listed in this section. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference as prescribed in 5 U. S. C. 552( a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at U. S. EPA, OAR, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; or Office of the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol St., NW., 7th Floor, Suite 700, Washington, DC. (a) ASTM material. Table 1 of § 1045.810 lists material from the American Society for Testing and Materials that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the sections of this part where we reference it. The second column is for information only and may not include all locations. Anyone may receive copies of these materials from American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103. Table 1 follows: TABLE 1 OF § 1045.810.— ASTM MATERIALS Document number and name Part 1045 reference ASTM E29– 93a, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications. 1045.240, 1045.315, 1045.345, 1045.410, 1045.415. (b) ISO material. [Reserved] (c) SAE material. [Reserved] § 1045.815 How should I request EPA to keep my information confidential? (a) Clearly show what you consider confidential by marking, circling, bracketing, stamping, or some other method. We will store your confidential information as described in 40 CFR part 2. Also, we will disclose it only as specified in 40 CFR part 2. (b) If you send us a second copy without the confidential information, we will assume it contains nothing confidential whenever we need to release information from it. (c) If you send us information without claiming it is confidential, we may make it available to the public without further notice to you, as described in 40 CFR 2.204. § 1045.820 How do I request a public hearing? (a) File a request for a hearing with the Designated Officer within 15 days of a decision to deny, suspend, revoke, or void your certificate. If you ask later, we may give you a hearing for good cause, but we do not have to. (b) Include the following in your request for a public hearing: (1) State which emission family is involved. VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53115 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules (2) State the issues you intend to raise. We may limit these issues, as described elsewhere in this part. (3) Summarize the evidence supporting your position and state why you believe this evidence justifies granting or reinstating the certificate. (c) We will hold the hearing as described in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart F. PART 1051— CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECREATIONAL ENGINES AND VEHICLES 17. The authority citation for part 1051 as proposed at 66 FR 51219 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401Ð 7671( q). Subpart A—[ Amended] 18. Section 1051.1 as proposed at 66 FR 51220 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 1051.1 Does this part apply to me? * * * * * (e) This part also applies to engines under 50 cc used in highway motorcycles if the manufacturer uses the provisions of 40 CFR 86.447Ð 2006 to meet the emission standards in this part instead of the requirements of 40 CFR part 86. Compliance with the provisions of this part is a required condition of that exemption. PART 1068— GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS FOR NONROAD PROGRAMS 19. The authority citation for part 1068 as proposed at 66 FR 51252 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401Ð 7671( q). Subpart A—[ Amended] 20. Section 1068.1 as proposed at 66 FR 51253 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 1068.1 Does this part apply to me? (a) The provisions of this part apply to everyone with respect to the following engines or to equipment using the following engines: (1) Marine vessels powered by sparkignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR 1045. (2) Large nonroad spark­ ignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 1048. (3) Snowmobiles, all­ terrain vehicles, and off­ highway motorcycles we regulate under 40 CFR part 1051. * * * * * [FR Doc. 02Ð 19437 Filed 8Ð 13Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:39.927344

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0036-0001

Notice

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Revision of Area Source Category List Under Section 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the Clean Air Act

70427 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2002 / Notices timely manner and can not suspend processing the application ( including extending the REA comment deadline date) until February 2003, in hopes that the collaborative team will reach a settlement. The Commission's goal is to issue a draft and final EA during the spring and summer of 2003, respectively, and be ready for a Commission decision on the application by September 2003, prior to the October 31, 2003, license expiration date. The requests to file the SA and ES by February 14, 2003, could delay taking final action on the license application beyond the license expiration date. Therefore, a limited extension of time is granted to file the SA, ES, and comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions. k. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: December 27, 2002. All documents ( original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Commission's rules of practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001( a)( 1)( iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web sitehttp:// www. ferc. govunder the `` e­ Filing'' link. l. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http:// www. ferc. gov using the `` FERRIS'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ ferc. gov or tollfree at ( 866) 208 3676, or for TTY, ( 202) 502 8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. m. All filings must ( 1) bear in all capital letters the title `` COMMENTS'', `` REPLY COMMENTS'', `` RECOMMENDATIONS,'' `` TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or `` PRESCRIPTIONS;'' ( 2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; ( 3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and ( 4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34( b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34( b), and 385.2010. Linwood A. Watson, Jr., Deputy Secretary. [ FR Doc. 02 29748 Filed 11 21 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6717 01 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0036; AD FRL 7412 5] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Revision of Area Source Category List Under Section 112( c)( 3) and 112( k)( 3)( B)( ii) of the Clean Air Act AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of revisions to the area source category list under the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. SUMMARY: This notice adds 23 area source categories of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) to the previous lists developed under the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy ( Strategy). With the addition of these categories, the requirement to identify and list area source categories representing at least 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 `` listed'' ( or area source) HAP under section 112( c)( 3) and 112( k)( 3)( B)( ii) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) is fulfilled. The Strategy's area source category list constitutes an important part of EPA's agenda for regulating stationary sources of air topics emissions. These revisions to the list of area sources have not been reflected in any previous notices and are being made without public comment on the Administrator's own motion. Such revisions are deemed by EPA to be without need for public comment based on the nature of the actions. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 22, 2002. ADDRESSES: The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara B. Driscoll, Policy, Planning and Standards Group, Emission Standards Division ( C439 04), EPA, Research Triangle, Park, North Carolina 27711, facsimile number ( 919) 541 0942 telephone number ( 919) 541 1051, electronic mail ( e­ mail): driscoll. barbara@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under the Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0036. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in this document. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification. Worldwide Web ( WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 14: 19 Nov 21, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22NON1. SGM 22NON1 70428 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2002 / Notices ( TTN). Following signature, a copy of the notice will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page, http:// www. epg. gov/ ttn/ oarpg. The TNN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TNN is needed, call the TNN HELP line at ( 919) 541 5384. I. What Is the History of the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List? The CAA includes two provisions, section 112( c)( 3) and 112( k)( 3)( B)( ii), that instruct EPA to identify and list area source categories accounting for at least 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 `` listed'' ( or area source) HAP ( 64 FR 38706, July 19, 1999), and that are, or will be, subject to standards under section 112( d) of the CAA. For this effort, we have used urban area source information from the section 112( k) inventory, which represents a baseline year of 1990. In the July 1999 Strategy, we identified 16 area source categories that had already been listed for regulation under the CAA, and 13 area source categories that were being listed under section 112( c)( 3) for the first time. These 29 area source categories are: Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Hospital Sterilizers Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing Mercury Cell Chlor­ Alkali Plants Gasoline Distribution Stage 1 Municipal Landfills Oil and Natural Gas Production Paint Stripping Operations Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing Publicly Owned Treatment Works Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing Chromic Acid Anodizing Commercial Sterilization Facilities Other Solid Waste Incinerators ( Human/ Animal Cremation) Decorative Chromium Electroplating Dry Cleaning Facilities Halogenated Solvent Cleaners Hard Chromium Electroplating Hazardous Waste Combustors Industrial Boilers Institutional/ Commercial Boilers Medical Waste Incinerators Municipal Waste Combustors Open Burning Scrap Tires Portland Cement Secondary Lead Smelting Stationary Internal Combustion Engines. Each of the first 13 area source categories above, which were listed for the first time in June 1999, contributed at least 15 percent of the total area source urban emissions for at least one of the 30 area source HAP. We also took credit for the percentage of emission contribution from the last 16 area source categories on the list above. Since then, we added Secondary Aluminum Production to our list of major and area source categories ( 66 FR 8220, January 30, 2001). On June 26, 2002, we listed an additional 18 area source categories: Acrylic Fibers/ Modacrylic Fibers Production Plating and Polishing Agricultural Chemicals & Pesticides Manufacturing Autobody Refinishing Paint Shops Cadmium Refining & Cadmium Oxide Production Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production Iron Foundries Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing ( MON) Pharmaceutical Production Polyvinyl Chloride & Copolymers Production Pressed and Blown Glass & Glassware Manufacturing Secondary Copper Smelting Secondary Nonferrous Metals Sewage Sludge Incineration Stainless and Nonstainless Steel Manufacturing Electric Arc Furnaces ( EAF) Steel Foundries Wood Preserving. The listing of all these categories, however, did not meet the requirement to list area sources representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of the 30 area source HAP. In the Strategy, we indicated that we would be adding additional area source categories as necessary to meet the 90 percent requirement and would complete our listing by 2003. II. Why Is EPA Issuing This Notice? Under the provisions of section 112( c)( 3) and 112( k)( 3)( B)( ii), this notice announces the addition of 23 area source categories to the list initially published on July 19, 1999 ( 64 FR 38721), amended on January 30, 2001 ( 66 FR 8220), and on June 26, 2002 ( 67 FR 43112). While this listing is again based on the section 112( k) inventory which represents urban area information for 1990, current information will be used for any type of regulatory development. Each of the source categories contributes a percentage of the total area source emissions for at least one of the 30 area source HAP and completes our requirement to address 90 percent of the emissions of each of the 30 area source HAP. The additional area source categories being listed pursuant to section 112( c)( 3) and 112( k)( 3)( B)( ii) are: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Carbon Black Production Chemical Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds Chemical Preparations Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Industrial Machinery and Equipment: Finishing Operations Copper Foundries Electrical and Electronics Equipment: Finishing Operations Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese Fabricated Metal Products Manufacturing, not elsewhere classified ( nec) Fabricated Plate Work ( Boiler Shops) Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing Heating Equipment Manufacturing, Except Electric Inorganic Pigments Manufacturing Iron and Steel Forging Nonferrous Foundries, nec Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Plastic Parts and Products ( Surface Coating) Prepared Feeds Manufacturing Primary Copper Smelters Primary Metals Products Manufacturing Valves and Pipe Fittings Manufacturing In addition to adding these area source categories, EPA is also revising the name of the area source category Cadmium Refining and Cadmium Oxide Production to Primary Nonferrous Metals Zinc, Cadmium and Beryllium. This category is also being expanded to include these other operations: Primary Smelting and Refining of Zinc, and Primary Nonferrous Metals. Expanding this source category to include these additional operations is needed to meet the 90 percent requirement for several HAP. The name of the area source category Lead and Acid Battery Manufacturing is also changed to Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing. In a recent notice, addressed in a separate Federal Register notice), the area source category Open Burning of Scrap Tires was removed from source categories included in the inventory analysis for section 112( c)( 6) and 112( k). Consequently, that source category will no longer be a candidate for regulation VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 14: 19 Nov 21, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22NON1. SGM 22NON1 70429 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2002 / Notices under either section 112( c)( 6) or 112( k). As a result, two area source categories: Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roof Manufacturing, and Carbon Black Production were added to the section 112( k) list above to ensure that 90 percent of the emissions of the HAP, polycyclic organic matter, are addressed. III. Administrative Requirements Today's notice is not a rule; it is essentially an information­ sharing activity which does not impose regulatory requirements or costs. Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13045 ( Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks), Executive Order 13175 ( Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), Executive Order 13132 ( Federalism), Executive Order 13211 ( Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply to today's notice. Also, this notice does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), a regulatory action determined to be `` significant'' is subject to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines `` significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a rule that may either: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more, or adversely affect 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 take or planned by another agency; ( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The OMB has determined that this action is not significant under the terms of Executive Order 12866. Dated: November 13, 2002. Robert Brenner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [ FR Doc. 02 29774 Filed 11 21 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ ER FRL 6635 2] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information ( 202) 564 7167 or http:// www. epa. gov/ compliance/ nepa. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed November 11, 2002, through November 15, 2002, Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 020466, Draft Supplement, FHW, MI, US 31 Freeway Connection from Napier Road to I 94 Project, transportation improvement, updated information, Berrien County, MI, comment period ends: January 3, 2003, contact: James Kirschensteiner ( 517) 702 1835. EIS No. 020472, Draft Supplement, COE, FL, Upper ST. Johns River Basin and Related Areas, Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, proposed modifications to project features north of the Fellsmere Grade, to preserve and enhance floodplain and aquatic habitats, Brevard County, FL, comment period ends: January 3, 2003, contact: Esteban Jimerez ( 904) 232 2115. EIS No. 020473, Draft EIS, BLM, NV, Ivanpah Energy Center Project, proposes to construct and operate a 500 Megawatt ( MW) gas­ fired electric power generating station in southern Clark County, NV, comment period ends: January 3, 2003, contact: Jerrold E. Crockford ( 505) 599 6333. EIS No. 020474, Draft EIS, FHW, AK, South Extension of the Coastal Trail Project, to extend the existing Tony Knowles Coastal Trail from Kincaid Park through the project area to the Potter Weigh Station, COE section 10 and 404 permit, municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, comment period ends: January 8, 2003, contact: Tim A. Haugh ( 907) 586 7418. This document is available on the Internet at: http:// home. gci. net/ southtrail. EIS No. 020475, Draft EIS, USN, CA, China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, proposed military operational increases and implementation of associated comprehensive land use and integrated natural resources management plans, located in the North and South Range, Inyo, Kern and San Bernardino Counties, CA, comment period ends: February 18, 2003, contact: John O'Gara ( 076) 093 9321. EIS No. 020476, Final EIS, COE, FL, Miami River Dredged Material Management Plan, river sediments dredging and disposal maintenance dredging, Biscayne Bay, city of Miami, Miami­ Dade County, FL, wait period ends: December 23, 2002, contact: Daniel Small ( 404) 562 5224. Amended Notices EIS No. 020405, Draft EIS, FHW, NH, Interstate 93 Improvements, from Salem to Manchester, IM IR 93 1( 174) 0, 10418 C, funding, NPDES and COE section 404 permits, Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties, NH, comment period ends: December 16, 2002, contact: William F. O'Donnell ( 603) 228 3057. Revision of Federal Register notice published on 10/ 4/ 2002: CEQ comment period ending 11/ 18/ 2002 has been extended to 12/ 16/ 2002. EIS No. 020445, Draft EIS, COE, Lake Sidney Lanier Project, to continue the ongoing operation and maintenance activities necessary of flood control, hydropower generation, water supply, recreation, natural resources management, and shoreline management, section 10 and 404 permits, Dawson, Forsyth, Lumpkin, Hill and Gwinnett Counties, GA, comment period ends: December 23, 2002, contact: Glen Coffee ( 251) 690 2727. Revision of Federal Register notice published on 11/ 8/ 2002: correction to contact name and telephone number. Also Draft EIS is available on Internet at: http:// www. usacelakelaniereis. net/. Dated: November 19, 2002. B. Katherine Biggs, Associate Director, NEPA Compliance, Office of Federal Activities. [ FR Doc. 02 29781 Filed 11 21 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ ER FRL 6635 3] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process ( ERP), under section VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 14: 19 Nov 21, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22NON1. SGM 22NON1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.004639

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0038-0001

Proposed Rule

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: General Provisions; and Requirements for Control Technology eterminations for Major Sources in Accordance with Clean Air Act Sections, Sections 112(g) and 112(j)

72875 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules II. Where can I find more information about this proposal and corresponding direct final rule? I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? The EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the Indiana particulate matter SIP emission control regulations that pertain to Knauf Fiber Glass ( Knauf) which is located in Shelbyville, Indiana, as requested by the State of Indiana on October 17, 2002. This SIP submission makes changes to federally enforceable Indiana air pollution control rules. Indiana made these changes at the request of Knauf, and they apply to the operation of the Knauf fiberglass plant in Shelbyville, Indiana. The rule revisions modify the PM emissions limits adopted by the State in the 1980s which EPA approved as part of the current Indiana SIP. The revised rules delete references to equipment no longer in use by Knauf and update names of equipment which remains in use. Because the revised rules reduce both allowable emissions and the allowable emissions rate and reflect current operations at the Knauf facility, EPA approval of these revisions should not result in an adverse impact on air quality. II. Where Can I Find More Information About This Proposal and Corresponding Direct Final Rule? For additional information see the direct final rule published in the rules and regulations section of this Federal Register. Authority: 42 U. S. C. 4201 et seq. Dated: November 7, 2002. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [ FR Doc. 02 30938 Filed 12 6 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ FRL 7419 6] RIN 2060 AK52 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: General Provisions; and Requirements for Control Technology Determinations for Major Sources in Accordance with Clean Air Act Sections, Sections 112( g) and 112( j) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. SUMMARY: In this action, we are proposing specific amendments to the General Provisions for national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP), and to the rule establishing requirements for case­ by­ case determinations under Clean Air Act ( CAA) section 112( j). We are proposing to establish a new timetable for the submission of section 112( j) Part 2 applications which is derived from our agreed timetable for promulgation of the remaining NESHAP. This new timetable for Part 2 applications is intended both to avoid the expenditure of unnecessary resources by affected sources and permitting authorities, and to create new incentives for prompt completion of the remaining standards. We are also proposing to make several changes in the section of the General Provisions rule that establishes general procedures for preparation, maintenance, and periodic revision of startup, shutdown, and malfunction ( SSM) plans. These amendments are being proposed pursuant to a settlement agreement concerning a petition for judicial review of the prior amendments to these rules published on April 5, 2002. We are also proposing to revise a recordkeeping provision which we adopted in response to comments we received on the prior amendments because we have concluded that the recordkeeping provision should be more narrow in applicability. DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before January 20, 2003. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a public hearing by December 16, 2002, a public hearing will be held on December 19, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments may be submitted to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Attention Docket Number OAR 2002 0038, Part 63 General Provisions ( Subpart A) and Section 112( j) Regulations ( Subpart B) Litigation Settlement Amendments II, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a. m. on December 19, 2002 in our EPA facility complex, 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Colyer, Emission Standards Division ( C504 05), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone ( 919) 541 5262, e­ mail colyer. rick@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include all section 112 source categories listed under section 112( c) of the CAA. Industry Group: Source Category Fuel Combustion: Coal­ and Oil­ fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Combustion Turbines Engine Test Facilities Industrial Boilers Institutional/ Commercial Boilers Process Heaters Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Rocket Testing Facilities Non­ Ferrous Metals Processing: Primary Aluminum Production Primary Copper Smelting Primary Lead Smelting Primary Magnesium Refining Secondary Aluminum Production Secondary Lead Smelting Ferrous Metals Processing: Coke Ovens: Charging, Top Side, and Door Leaks Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks Ferroalloys Production: Silicomanganese and Ferromanganese Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Iron Foundries Steel Foundries Steel Pickling HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Mineral Products Processing: Asphalt Processing Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Asphalt/ Coal Tar Application Metal Pipes Brick and Clay Products Manufacturing Ceramics Manufacturing Lime Manufacturing Mineral Wool Production Portland Cement Manufacturing Refractories Manufacturing Taconite Iron Ore Processing Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Petroleum and Natural Gas Production and Refining: Oil and Natural Gas Production Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Petroleum Refineries Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Plant Units Petroleum Refineries Other Sources Not Distinctly Listed Liquids Distribution: Gasoline Distribution ( Stage 1) Marine Vessel Loading Operations Organic Liquids Distribution ( Non­ VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 59 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72876 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules Gasoline) Surface Coating Processes: Aerospace Industries Auto and Light Duty Truck ( Surface Coating) Large Appliance ( Surface Coating) Magnetic Tapes ( Surface Coating) Manufacture of Paints, Coatings, and Adhesives Metal Can ( Surface Coating) Metal Coil ( Surface Coating) Metal Furniture ( Surface Coating) Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( Surface Coating) Paper and Other Webs ( Surface Coating) Plastic Parts and Products ( Surface Coating) Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics Printing/ Publishing ( Surface Coating) Shipbuilding and Ship Repair ( Surface Coating) Wood Building Products ( Surface Coating) Wood Furniture ( Surface Coating) Waste Treatment and Disposal: Hazardous Waste Incineration Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Off­ Site Waste and Recovery Operations Publicly Owned Treatment Works ( POTW) Site Remediation Agricultural Chemicals Production: Pesticide Active Ingredient Production Fibers Production Processes: Acrylic Fibers/ Modacrylic Fibers Production Spandex Production Food and Agriculture Processes: Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Pharmaceutical Production Processes: Pharmaceuticals Production Polymers and Resins Production: Acetal Resins Production Acrylonitrile­ Butadiene­ Styrene Production Alkyd Resins Production Amino Resins Production Boat Manufacturing Butyl Rubber Production Cellulose Ethers Production Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production Epoxy Resins Production Ethylene­ Propylene Rubber Production Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production Hypalon ( tm) Production Maleic Anhydride Copolymers Production Methyl Methacrylate­ Acrylonitrile­ Butadiene­ Styrene Production Methyl Methacrylate­ Butadiene­ Styrene Terpolymers Production Neoprene Production Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production Nitrile Resins Production Non­ Nylon Polyamides Production Phenolic Resins Production Polybutadiene Rubber Production Polycarbonates Production Polyester Resins Production Polyether Polyols Production Polyethylene Terephthalate Production Polymerized Vinylidene Chloride Production Polymethyl Methacrylate Resins Production Polystyrene Production Polysulfide Rubber Production Polyvinyl Acetate Emulsions Production Polyvinyl Alcohol Production Polyvinyl Butyral Production Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Styrene­ Acrylonitrile Production Styrene­ Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production Production of Inorganic Chemicals: Ammonium Sulfate Production Caprolactam By­ Product Plants Carbon Black Production Chlorine Production Cyanide Chemicals Manufacturing Fumed Silica Production Hydrochloric Acid Production Hydrogen Fluoride Production Phosphate Fertilizers Production Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Production of Organic Chemicals: Ethylene Processes Quaternary Ammonium Compounds Production Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Miscellaneous Processes: Benzyltrimethylammonium Chloride Production Carbonyl Sulfide Production Chelating Agents Production Chlorinated Paraffins Production Chromic Acid Anodizing Commercial Dry Cleaning ( Perchloroethylene) Transfer Machines Commercial Sterilization Facilities Decorative Chromium Electroplating Ethylidene Norbornene Production Explosives Production Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Friction Materials Manufacturing Halogenated Solvent Cleaners Hard Chromium Electroplating Hydrazine Production Industrial Dry Cleaning ( Perchloroethylene) Dry­ to­ dry Machines Industrial Dry Cleaning ( Perchloroethylene) Transfer Machines Industrial Process Cooling Towers Leather Finishing Operations Miscellaneous Vicose Processes OBPA/ 1,3­ Diisocyanate Production Paint Stripping Operations Photographic Chemicals Production Phthalate Plasticizers Production Plywood and Composite Wood Products Pulp and Paper Production Rubber Chemicals Manufacturing Rubber Tire Manufacturing Semiconductor Manufacturing Symmetrical Tetrachloropyridine Production Wet­ formed Fiberglass Mat Production Categories of Area Sources: Chromic Acid Anodizing Commercial Dry Cleaning ( Perchloroethylene) Dry­ to­ Dry Machines Commercial Dry Cleaning ( Perchloroethylene) Transfer Machines Commercial Sterilization Facilities Decorative Chromium Electroplating Halogenated Solvent Cleaners Hard Chromium Electroplating Hazardous Waste Incinerators Portland Cement Production Secondary Aluminum Production Secondary Lead Smelting This list 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 you are regulated by this action, you should examine your source category specific section 112 regulation. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Docket EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0038. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Part 63 General Provisions ( Subpart A) VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 59 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72877 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules and Section 112( j) Regulations ( Subpart B) Litigation Settlement Amendments II Docket in the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Part 63 General Provisions ( Subpart A) and Section 112( j) Regulations ( Subpart B) Litigation Settlement Amendments II Docket is ( 202) 566 1742). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility previously identified. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions below. Do not use EPA Dockets or e­ mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources,'' `` Dockets,'' and `` EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0038. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e­ mail) to a­ and­ r­ Docket@ epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0038. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your e­ mail address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Send your comments to: Part 63 General Provisions ( Subpart A) and Section 112( j) Regulations ( Subpart B) Litigation Settlement Amendments II, U. S. EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0038. Deliver your comments to: Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0038. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation. Fax your comments to 202 566 1741, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR 2002 0038. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Attention: Mr. Rick Colyer, c/ o OAQPS Document Control Officer, Mailcode C404 02, U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72878 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules 0038. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Public Hearing Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, U. S. EPA, Mailcode C539 03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone ( 919) 541 7946, no later than December 17, 2002. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also contact Ms. Eck 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 amendments. Worldwide Web ( WWW) In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposed rule amendments will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Following signature, a copy of the 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. Applicable Law This rulemaking is being undertaken pursuant to the procedures established by CAA section 307( d). The special procedures for rulemakings governed by section 307( d) were utilized when EPA originally promulgated, and when EPA subsequently amended, each of the rules to which this proposal applies. The Administrator has specifically determined that it is appropriate to utilize the procedures in section 307( d) for this rulemaking. Outline The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Background A. General Provisions B. CAA Section 112( j) Provisions C. The Sierra Club Litigation D. Review of Proposed Settlement Under CAA Section 113( g) II. Proposed Amendments to the General Provisions III. Proposed Amendments to the Section 112( j) Provisions A. New Schedule for Part 2 Applications B. Requests for Applicability Determination C. Prior Section 112( g) Determinations D. Content of Part 2 Applications IV. 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 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. General Provisions Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAP) and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit equal to or greater than 10 tons/ yr of any one HAP or 25 tons/ yr of any combination of HAP. Area sources of HAP are those sources that do not have potential to emit equal to or greater than 10 tons/ yr of any one HAP and 25 tons/ yr of any combination of HAP. The General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63 establish the framework for emission standards and other requirements developed pursuant to section 112 of the CAA. The General Provisions eliminate the repetition of general information and requirements in individual NESHAP by consolidating all generally applicable information in one location. They include sections on applicability, definitions, compliance dates and requirements, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, among others. In addition, they include administrative sections concerning actions that the EPA ( or delegated authorities) must take, such as making determinations of applicability, reviewing applications for approval of new construction, responding to requests for extensions or waivers of applicable requirements, and generally enforcing national air toxics standards. The General Provisions become applicable to a CAA section 112( d) source category rule when the source category rule is promulgated and becomes effective. The NESHAP General Provisions were first promulgated on March 16, 1994 ( 59 FR 12408). We subsequently proposed a variety of amendments to that initial rule, based in part on settlement negotiations with industrial trade organizations which had sought judicial review of the rule and in part on our practical experience in developing and implementing maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) standards under the General Provisions ( 66 FR 16318, March 23, 2001). We then promulgated final amendments to the General Provisions pursuant to that proposal ( 67 FR 16582, April 5, 2002). B. CAA Section 112( j) Provisions The 1990 Amendments to section 112 of the CAA include a new section 112( j), which is entitled `` Equivalent Emission Limitation by Permit.'' Section 112( j)( 2) provides that the provisions of section 112( j) apply if the EPA misses a deadline for promulgation of a standard under section 112( d) established in the source category schedule for standards. After the effective date of a title V permit program in a State, section 112( j)( 3) requires the owner or operator of a major source in a source category, for which the EPA failed to promulgate a section 112( d) standard, to submit a permit application 18 months after the missed promulgation deadline. We first promulgated a rule to implement section 112( j) on May 20, 1994 ( 59 FR 26429). We subsequently proposed a variety of amendments to that initial rule, based in part on settlement negotiations with industrial trade organizations which had sought judicial review of the rule and in part on our own further evaluation of the existing procedures ( 66 FR 16318, March 23, 2001). We then promulgated VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72879 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules final amendments to the section 112( j) rule, along with our final amendments to the General Provisions ( 67 FR 16582, April 5, 2002). C. The Sierra Club Litigation We promulgated the final rule amending the MACT General Provisions and the requirements for case­ by­ case determinations under Clean Air Act section 112( j) on April 5, 2002 ( 67 FR 16582). The Sierra Club filed a petition seeking judicial review of that final rule on April 25, 2002, Sierra Club v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 02 1135 ( D. C. Circuit). Sierra Club also filed a petition seeking administrative reconsideration of certain provisions in the final rule, pursuant to CAA section 307( d)( 7)( B). Shortly after the filing of the petition, EPA commenced discussions with Sierra Club concerning a settlement agreement. We reached initial agreement with Sierra Club on the terms of a settlement and lodged the tentative agreement with the court on August 15, 2002. Under the proposed settlement, we agreed to propose a rule to make specified amendments to the General Provisions and section 112( j) rules no later than 2 months after signature and to take final action on the proposed amendments within 7 months after signature. D. Review of Proposed Settlement Under CAA Section 113( g) As required by section 113( g) of the CAA, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register affording interested persons an opportunity to comment on the terms of the proposed settlement in Sierra Club v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 02 1135 ( D. C. Circuit) ( 67 FR 54804, August 26, 2002). In response to that notice, we received 110 timely comments, the vast majority of which opposed one or more provisions of the proposed settlement. While we do not believe we are legally required to discuss or summarize our review of the comments on the proposed settlement we received as part of the process required by section 113( g), we think it is appropriate in this instance to describe our assessment of and response to certain of these comments. Virtually all of the commenters expressed concern about the practical consequences of the proposal to reduce the time between the section 112( j) Part 1 and Part 2 applications from 24 months to 12 months. We agree with the commenters that this approach would have resulted in wasteful expenditures by the applicants and the permitting agencies to prepare and to process permit applications which in all likelihood would never have been acted upon. Given the strong opposition to this approach reflected in the comments both by industry sources and organizations and by State and local permitting authorities, we were pleased when Sierra Club agreed to discuss modifying the proposed settlement to establish an alternative timetable for submission of Part 2 section 112( j) applications. Organizations representing the State and local permitting authorities played a very helpful role in the discussions concerning a revised settlement. These organizations noted that EPA had already reached an agreement with Sierra Club on a schedule for promulgation of all remaining MACT standards that were included on the original schedule established pursuant to CAA section 112( e)( 1) and ( 3). We anticipate that this agreed upon schedule for promulgation of the remaining MACT standards will be incorporated in a forthcoming consent decree in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 01 1337 ( D. D. C.). The State and local governmental organizations suggested that a timetable which would require submission of section 112( j) Part 2 applications only if the agreed upon schedule is not met would both eliminate the expenditure of significant resources on an ultimately futile process and create new incentives for EPA and the other stakeholders to cooperate in meeting the promulgation schedule. After Sierra Club agreed to consider the alternative approach suggested by the State and local governmental organizations, EPA and Sierra Club then negotiated a revised settlement based on that approach. Under the timetable we are proposing pursuant to the revised settlement, section 112( j) Part 2 applications for affected sources in those categories for which MACT standards are scheduled to be promulgated while this rulemaking is pending will be due on May 15, 2003, and section 112( j) Part 2 applications for affected sources in categories for which the MACT standards are scheduled to be promulgated thereafter will be due 60 days after the corresponding scheduled promulgation dates. In the revised settlement, we have also agreed to propose the same amendments to the General Provisions concerning startup, shutdown, and malfunction ( SSM) plans which were set forth in the original settlement. Although we received numerous comments opposing these amendments as well, we believe that many of these comments materially misconstrued both the intent and the effect of these proposed amendments. In any case, we note that there will be a full opportunity for those who have concerns regarding either the need for or the effect of these amendments to comment during this rulemaking. We also believe these comments are likely to be more constructive and appropriately focused when the commenters have had an opportunity to review our explanation of the basis for these proposed amendments set forth below. The EPA and Sierra Club executed a final settlement agreement in Sierra Club v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 02 1135 ( DC Circuit), and filed it with the Court on November 26, 2002. This rulemaking is being conducted in accordance with the provisions of that final agreement. II. Proposed Amendments to the General Provisions In today's action, we are proposing to make several changes in the section of the General Provisions rule that establishes general procedures for preparation, maintenance, and periodic revision of SSM plans. We consider these proposed revisions to be modest in character, and we believe they are generally consistent with the policies articulated in the preamble when we proposed the last set of amendments concerning SSM plans. We are also proposing to revise a new recordkeeping provision which we adopted in the prior rulemaking in response to a comment we received, because we have concluded that the new recordkeeping provision is too broad in its effect. We are proposing some minor changes in the language in 40 CFR 63.6( e)( 1)( i) to correct a potential problem in interpreting the relationship between the general duty to minimize emissions established by that section and a facility's compliance with its SSM plan. That section was modified in the last rulemaking because it appeared at that time to impose on a source a general duty to further reduce emissions, even when the source is already in full compliance with the applicable MACT standards. We deemed this result to be unreasonable and made corresponding changes in the language of the rule. We emphasize that nothing in today's proposal is intended to alter our determination that the general duty to minimize emissions is satisfied when emission levels required by the MACT standard have been achieved. However, as part of these changes, we adopted some language which could be construed as contrary to the policies regarding the relationship between the general duty to minimize emissions and VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72880 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules SSM plans which we stated in the preamble of the proposal of the original amendments. We note at the outset that SSM plans must be drafted in a manner which satisfies the general duty to minimize emissions ( 40 CFR 63.6( e)( 3)( i)( A)). Thus, compliance with a properly drafted SSM plan during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction will necessarily also constitute compliance with the duty to minimize emissions, even though compliance with the MACT standards themselves during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction may not be practicable. However, in the proposal preamble to the original amendments, we stated explicitly that `` compliance with an inadequate or improperly developed SSM plan is no defense for failing to minimize emissions'' ( 66 FR 16327, March 23, 2001). We note that this understanding of the effect of the amendments was explicitly restated in comments by the organizations that represent the agencies that generally enforce these requirements, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators ( STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials ( ALAPCO). See Docket A 2001 02. Sierra Club subsequently pointed out to us that the actual language of the section as promulgated could be construed to indicate that a facility that complies with its SSM plan regardless of whether the plan is inadequate or improperly developed thereby satisfies its general duty to minimize emissions. We did not intend this result. We believe such a construction could encourage potential abuse, particularly because SSM plans do not have to be reviewed or approved by the permitting authority before they take effect, and because such plans may also be revised by the facility without prior notice to the permitting authority. The revisions to 40 CFR 63.6( e)( 1)( i) which we are proposing today are intended to assure that this section is not construed in this manner. Nothing in these revisions is intended either to change the general principle that compliance with a MACT standard is not mandatory during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, or to require a source to further minimize emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction once it has achieved levels which would constitute compliance with the MACT standard at other times. We are also proposing some changes to 40 CFR 63.6( e)( 3)( v), the section that governs submission of SSM plans to the EPA Administrator, and to the State or local permitting authorities which operate as the Administator's authorized representatives. The present rule provides that the current SSM plan must be made available upon request to the Administrator for `` inspection and copying.'' The `` Administrator'' is defined to include a State which has received delegation and is therefore the Administrator's `` authorized representative'' ( 40 CFR 63.2). We stated in the preamble of the proposal for the previous amendments that the permit writer or the Administrator may also require submission of the SSM plan ( 66 FR 16326, March 23, 2001). This is sensible because the SSM plan is an integral part of the permit file, regardless of whether the plan is physically available at the EPA Regional Office or the permitting authority that has received delegation or is maintained only at the affected source. However, we note that the present rule does not expressly require that SSM plans be submitted to the Administrator or to the permitting authority upon request. This potential omission was also noted in previous comments by STAPPA/ ALAPCO. See Docket A 2001 02. SSM plans are developed in connection with individual MACT standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and are therefore covered by CAA section 114( a). Under CAA section 114( c) and 40 CFR 70.4( b)( 3)( viii), information in SSM plans must be made available to the public, unless the submitter makes a satisfactory showing that disclosure would divulge methods or processes that are entitled to protection under the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U. S. C. 1905. SSM plans are considered to be submitted to the Administrator under CAA Section 114 even if they are submitted to a State or local agency acting on the Administrator's behalf ( 40 CFR 2.301( b)( 2)). Sierra Club has expressed concern about the adequacy of the provisions in the present rule to assure the degree of public access to SSM plans required by law. In particular, Sierra Club is concerned that some permitting authorities might not construe the rule to require that an SSM plan be obtained from the affected source when it is requested by a member of the public, and that the rule does not expressly require submission of an SSM plan when the permitting authority or Administrator requests it. Although the rule clearly requires that such plans must be made available for inspection and copying by EPA or the permitting authority, Sierra Club believes that interested members of the public may encounter protracted delays in obtaining access to the non­ confidential portions of an SSM plan. We understand these concerns about the practicality of public access under the present system, and we have agreed to propose some revisions to the rule to facilitate better public access. The new language requires sources to submit a copy of the SSM plan to the permitting authority at the time it is first adopted and when it is subsequently revised. In most instances, revised versions of the SSM plan may be submitted with the semiannual report required by 40 CFR 63.10( d)( 5). Under our proposal, the source may elect to submit the SSM plan in an electronic format. If the submitter claims that any portion of an SSM plan, or any revision of an SSM plan, is CBI entitled to protection under section 114( c) of the CAA or 40 CFR 2.301, the material which is claimed as confidential must be clearly designated in the submission. While the applicable law generally requires that we provide public access to those portions of SSM plans which are not entitled to confidentiality under the Trade Secrets Act, we note that it is hypothetically possible that some information in a particular SSM plan would be deemed to be sensitive from a Homeland Security perspective. In most instances, we think that such sensitive information would also be entitled to confidential treatment under CAA section 114( c). However, we note that the entire Federal government is presently reviewing public access requirements to assure that they are compatible with Homeland Security, and it is possible that we may in the future propose other changes in public access to SSM plans as part of this important effort. We note that many sources have already adopted SSM plans, and that the language we are proposing does not establish a specific transitional process for submission of those existing plans to permitting authorities. If we adopt the proposed changes, we want to minimize the burden and disruption associated with this transition, and we are requesting comment on how this may best be accomplished. One option would be to provide a specific time period within which the existing plans must be submitted. Another option would be to require that the plans be submitted as part of the next semiannual compliance report. We are also proposing a change to 40 CFR 63.6( e)( 3)( vii). The current rule provides that EPA or the permitting authority `` may'' require that an SSM plan be revised if certain specified deficiencies are found. However, we cannot envision any circumstance VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72881 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules where revision of an SSM plan should not be mandatory if it is specifically found to be deficient by EPA or the permitting authority according to one of the criteria set forth in this section. Therefore, we have agreed to propose to change the language to make such revisions mandatory rather than discretionary. We are required to propose all of the foregoing amendments to the SSM plan provisions in the MACT General Provisions rule by the final settlement agreement that we executed with Sierra Club. We solicit comments on all these proposals. In addition to the proposals required under our final settlement agreement with Sierra Club, we are also proposing to revise a provision concerning reporting of SSM events which we adopted in the previous rulemaking in response to comments we received. We have concluded that the new language we adopted was unnecessarily broad in its scope and we are proposing to substantially narrow its applicability. During the previous rulemaking concerning revisions to the General Provisions and section 112( j) rules, we received comments from STAPPA/ ALAPCO indicating that it would assist permitting agencies in performing their oversight function if facilities were required to include the number and a description of all malfunctions that occurred during the prior reporting period in the required semiannual report. See Docket A 2001 02. In response to that comment, we added a new reporting obligation to the language governing periodic SSM reporting in 40 CFR 63.10( d)( 5)( i). However, the language we added was not limited to malfunctions and required that the facility report `` the number, duration, and a brief description of each startup, shutdown, and malfunction.'' We have concluded that the inclusion of startups and shutdowns in this reporting requirement is unnecessary and burdensome. With respect to malfunctions, the rule expressly requires that the SSM plan must be revised by the facility if there is an event meeting the characteristics of a malfunction which is not addressed by the plan ( 40 CFR 63.6( e)( 3)( vii). Although the facility is required by 40 CFR 63.6( e)( 3)( iv) to immediately report those instances where the actions it takes are not in conformity with the SSM plan and the standard is exceeded, this provision may not be sufficient to give the permitting authority all the information it needs to assure that SSM plans properly address all types of malfunctions. Thus, we think that the requirement that the owner or operator report the number, duration, and type of malfunctions which occurred during the prior reporting period may provide useful information to the permitting authority. We recognize that some sources are concerned that the requirement to periodically report malfunctions may be interpreted to require reporting of minor problems that have no impact on emissions. However, we do not construe the provision in this manner. Under our regulations, `` malfunction'' is defined as `` any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.'' See 40 CFR 63.2. Only those events that meet this definition would be subject to the reporting requirement. During an event that meets this definition, the facility is not required to comply with otherwise applicable emission limits, and the SSM plan must specify alternative procedures which satisfy the general duty to minimize emissions. Minor or routine events that have no appreciable impact on the ability of a source to meet the standard need not be classified by the source as a malfunction, addressed in the SSM plan, or included in periodic reports. Thus, if a source experiences a minor problem that does not affect its ability to meet the applicable emission standard, the problem need not be addressed by the SSM plan and would not be a reportable `` malfunction'' under our regulations. Unlike malfunctions, we think that the extension of this requirement to startups and shutdowns was unwarranted. In some industries, startup and shutdown events are numerous and routine. So long as the provisions of the SSM plan are followed, there does not appear to be any real utility in requiring that each individual startup and shutdown be reported or described. In those instances where a startup and shutdown includes actions which do not conform to the SSM plan and the standard is exceeded, the facility is otherwise required to promptly report these deviations from the plan. We encourage all interested parties to comment both on our proposal to delete startups and shutdowns from this reporting provision, and on our rationale for the retention of the periodic reporting of malfunctions. In addition to seeking comment on the revisions to the provisions governing SSM plans described above, we are also requesting comment concerning two other changes to the General Provisions which we made during the prior rulemaking in response to industry comments. During the prior rulemaking, the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry suggested that we revise the definition of `` monitoring'' in 40 CFR 63.2 to include the phrase `` or to verify a work practice standard.'' See Docket item No. IV D 03. There are times when we must adopt a work practice standard under CAA section 112( h) rather than an emission standard under CAA section 112( d), and compliance with such a work practice standard is sometimes verified by activities which may not require ``* * * collection and use of measurement data or other information to control the operation of a process or pollution control device * * *'' Therefore, we thought that the suggested revision was a sensible one. However, because the additional language was not originally proposed by EPA, and it has been subsequently suggested that this revision might have unintended consequences, we have decided to take additional comment concerning the value of this language and the effects it might have when read in conjunction with other regulatory requirements, including other provisions of the General Provisions. In the prior rulemaking, we also made a small change in the language of 40 CFR 63.9( h)( 2)( ii) by adding the phrase ``( or activities that have the same compliance date)'' in response to a comment submitted by Dow Chemical Company. See Docket item No. IV D 19. Although separate notices are appropriate for compliance obligations with different compliance dates ( e. g., equipment leaks versus process vents), Dow was concerned that separate compliance reports might be required for compliance obligations that have the same date and requested the option of filing a single compliance status report covering multiple compliance obligations. Because the new language in question was not originally proposed by EPA, and some have questioned whether it clearly achieves the intended purpose, we have decided to request additional comment concerning the need for this change and potential alternatives. III. Proposed Amendments to the Section 112( j) Provisions A. New Schedule for Part 2 Applications The final settlement agreement which we have executed with Sierra Club requires us to propose to replace the existing schedule for submission of section 112( j) Part 2 applications, under which most Part 2 applications would have been due on May 15, 2004, with VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72882 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules a schedule which will establish a specific deadline for submission of Part 2 applications for all affected sources in a given category or subcategory. With respect to those listed categories or subcategories for which MACT standards are scheduled to be promulgated by November 30, 2002 or by February 28, 2003, we are proposing a Part 2 application deadline of May 15, 2003. Establishing an earlier deadline for these sources would not be practicable because we do not anticipate completing this rulemaking until April 2003. With respect to those categories or subcategories for which MACT standards are scheduled to be promulgated at a later time, we are proposing Part 2 application deadlines which are 60 days after each respective scheduled promulgation date. The deadlines for Part 2 applications which we are proposing for each category or subcategory are set forth below in Tables 1 and 2 of this preamble. TABLE 1. SECTION 112( j) PART 2 APPLICATION DUE DATES Due date MACT standard 5/ 15/ 03 .................................................. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Semiconductor Manufacturing Refractories Manufacturing 1 Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing, and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 2 Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing and Asphalt Processing 3 Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Hydrochloric Acid Production and Fumed Silica 4 Engine Test Facilities and Rocket Testing Facilities 3 Metal Furniture ( Surface Coating) Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics Wood Building Products ( Surface Coating) 10/ 30/ 03 ................................................ Combustion Turbines Lime Manufacturing Site Remediation Iron and Steel Foundries Taconite Iron Ore Processing Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing ( MON) 5 Organic Liquids Distribution Primary Magnesium Refining Metal Can ( Surface Coating) Plastic Parts and Products ( Surface Coating) Chlorine Production Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( Surface Coating) ( and Asphalt/ Coal Tar Application Metal Pipes) 3 4/ 28/ 04 .................................................. Industrial Boilers, Institutional/ Commercial Boilers and Process Heaters 6 Plywood and Composite Wood Products Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Auto and Light­ Duty Truck ( Surface Coating) 8/ 13/ 05 .................................................. Industrial Boilers, Institutional/ Commercial Boilers, and Process Heaters 7 Hydrochloric Acid Production 8 1 Includes Chromium Refractories Production. 2 Two subcategories of Clay Products Manufacturing. 3 Two source categories. 4 Includes all sources within the category Hydrochloric Acid Production that burn no hazardous waste, and all sources in the category Fumed Silica. 5 Covers 23 source categories, see Table 2 of this preamble. 6 Includes all sources in the three categories, Industrial Boilers, Institutional/ Commercial Boilers, and Process Heaters that burn no hazardous waste. 7 Includes all sources in the three categories, Industrial Boilers, Institutional/ Commercial Boilers, and Process Heaters that burn hazardous waste. 8 Includes furnaces that produce acid from hazardous waste at sources in the category Hydrochloric Acid Production. TABLE 2. MON SOURCE CATEGORIES Manufacture of Paints, Coatings, and Adhesives Alkyd Resins Production Maleic Anhydride Copolymers Production Polyester Resins Production Polymerized Vinylidene Chloride Production Polymethyl Methacrylate Resins Production Polyvinyl Acetate Emulsions Production Polyvinly Alcohol Production Polyvinyl Butyral Production Ammonium Sulfate Production Caprolactam By­ Product Plants TABLE 2. MON SOURCE CATEGORIES Continued Quaternary Ammonium Compounds Production Benzyltrimethylammonium Chloride Production Carbonyl Sulfide Production Chelating Agents Production Chlorinated Paraffins Production Ethylidene Norbornene Production Explosives Production Hydrazine Production OBPA/ 1,3­ Diisocyanate Production TABLE 2. MON SOURCE CATEGORIES Continued Photographic Chemicals Production Phthalate Plasticizers Production Rubber Chemicals Manufacturing Symmetrical Tetrachloropyridine Production We have always been reluctant to establish any timetable which would require submission of a large number of Part 2 applications which would in all likelihood never be acted upon by the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72883 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules permitting authorities. Submission of Part 2 applications would generally be a futile exercise in those instances where a final Federal MACT standard governing the facilities in question is scheduled for promulgation prior to the 18­ month deadline for action on the applications by the respective permitting authorities. It has been our consistent view that requiring submission of such applications would represent an unwarranted expenditure of private and public resources. Thus, we are pleased that the proposed schedule under the final settlement will permit us to avoid such a wasteful exercise unless there are further delays in promulgation of the remaining MACT standards. We note also that the prompt and significant consequences if a promulgation deadline is missed will create new incentives for EPA and the other stakeholders to assure that the agreed upon promulgation deadlines are met. We recognize that the proposed schedule for submission of section 112( j) Part 2 applications leaves relatively little time for sources to prepare and submit such applications if a particular promulgation deadline is missed. In recognition of the tight time frames, we will try to provide prompt advance notice to affected sources and to permitting authorities if we have reason to believe that we will not be able to meet an impending promulgation deadline for a particular MACT standard. We note that the MACT standards for which we are proposing a Part 2 application deadline of May 15, 2003 are actually scheduled to be promulgated while this rulemaking is in progress. There will be no need to adopt a Part 2 application deadline for affected sources in any category for which a final MACT standard has been promulgated under CAA section 112( d) and/ or ( h) prior to the completion of this rulemaking. We are proposing to state explicitly in the amendments to the section 112( j) rule that no further process to develop a case­ by­ case MACT determination under section 112( j) is required for any source once a generally applicable Federal MACT standard governing that source has been promulgated. The revised timetable for submission of Part 2 applications we are proposing requires significant changes in the structure of the existing section 112( j) rule. In contrast to the current general timetable for Part 2 applications, which applies to all of the remaining MACT standards which were included in the schedule adopted under CAA section 112( e)( 1) and ( 3), we are proposing a phased timetable for Part 2 applications with different dates for sources in different categories based on the scheduled promulgation date. We are also proposing to make the new schedule as uniform as practicable for all affected sources in each category or subcategory, regardless of whether the source in question has previously requested an applicability determination under 40 CFR 63.52( e)( 2)( i) or has previously obtained a case­ by­ case determination under CAA section 112( g). These proposed changes will require that the existing section 112( j) rule be substantially rewritten. In order to allow the rulemaking process required by the final settlement agreement to proceed expeditiously and to encourage commenters to focus on the broad issues presented by the new approach, we are not proposing specific regulatory text. Rather, we are providing a detailed discussion in this preamble of the changes we are proposing to make. While we do not want to discourage those commenters who want to propose specific regulatory text for our consideration, we believe that comments will be most constructive if they focus on the larger question of how the existing rule should be restructured to achieve our proposed objectives. When we first proposed the creation of a two­ part process for section 112( j) applications, we specified a 6­ month period between the submission of the general initial notification in the Part 1 application and the submission of more detailed supporting information in the Part 2 application. That initial proposal was based on the premise that every applicant would automatically be given the maximum extension of time to supplement an incomplete application that is authorized by CAA section 112( j)( 4). In the final rule, we observed that there is another provision in the statute which may be reasonably construed to provide authority for us to establish an incremental process for the submission of section 112( j) applications. The hammer provision in section 112( j)( 2) itself establishes the requirement to submit permit applications `` beginning 18 months after'' the statutory date for promulgation of a standard. Reading this provision in context, we believe that the statute can be reasonably construed as authorizing us to provide a period of time after the hammer date in which the information necessary for a fully informative section 112( j) application can be compiled. We have not changed our view that this is a reasonable construction of the statutory provision in question, and we are reiterating this construction of the statute as part of our rationale for these proposed rule amendments. B. Requests for Applicability Determination As we explained above, we are proposing to establish a single uniform Part 2 application deadline for all sources in a given category or subcategory, which is based in turn on the agreed upon promulgation date for the MACT standard for that category or subcategory. However, to achieve this objective it will be necessary to establish new procedures for those affected sources which have previously submitted a request for applicability determination under 40 CFR 63.52( e)( 2)( i). That provision establishes a process by which major sources can request that the permitting authority determine whether or not specific sources at their facility belong in any category or subcategory requiring a case­ by­ case determination under section 112( j). All requests for applicability determinations were due at the same time as the section 112( j) Part 1 applications, on May 15, 2002. Under the procedures in the current rule, a negative determination by the permitting authority concerning such a request means that no further action is required, while a positive determination means that the applicant must then submit a Part 2 application within 24 months. In order to adopt the single uniform deadline for Part 2 applications for each affected source in a category or subcategory which we are required to propose by the final settlement, it is necessary to amend the provisions governing requests for applicability determinations. We lack precise information concerning how many such requests for applicability determination were submitted to permitting authorities on or before May 15, 2002, but we believe that hundreds of such requests are pending. We know that some of these requests reflect genuine uncertainty concerning the scope of the activities or equipment governed by a particular category or subcategory. For some of these requests, the subsequent issuance of a proposed MACT standard or other subsequent events may have resolved such uncertainty. However, we also believe that many of these requests were filed merely because the filing of such a request operated to defer the deadline for submission of a Part 2 application. Under the proposal required by the final settlement, such an indefinite deferral of the Part 2 application deadline will no longer be allowed. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72884 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules We do not seek to limit the right of those affected sources who may have genuine uncertainty regarding the scope of a particular category or subcategory to obtain a decision on applicability issues by the permitting authority, but we also do not want to burden the permitting authorities with a process that requires them to take final action on those pending requests which do not present genuine applicability issues. Accordingly, we are proposing to require that each affected source which still wishes to pursue a previously filed request for applicability determination under 40 CFR 63.52( e)( 2)( i) which is still pending must resubmit and supplement that request within 60 days after EPA publishes final action in this rulemaking or within 60 days after EPA publishes a proposed MACT standard for the category or subcategory in question, whichever is later. Our experience tells us that most uncertainties regarding applicability can be resolved by applying the specific applicability language in the proposed MACT standard. That is why we are proposing to delay any requirement to resubmit and supplement a request for applicability determination until after a proposed MACT standard is available. We are proposing to require that each resubmitted request for an applicability determination be supplemented to specifically discuss the relation between the source( s) in question and the applicability provision in the proposed MACT standard for the category or subcategory in question, and to explain why there may still be uncertainties that require a determination of applicability. We are also proposing to require that the permitting authority act upon each resubmitted and supplemented request for an applicability determination within an additional 60 days after the applicable deadline for the resubmitted request. We believe this approach will preserve the rights of those affected sources which still have legitimate applicability concerns even after issuance of a proposed MACT standard. We also expect there will be a significant reduction in the number of pending requests, since the current procedural incentives for submission of such requests will have been eliminated. With respect to those requests that are resubmitted, the proposed mandatory supplementation should delineate the issues more clearly and improve the record for a decision concerning the request by the permitting authority. While we anticipate that the issuance of a proposed MACT standard will generally operate to resolve existing applicability issues rather than raising new ones, it is hypothetically possible that a facility will have new questions based on the applicability provision in a proposed MACT standard. There is at present no formal process for addressing such issues, but we encourage all major sources that have questions concerning the applicability of a proposed MACT standard to their operations or equipment to seek guidance from responsible personnel at the permitting authority and the EPA Regional Office. We note that there are special timing issues with respect to any requests for applicability determination which have been submitted concerning sources that may be in a category or subcategory for which the MACT standard in question is scheduled to be promulgated by November 30, 2002 or by February 28, 2003. There will be no need to address these concerns if the standards are promulgated on schedule. However, if any one of these standards is delayed, and if the delayed standard still has not been promulgated by the time we take final action concerning this proposal, special procedures will be required. Those facilities which have sources which may be in such a category or subcategory, and who previously submitted a request for applicability determination which is still pending, cannot be required to submit their Part 2 application on May 15, 2003. In such an instance, we propose that any Part 2 application will be required 120 days after EPA publishes final action in this rulemaking if the request for applicability determination is not resubmitted within 60 days after publication, or within 180 days after EPA publishes final action in this rulemaking if the request is resubmitted and a determination concerning the request by the permitting authority is required. We consider it improbable that we will need to adopt such procedures, but we are proposing them now in the unlikely event they are required. We note also that those major sources which elect to resubmit requests for applicability determination with respect to sources that may be governed by one of the MACT standards which are scheduled to be promulgated by August 31, 2003, may not be entitled to receive a determination by the permitting authority on the resubmitted request until shortly after the scheduled promulgation date. If such a standard is delayed, and there is no negative determination by the permitting authority on the resubmitted request, the Part 2 application for sources within the category in question will be due on October 30, 2003. This tight time frame underscores the importance of careful coordination between such sources and the permitting authority if it appears that a MACT standard will be delayed. As discussed above, EPA will endeavor to provide timely information to affected sources and permitting authorities if it becomes apparent that the Agency will not meet the promulgation schedule for any of the remaining MACT standards. C. Prior Section 112( g) Determinations Our proposal to establish a single uniform Part 2 application deadline for all sources in a given category or subcategory also requires that we make some changes to the current procedures governing CAA section 112( j) applications for those sources which have previously received a case­ by­ case determination pursuant to CAA section 112( g). In evaluating this question, it is important to understand the substantive relationship between these separate statutory requirements. In general, we anticipate that emission control requirements established as part of a previous caseby case determination under section 112( g) will subsequently be adopted by the permitting authority to satisfy any applicable section 112( j) requirements as well. This is because the determination required for any sources subject to CAA section 112( g) is supposed to be based on new source MACT, and the subsequent application of section 112( j) requirements to those same sources will be based on existing source MACT. Moreover, to assure that inconsequential differences in emission control do not result in unduly burdensome sequential case­ by­ case determinations, the current section 112( j) rule requires the permitting authority to adopt any prior case­ bycase determination under section 112( g) as its determination for the same sources under section 112( j) if it `` determines that the emission limitations in the prior case­ by­ case determination are substantially as effective as the emission limitations which the permitting authority would otherwise adopt under section 112( j).'' See 40 CFR 63.52( a)( 3), ( b)( 2), and ( e)( 2)( ii). Under the applicable provisions of the present rule, sources which have previously obtained a case­ by­ case determination under CAA section 112( g) are generally required to submit a request for an `` equivalency determination'' to decide if the applicable section 112( g) requirements are `` substantially as effective'' as the requirements which would otherwise apply under section 112( j). As explained above, we believe that this VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72885 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules determination will generally be positive. However, 40 CFR 63.52( e)( 2)( ii) provides that, if such a determination is negative, the source must then submit a Part 2 application within 24 months. As in the case of requests for applicability determination, changes to the existing rule will be required to place all sources in a given category or subcategory on the same schedule for submission of Part 2 applications. However, in this instance, we believe that the solution is considerably simpler. We are proposing to adopt the proposed Part 2 application deadline for a given category or subcategory as the final deadline for submission of a request for an `` equivalency determination'' by any affected source that previously obtained a case­ by­ case determination under CAA section 112( g). Under this proposal, those sources which submitted such requests earlier under the provisions of the existing rule need not resubmit them. However, we are also proposing that all requests for an equivalency determination, regardless of when they were submitted, will be construed in the alternative as a section 112( j) Part 2 application as well. The effect of this proposal will be to require that the permitting authority first make an equivalency determination. In the event of a negative determination, the permitting authority will then proceed to adopt a separate set of requirements pursuant to section 112( j). Under this proposal, this process will be completed in the same 18­ month period that applies to the processing of all other Part 2 applications. This proposal will assure that the deadline for submission of Part 2 applications will be the same for all affected sources within a category or subcategory, regardless of whether a source previously obtained a case­ bycase determination under section 112( g). We do not think this proposal imposes any new burden on sources or permitting authorities, because the permitting authority should already have all of the information required for a Part 2 application in any instance where it is already administering section 112( g) requirements applicable to the same source. D. Content of Part 2 Applications We are hopeful that no source will be required to submit a section 112( j) Part 2 application under the schedule we are proposing in this rulemaking. We also note that the Part 2 application requirements in the current section 112( j) rule are significantly narrower than the application requirements in the original section 112( j) rule. However, in the event that some Part 2 applications must ultimately be submitted, we think it is appropriate to give some additional guidance concerning the information they must contain and to request comment on a few related issues. We believe that an affected source submitting a Part 2 application may elect to rely directly on the content of the applicable proposed MACT standard in identifying affected emission points. We also think that applicants may reasonably limit the information they submit concerning HAP emissions to those specific HAP or groups of HAP which would be subject to actual control in the applicable proposed MACT standard. We encourage all section 112( j) Part 2 applicants to utilize the regulatory approach in the applicable proposed MACT standard as a practical template in compiling Part 2 applications. We also encourage applicants who have previously submitted to the permitting authority some of the information required in the Part 2 application to meet the requirements in question by crossreferencing such prior submissions. Moreover, although the submission by an affected source of a proposed caseby case MACT determination as part of its Part 2 application is entirely discretionary, we note that some industry representatives have stated that they would generally elect to include such information as a precautionary matter. While we do not seek to discourage this practice, we believe that the burden associated with inclusion of such information will not be significant in instances where a Federal MACT standard has already been proposed, the applicable proposed standard has already been evaluated by the facility, and the facility has already had an opportunity to comment on the applicable proposed standard. We also want to do whatever we can to minimize any unnecessary burdens associated with submission of a Part 2 application. We do not want to require the submission of any information which is not truly necessary to prepare for potential issuance of case­ by­ case MACT determinations. To that end, we are requesting comment on the approach outlined above and whether there may be other ways to minimize any unnecessary burden. We also request comments on the following specific questions. Does the applicant need to provide `` estimated total uncontrolled and controlled emission rates'' to enable the permitting authority to prepare for a potential case­ by­ case determination? If the applicant does not have the information required to provide meaningful estimates of emission rates, should new emission testing be required? Is it appropriate to require individual applicants to submit `` information relevant to establishing the MACT floor'' in their Part 2 applications? Are there any Part 2 application requirements which can be met simply by referring to the applicable proposed MACT standard? IV. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866, ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. We have determined that neither the proposed amendments to the General Provisions nor the proposed amendments to the section 112( j) rule are a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and this proposal was therefore 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 States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72886 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules These proposed amendments do not have Federalism implications under the terms of this Executive Order. We do not believe that the proposed changes in the General Provisions rule have any significant federalism implications. With respect to the alteration in the schedule for submission of section 112( j) Part 2 applications, we note that the CAA itself requires that State and local permitting authorities receive and process applications for case­ by­ case MACT determinations pursuant to section 112( j). This is one of the responsibilities that State and local permitting authorities have agreed to assume. We have tried to construe the statutory provisions in question in a manner that minimizes the burden on these agencies associated with this responsibility. We have determined that the proposed change in the schedule for submission of such applications does not itself have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nevertheless, in the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA, State, and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on these proposed amendments from State and local officials. C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' These proposed amendments to the General Provisions and the section 112( j) rule would not have tribal implications. They would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, or 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. There are currently no tribal governments that have approved title V permit programs to which sources would submit case­ by­ case permit applications under section 112( j). Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 would not apply to this action. 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA 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 that EPA considered. The EPA interprets 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. These amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are amending information collection requirements and do not affect health or safety risks. Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866. E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use These proposed amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are 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 on the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least­ costly, most costeffective 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 EPA to adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly most cost­ effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA's regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has determined that these proposed amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, in any 1 year. We do not expect annual expenditures by State, local and tribal governments in connection with implementation of these amendments to exceed $ 100 million. In any case, any obligation of State or local permitting authorities to take particular actions under these proposed amendments is not directly enforceable by a court of law, and any failure by a State or local permitting authority to meet such an obligation would at most result in a determination that the permitting authority is not adequately administering its permit program under CAA section 502( i). Thus, it can be argued that such obligations are not enforceable duties within the meaning of section 421( 5)( A)( i) of UMRA, 2 U. S. C. 658( 5)( A)( i). Moreover, even if such obligations were deemed to be enforceable duties, such duties might be viewed as falling within the exception for a condition of Federal assistance VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72887 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules under section 421( 5)( A)( i)( I), 2 U. S. C. 658( 5)( A)( i)( I). We have also determined that the proposed amendments will not result in expenditures by the private sector of $ 100 million in any 1 year. We fully expect to promulgate the remaining MACT standards on or near schedule, eliminating the need for sources to prepare and submit section 112( j) Part 2 applications. We recognize that some sources may choose to begin preparing the Part 2 application, but cannot estimate the total expenditures this would entail, although we believe it to be only a small fraction of the $ 100 million criterion. We also expect relatively few resubmissions of applicability determination requests. In any case, all such resubmissions will be done at the source's discretion, and we expect the aggregate expenditure on them to be small. Based on these determinations, today's proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, and 205 of the UMRA. G. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) as Amended by 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 proposed rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business as defined in each applicable subpart, as defined by the Small Business Administration; ( 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 forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that the proposed amendments to the General Provisions would not themselves cause any economic impacts on small entities. Rather, any economic impacts on small entities would be associated with the incorporation of specific elements of the General Provisions in the individual MACT standards which are promulgated for particular source categories. We believe that adoption of the proposed amendments will not lead to a substantial impact on small entities through the incorporation of the General Provisions in individual MACT standards. For most MACT standards, we anticipate that any affected facilities will not be small entities. For those MACT standards where small entities would be affected, we believe any economic impact will be minimal since the only specific action which may be required is the submission to the permitting authority of an existing document which has already been prepared and is on file at the source. We also have not prepared any regulatory flexibility analysis for the proposed amendments to the section 112( j) rule. At this time, we do not expect that any Part 2 applications will have to be submitted or case­ by­ case determinations will have to be made under section 112( j) and thus no small businesses would be affected by such determinations. 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 As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., the OMB must clear any reporting and recordkeeping requirements that qualify as an information collection request ( ICR) under the PRA. Approval of an ICR is not required in connection with the proposed amendments to the General Provisions rule. This is because the General Provisions do not themselves require any reporting and recordkeeping activities, and no ICR was submitted in connection with their original promulgation or their subsequent amendment. Any recordkeeping and reporting requirements are imposed only through the incorporation of specific elements of the General Provisions in the individual MACT standards which are promulgated for particular source categories. In any case, we believe that adoption of the proposed amendments will not materially alter the burden imposed on affected sources through the incorporation of the General Provisions in individual MACT standards. We anticipate that any incremental changes in the recordkeeping and reporting burden estimate for individual MACT standards will be addressed in the context of the periodic renewal process required by the PRA. Approval is also not required for the proposed amendments to the section 112( j) rule. We expect to promulgate all remaining MACT standards before the Part 2 application due dates associated with those standards ( see Table 1 of this preamble), which would eliminate the need for sources to submit the Part 2 application. Approval is also not necessary for resubmission of applicability determination requests. We expect there to be few resubmissions, and all of these will be entirely at the sources' discretion; the rule does not require submission or resubmission of such requests. Thus we do not project any recordkeeping or reporting burden to be incurred by sources as a result of these amendments. 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 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 EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Under section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995 ( Public Law No. 104 113), all Federal agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS) 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 requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1 72888 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. These proposed amendments do not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS. 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: December 3, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of 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. Subpart A [ Amended] 2. Section 63.6 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph ( e)( 1)( i); b. Adding 6 sentences to the beginning of paragraph ( e)( 3)( v); and c. Revising the introductory text to paragraph ( e)( 3)( vii). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.6 Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements. * * * * * ( e) * * * ( 1)( i) At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, owners or operators must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions to the levels required by the relevant standards. Determination of whether acceptable operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures ( including the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required in paragraph ( e)( 3) of this section), review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. * * * * * ( 3) * * * ( v) The owner or operator must submit to the Administrator a copy of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan at the time it is first adopted. The owner or operator must also submit to the Administrator a copy of any subsequent revisions of the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Such revisions must be submitted at the time they are adopted if the revisions are required in order to adequately address an event involving a type of malfunction not included in the plan, or the revisions alter the scope of the activities at the source which are deemed to be a startup, shutdown, or malfunction, or otherwise modify the applicability of any emission limit, work practice requirement, or other requirement in a standard established under this part. All other revisions to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan may be submitted with the semiannual report required by § 63.10( d)( 5). The owner or operator may elect to submit the required copy of the initial startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, and of all subsequent revisions to the plan, in an electronic format. If the owner or operator claims that any portion of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, or any revision of the plan, submitted to the Administrator is confidential business information entitled to protection under section 114( c) of the CAA or 40 CFR 2.301, the material which is claimed as confidential must be clearly designated in the submission. * * * * * * * * ( vii) Based on the results of a determination made under paragraph ( e)( 1)( i) of this section, the Administrator may require that an owner or operator of an affected source make changes to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan for that source. The Administrator must require appropriate revisions to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, if the Administrator finds that the plan: * * * * * 3. Section 63.10 is amended by revising the second sentence of paragraph ( d)( 5)( i) to read as follows: § 63.10 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. * * * * * ( d) * * * ( 5)( i) * * * Reports shall only be required if a startup, shutdown, or malfunction occurred during the reporting period, and they must include the number, duration, and a brief description of each malfunction. * * * * * * * * [ FR Doc. 02 31012 Filed 12 6 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [ FRL 7393 3] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Industrial Latex Corp. Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Region II Office announces its intent to delete the Industrial Latex Corp. Superfund Site from the National Priorities List ( NPL) and requests public comment on this action. The Industrial Latex site is located in the Borough of Wallington, Bergen County, New Jersey. The NPL constitutes appendix B to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ( NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the State of New Jersey, through the Department of Environmental Protection, have determined that all appropriate remedial actions have been completed at the Industrial Latex site and no further fund­ financed remedial action is appropriate under CERCLA. In addition, EPA and the State of New Jersey have determined that the remedial actions taken at the Industrial Latex site protect public health and the environment without any further monitoring or restriction. DATES: The EPA will accept comments concerning its intent to delete on or before January 8, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to: Stephanie Vaughn, Remedial Project Manager, New Jersey Remediation Branch, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor New York, New York 10007 1866. Comprehensive information on the Industrial Latex site is contained in the Administrative Record and is available for viewing, by appointment only, at: U. S. EPA Records Center, 290 Broadway 18th Floor, New York, New York 10007 1866. Hours: 9 a. m. to 5 p. m. Monday through Friday. Contact the Records Center at ( 212) 637 4308. Information on the Site is also available for viewing at the Information VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 15: 06 Dec 06, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09DEP1. SGM 09DEP1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.016521

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0039-0001

Proposed Rule

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Taconite Iron Ore Processing.

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Taconite Iron Ore Processing; Proposed Rule VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77562 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039; FRL 7417 1] RIN 2060 AJ02 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Taconite Iron Ore Processing AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for taconite iron ore processing plants. The EPA has identified taconite iron ore processing plants as a major source of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions. These proposed standards will implement section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). The HAP emitted by plants in the taconite iron ore processing source category include metal compounds ( primarily manganese, arsenic, lead, nickel, and chromium), products of incomplete combustion ( primarily formaldehyde), and acid gases ( hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid). Exposure of these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects, including chronic and acute disorders of the blood, heart, kidneys, liver, reproductive system, respiratory system, and central nervous system. Some of these pollutants are considered to be carcinogens. DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 18, 2003. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 7, 2003, a public hearing will be held on January 17, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Send comments ( in duplicate, if possible) to: Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket), U. S. EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, Room B108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC beginning at 10 a. m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Conrad Chin, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division ( C439 02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 1512, electronic mail address: chin. conrad@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities Category NAICS* Example of regulated entities Taconite Iron Ore Processing Facilities ...... 21221 Taconite Iron Ore Processing Facilities [ taconite ore crushing and handling operations, indurating furnaces, finished pellet handling operations, and ore dryers]. * North American Information Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your plant is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.9581 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Docket The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing in the Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP Docket at the EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket), EPA West, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Docket Center is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. Electronic Access An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or review public comments, access the index of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. Information claimed as confidential business information ( CBI) and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in this document. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. Comments You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77563 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. Electronically If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e­ mail) to air­ and­ rdocket epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your e­ mail address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in this document. These electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. By Mail Send your comments ( in duplicate, if possible) to: Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket), U. S. EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, Room B108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039. By Hand Delivery or Courier Deliver your comments ( in duplicate, if possible) to: EPA Docket Center, U. S. EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Center's normal hours of operation as identified in this document. By Facsimile Fax your comments to: ( 202) 566 1741, Attention Taconite Iron Ore Processing NESHAP Docket, Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039. CBI Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404 02), U. S. EPA, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Public Hearing Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Cassie Posey, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division ( C439 02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 0069, in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Cassie Posey 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. Worldwide Web ( WWW) In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed 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. 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 Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? C. What Source Category Is Affected by This Proposed Rule? D. What Processes Are Used at Taconite Iron Ore Processing Plants? E. What HAP Are Emitted and How Are They Controlled? F. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From Taconite Iron Ore Processing Plants? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points? B. What Are the Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards? C. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements? D. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements? E. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements? F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? G. What Are the Compliance Deadlines? III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Affected Sources? B. How Did We Select the Pollutants? C. How Did We Determine the Bases and Levels of the Proposed Standards? D. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements? E. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements? F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts? B. What Are the Cost Impacts? VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 23 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77564 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules 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. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 F. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. et seq. G. Paperwork Reduction Act H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects 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. The category of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP, Taconite Iron Ore Processing, was listed on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576). 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 Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing 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 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 subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled 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 bestperforming 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 health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. C. What Source Category Is Affected by This Proposed Rule? Section 112( c) of the CAA requires us to list all categories of major and area sources of HAP for which we will develop national emission standards. We published the initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576). `` Taconite Iron Ore Processing'' is one of the source categories on the initial list. The listing was based on our determination that taconite iron ore processing plants may reasonably be anticipated to emit a variety of HAP listed in section 112( b) in quantities sufficient to be major sources. A taconite iron ore processing plant separates and concentrates iron ore from taconite, a low­ grade iron ore, and produces taconite pellets, which are approximately 60 percent iron. The taconite iron ore processing source category includes, but is not limited to, ore crushing and handling units, ore dryers, indurating furnaces, and finished pellet handling units. At present, taconite iron ore pellets are produced at eight plant sites in the U. S.; six plants are in Minnesota and two plants are in Michigan. D. What Processes Are Used at Taconite Iron Ore Processing Plants? Taconite iron ore processing includes crushing and handling of the crude ore; concentrating ( milling, magnetic separation, chemical flotation, etc.); agglomerating ( dewatering, drying, and balling); indurating; and finished pellet handling. The main processes of interest because of their potential to generate HAP emissions include ore crushing and handling, ore drying, indurating, and finished pellet handling. Taconite ore is obtained from the ground using a strip mining process. First, millions of tons of surface material and rock are removed to expose the taconite ore­ bearing rock layers. Next, the taconite ore is blasted, scooped up with large cranes with shovels, and loaded into transport vehicles such as 240­ ton haulage trucks or railcars. The transport vehicles move the ore from the mine to the primary crushers. At most plants the mine is located adjacent to the ore processing plant. However, at a few plants the mine and the ore processing plant are miles apart. In these cases, the taconite ore is loaded onto railcars and transported by train to the processing plant. The ore crushing process begins where the taconite ore from the mine is dumped from trucks or railcars into the primary crusher or into feed stockpiles for the primary crusher. The ore is drycrushed in one to four stages depending on the hardness of the ore. Gyratory cone crushers are generally used for all stages of crushing. Primary crushing reduces the crude ore from run­ of­ mine size to a size about six inches in diameter, while fine crushing further reduces the material to a size about 3 4 of an inch in diameter. Intermediate vibratory screens remove the undersized material from the feed before it enters the next crusher. Dry ore crushing and handling also includes a number of conveying and transfer points as the ore is moved from one crushing stage to the next. After it is adequately crushed, the ore is conveyed to large ore storage bins at the concentrator building. In the concentrator building, water is typically added to the ore as it is conveyed into rod and ball mills which further grind the taconite ore to the consistency of coarse beach sand. A rod/ ball mill is a large horizontal cylinder that rotates on its horizontal axis and is charged with heavy steel rods or balls and the taconite ore/ water slurry. As the rods/ balls tumble inside the mill, they grind the ore into finer particles. In a subsequent process step, taconite ore is separated from the waste rock material using a magnetic separation process. During magnetic separation, a series of magnetized cylinders rotate while submerged in the taconite iron ore slurry. The iron­ bearing taconite particles adhere to the magnetized cylinder surface and are collected as a iron­ rich slurry. The iron content of the slurry is further increased using a combination of hydraulic concentration ( gravity settling) and chemical flotation. Since the concentrating processes are completely wet operations, any potential particulate or HAP metal emissions are suppressed. However, there are exceptions, such as one plant that conducts dry cobbing ( a dry magnetic separation process) instead of a wet magnetic separation process. The concentrated taconite slurry then enters the agglomerating process. Water is typically removed from the taconite slurry using vacuum disk filters or similar equipment. One plant, which VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 23 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77565 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules processes a finer grained ore, uses rotary dryers after the disc filters to dry the ore further. These dryers are rotary dryers, which repeatedly tumble the wet ore concentrate through a heated air stream to reduce the amount of entrained moisture in the ore. Next, the taconite is mixed with various binding agents such as bentonite or dolomite in a balling drum which tumbles and rolls the taconite into unfired pellets. When the unfired pellets exit the balling drum, they are transferred to a metal grate that conveys them to the furnace. Once the pellets exit the balling drum they are relatively dry and, therefore, have the potential to emit particulate HAP. During the indurating process, the unfired taconite pellets are hardened and oxidized in the indurating furnace at a fusion temperature between 2,290 to 2,550 ° F. Two types of indurating furnaces are currently used within this source category: straight grate furnaces and grate kiln furnaces. The indurating furnace process begins at the point where the grate feed conveyor discharges the unfired pellets onto the furnace traveling grate and ends where the hardened pellets exit the indurating furnace cooler. In straight grate indurating furnaces, a continuous bed of unfired pellets is carried on a metal grate through different furnace temperature zones. Each zone will have either a heated upward draft or downward draft blown through the pellets. A layer of fired pellets is placed on the metal grate prior to the addition of unfired pellets. This hearth­ layer allows for even airflow through the pellet bed and acts as a buffer between the metal grate and the exothermic heat generated from the oxidation of taconite pellets in the indurating stage. Before the pellets can be oxidized, all remaining moisture is driven off in the first two stages of the furnace, the updraft and downdraft drying zones. Unfired pellets must be heated gradually; otherwise, moisture in the unfired pellets expands too quickly and causes the pellets to explode. After they are dried, the pellets enter a preheat zone of the furnace where the temperature is gradually increased for the indurating stage. The next zone is the actual firing zone for induration, where the pellets are exposed to the highest temperature. The fired pellets then enter the post­ firing zone, where the oxidation process is completed. Finally, the pellets are cooled by the intake of ambient air typically in two stages of cooling. A unique characteristic of straight grate furnaces is that approximately 30 percent of the fired pellets are recycled to the feed end of the furnace for use as the hearth layer. The remaining pellets are transported by conveyor belts to storage areas. Waste gases from the straight grate furnace are discharged primarily through two ducts: the hood exhaust, which handles the cooling and drying gases; and the windbox exhaust, which handles the preheat, firing, and afterfiring gases. For a typical straight grate furnace, the two discharge ducts are combined into one common header before the flow is divided into several ducts to be exhausted to the atmosphere after control. The grate kiln indurating furnace system consists of a traveling grate, a rotary kiln, and an annular cooler. The grate kiln system represents a newer generation of indurating furnaces and is widely used by the taconite plants. As with the straight grate furnace system, the grate kiln system is also a counterflow heat exchanger, with the unfired pellets and indurated pellets moving in a direction opposite to that of the process gas flow. A six­ inch bed of unfired pellets is laid on a continuously moving, horizontal grate. The traveling grate carries the unfired pellets into a dryer/ preheater that resembles a large rectangular oven. In the first half of the traveling grate, unfired pellets are gradually dried by hot air at a temperature of 700 ° F. The second half of the traveling grate is called the preheater, where the unfired pellets are heated to a temperature of 2,000 ° F prior to dropping into the rotary kiln furnace. Pellets are discharged from the traveling grate and into the rotary kiln. Final indurating of the pellets occurs in the kiln as the pellets tumble down the rotating kiln. The rotary kiln typically operates at a temperature of 2,300 to 2,400 ° F to ensure that the kiln oxidizes the iron pellets from a magnetite structure into a hematite structure. The hardened pellets are then discharged to a large annular­ shaped cooler, which is an integral part of an elaborate energy recuperation system. The fired pellets discharged from the kiln first enter the primary cooling zone of the annular cooler, where ambient air is brought in to cool the pellets in a counter­ current flow. After the pellets heat the ambient air to approximately 2,000 ° F, it is then used as preheated combustion air in the rotary kiln. As the cooled pellets enter a final cooling zone, additional ambient air is used to cool the pellets further. Air exiting the final cooling zone is heated to approximately 1,000 ° F and is used to maintain the temperature in the dryer section of the traveling grate. Pellets exiting the final cooling zone are cooled to an average temperature of 175 to 225 ° F. Combustion air from the rotary kiln, which is approximately 2,000 ° F, is used to maintain the temperature in the preheat section of the traveling grate. Pellet cooler vent stacks are atmospheric vents in the cooler section of a grate kiln indurating furnace. Pellet cooler vent stacks exhaust cooling air that is not returned for heat recuperation. Straight grate furnaces do not have pellet cooler vent stacks. The pellet cooler vent stack should not be confused with the cooler discharge stack, which is in the pellet loadout or dumping area. New grate kiln furnace designs eliminate the cooler vent stack by recirculating the air through the furnace. The finished pellet handling process begins where the fired taconite pellets exit the indurating furnace cooler ( i. e., pellet loadout) and ends at the finished pellet stockpile. Operations include finished pellet screening, transfer, and storage. E. What HAP Are Emitted and How Are They Controlled? Ore crushing and handling, ore drying, and finished pellet handling are all potentially significant points of particulate matter ( PM) emissions. In addition, because taconite ore inherently contains trace metals, such as manganese, chromium, cobalt, arsenic, and lead, they are also emitters of HAP metal compounds. Manganese compounds are the predominate metal HAP emitted from ore crushing and handling, ore drying, and finished pellet handling, accounting for 10 tons/ year. All other metal HAP compounds are emitted from ore crushing and handling, ore drying, and finished pellet handling at rates of less than 0.1 tons per year. Approximately 70 percent of the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling units control PM emissions with wet scrubbers, such as venturi scrubbers, marble bed scrubbers, or impingement scrubbers. The remaining units control PM emissions with baghouses, low energy scrubbers ( i. e., rotoclones), multiclones, and electrostatic precipitators ( ESP). The two ore dryers are controlled by cyclones and impingement scrubbers in series. The indurating furnaces are the most significant sources of HAP emissions, accounting for about 99 percent of the total HAP emissions from the taconite iron ore processing source category. Three types of HAP are emitted from the waste gas stacks of indurating furnaces. The first type of HAP is metallic HAP existing as a portion of particulate emissions from the taconite ore or fuel ( such as coal) fed into the furnaces. Manganese and arsenic compounds are VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77566 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules the predominate metal HAP emitted by indurating furnaces ( approximately 5.8 and 6.5 tons/ year, respectively, for the industry); chromium, lead, and nickel compounds are emitted in smaller amounts ( each approximately between 2 to 5 tons/ year for the industry); and antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, mercury, and selenium compounds are emitted in yet smaller amounts ( each approximately less than 1 ton/ year for the industry). The second type of HAP is organic HAP resulting as products of incomplete combustion, primarily formaldehyde. Emissions test data from indurating furnaces confirm the presence of formaldehyde. The third type of HAP is acidic gases, such as hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid. Fluorine and chlorine compounds in the raw materials are liberated during the indurating process and combine with moisture in the exhaust to form hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid. Both formaldehyde and the acid gases are present in exhaust gas from the indurating furnace stacks at concentrations around a few parts per million ( ppm). Formaldehyde emissions from the entire industry are estimated to be 181 tons/ year. Total emissions of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride are approximately 349 and 308 tons/ year, respectively. Emissions from the indurating furnace stacks are typically controlled with either a venturi wet scrubber or an ESP. One indurating furnace controls emissions with a multiclone and another furnace controls emissions with a gravity collector. F. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From Taconite Iron Ore Processing Plants? As previously mentioned in this preamble, there are a variety of metal HAP contained in the PM emitted from taconite iron ore processing. These include primarily manganese and arsenic compounds, with smaller quantities of lead, nickel and chromium compounds. Antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, mercury, and selenium compounds are emitted in yet smaller amounts. Other HAP, such as formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, and hydrofluoric acid, are present in the waste gas stream from the indurating furnace pelletizing stacks on the order of ppm. Manganese and arsenic compounds comprise the majority of the metal HAP emissions. Adverse health effects in humans have been associated with manganese dietary deficiencies and excessive exposure to manganese. Chronic exposure to low levels of manganese in the diet is considered to be nutritionally essential in humans, with a recommended daily allowance of 2 to 5 milligrams per day. Chronic exposure to high levels of manganese by inhalation in humans results primarily in central nervous system effects. Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, and eyehand coordination were affected in chronically­ exposed workers. Manganism, characterized by feelings of weakness and lethargy, tremors, a masklike face, and psychological disturbances, may result from chronic exposure to higher levels. Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in male workers afflicted with manganism attributed to inhalation exposures. We have classified manganese in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans. Arsenic can be toxic in humans. Acute inhalation exposure to arsenic causes gastrointestinal effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, hemolysis, and central nervous system disorders. Chronic inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic is associated with irritation of the skin and mucous membranes and is strongly associated with lung cancer. We have classified inorganic arsenic as a Group A, a known human carcinogen of high carcinogenic hazard. Exposure to formaldehyde can result in irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. We have classified formaldehyde as a Group B1, probable human carcinogen of medium carcinogenic hazard. Acute exposure to the acid gases can cause severe respiratory damage in humans including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Chronic exposure to hydrochloric acid has been reported to cause gastritis, chronic bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Chronic exposure to low levels of fluoride has a beneficial effect of dental cavity prevention and may be helpful in the treatment of osteoporosis. However, exposure to higher levels of hydrochloric or hydrofluoric acid may cause dental discoloration and erosion. In addition to HAP, the proposed rule would also reduce PM emissions, which are controlled under national ambient air quality standards. Emissions of PM have been associated with aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease and increased risk of premature death. We recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health experienced by exposed individuals can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the health effects may be experienced depend on: Pollutant­ specific characteristics ( e. g., toxicity, half­ life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence); The ambient concentrations observed in the area ( e. g., as influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); The frequency and duration of exposures; and Characteristics of exposed individuals ( e. g., genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary significantly within the general population. II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points? The proposed rule would affect eight plants engaged in the processing of taconite iron ore ( six plants in Minnesota and two plants in Michigan). The affected sources within each plant include ore crushing and handling, ore dryers, indurating furnaces, and finished pellet handling. The ore crushing and handling affected source includes the collection of all new and existing ore crushing and handling emission units including all primary, secondary, and tertiary crushers; associated screens, conveyors, storage bins and piles; transfer points; and grate feed. The ore dryer affected source includes each new or existing individual ore dryer. The indurating furnace affected source includes each new or existing individual indurating furnace. The finished pellet handling affected source includes the collection of all new and existing pellet handling emission units including all pellet screens, conveyors, storage bins, piles, and transfer points. An existing affected source is one constructed or reconstructed on or before December 18, 2002. A new affected source is one constructed or reconstructed after December 18, 2002. B. What Are the Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards? The proposed rule includes PM emission limits, work practice standards, and operating limits for control devices. Particulate matter serves as a surrogate measure of metallic HAP emissions. The proposed PM emissions limits for ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling operations are 0.008 grains per dry standard cubic foot ( gr/ dscf) for existing sources and 0.005 gr/ dscf for new sources. Compliance with the proposed PM emissions limits for ore crushing and handling are determined based on the flow­ weighted mean concentration of emissions for all ore crushing and handling units at the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77567 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules plant. Similarly, compliance with the proposed PM emissions limits for finished pellet handling are determined based on the flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions for all pellet handling units at the plant. The proposed rule would establish PM emission limits that must be achieved by each individual ore dryer. The proposed emission limit is 0.052 gr/ dscf for existing dryers and 0.025 gr/ dscf for new dryers. Ore dryers with multiple stacks would calculate their PM emissions as a flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions from all stacks. The proposed rule would establish PM emission limits that must be achieved by each individual indurating furnace. Indurating furnaces with multiple stacks would calculate their PM emissions as a flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions from all stacks. For each straight grate indurating furnace processing magnetite, the proposed emissions limit is 0.010 gr/ dscf for existing straight grate furnaces and 0.006 gr/ dscf for new straight grate furnaces. For each grate kiln indurating furnace processing magnetite, the proposed emissions limit is 0.011 gr/ dscf for existing grate kiln furnaces and 0.006 gr/ dscf for new grate kiln furnaces. For each grate kiln indurating furnace processing hematite, the proposed emissions limit is 0.025 gr/ dscf for existing grate kiln furnaces and 0.018 gr/ dscf for new grate kiln furnaces. The proposed rule also includes specific requirements for continuous parameter monitoring and associated operating limits for baghouses, wet scrubbers, and dry ESP. Baghouses are to be equipped with a bag leak detection system ( BLDS) capable of monitoring relative changes in PM loading in the baghouse exhaust, which is to alarm whenever a predetermined set point is exceeded, indicating an increase in emissions above that allowed at the set point. The proposed rule would limit the frequency and duration of alarms to no more than 5 percent of a source's total operating time in any semiannual reporting period. In the case of wet scrubbers, sources would be required to continuously monitor scrubber pressure drop and water flow rate and operate at all times at or above specified hourly average values established during initial performance testing. For dry ESP, sources would be required to install and operate continuous opacity monitoring systems ( COMS). Each source must report as a deviation any 6­ minute period during which the average opacity exceeds the opacity value corresponding to the 99 percent upper confidence level established during the performance test. The proposed rule would require sources to submit information on alternative monitoring parameters and operating limits if a control device other than a baghouse, wet scrubber, or dry ESP is used. All plants subject to the proposed rule would be required to prepare and implement a written fugitive dust emissions control plan. The plan would describe in detail the measures that will be put in place to control fugitive dust emissions from the following sources at a plant, as applicable: stockpiles, material transfer points, plant roadways, tailings basin, pellet loading areas and yard areas. Existing fugitive dust emission control plans that describe current measures to control fugitive dust emission sources that have been approved as part of a State implementation plan or title V permit would be acceptable, provided they address the prior­ listed fugitive dust emission sources. C. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements? All plants subject to the proposed rule would be required to prepare and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.6( e) of the NESHAP General Provisions. In addition, a written operation and maintenance plan is also required for each control device subject to an operating limit. This plan must describe procedures for the inspection and preventative maintenance of control devices, as well as corrective action requirements specific to baghouses equipped with bag leak detection systems. In the event of a bag leak detection system alarm, the plan must include specific requirements for initiating corrective action to determine the cause of the problem within 1 hour, initiating corrective action to fix the problem within 24 hours, and completing all corrective actions needed to fix the problem as soon as practicable. D. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements? To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for the ore crushing and handling affected source, the flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. Similarly, for the finished pellet handling affected source, the flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. In all cases, initial compliance must be demonstrated through a performance test. The performance test must be conducted using EPA Method 5 or 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. All initial compliance tests must be completed no later than 2 years following the compliance date. In lieu of conducting performance tests for all emission units, the plant may elect to group similar emission units together and conduct initial performance tests on a representative sample of units within each group. Each plant must submit a testing plan to the permitting authority for approval. The testing plan must identify the emission units that will be grouped as similar, identify the representative unit( s) that will be tested for each group, and the proposed schedule for testing. To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for each indurating furnace and each ore dryer, the flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions of all stacks for each furnace or each ore dryer must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. Initial compliance must be demonstrated through an initial performance test. The performance test must be conducted using EPA Method 5 or 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The initial compliance test for each indurating furnace and each ore dryer must be completed no later than 180 calendar days after the compliance date. For indurating furnaces and ore dryers with multiple stacks, all stacks for the indurating furnace or ore dryer must be tested simultaneously. The proposed rule would also require that certain operating limits on control devices be established during the initial compliance test to ensure that control devices operate properly on a continuing basis. All operating limits must be established during a performance test that demonstrates compliance with the applicable emission limit. During the initial compliance tests, operating limits must be established for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate for all wet scrubbers, and opacity ( using a COMS) for dry ESP. To demonstrate initial compliance with the proposed work practice standards, plants would prepare, submit, and implement a fugitive dust emission control plan on or before the applicable compliance date as specified in § 63.9583 of the proposed rule. To demonstrate initial compliance with the proposed operation and maintenance requirements, plants would certify in their notification of compliance status that they have prepared the written VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77568 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules plans and will operate control devices according to the procedures in the plan. E. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements? For ore crushing and handling, ore dryers and finished pellet handling units, the proposed rule would require plants to conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate continued compliance with the PM emission limits following the schedule established in the title V permit for each plant. If a title V permit has not been issued, the plant must submit a testing plan and schedule to the permitting authority for approval. For each indurating furnace, the proposed rule would require subsequent testing of all stacks based on the schedule established in each plant's title V operating permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5­ year permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued, then the plant must submit a testing plan and schedule to the permitting authority for approval. The testing frequency in the testing plan must be no less frequent than twice per 5­ year period. Plants are required to monitor operating parameters for control devices subject to operating limits and carry out the procedures in their fugitive dust emissions control plan and their operation and maintenance plan. To demonstrate continuous compliance, plants must keep records documenting compliance with the rule requirements for monitoring, the fugitive dust emissions control plan, the operation and maintenance plan, and installation, operation, and maintenance of a continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS). For baghouses, plants are required to monitor the relative change in PM loading using a bag leak detection system and make inspections at specified intervals. The bag leak detection system must be installed and operated according to the EPA guidance document `` Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA 454/ R 98 015, September 1997. The document is available on the TTN at http: www. epa. gov/ ttnemc01/ cem/ tribo. pdf. If the system does not work based on the triboelectric effect, it must be installed and operated in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. The basic inspection requirements include daily, weekly, monthly, or quarterly inspections of specified parameters or mechanisms with monitoring of bag cleaning cycles by an appropriate method. To demonstrate continuous compliance, the proposed rule would require records of bag leak detection system alarms and records documenting conformance with the operation and maintenance plan, as well as the inspection and maintenance procedures. For scrubbers, plants would be required to use a CPMS to measure and record the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate. To demonstrate continuous compliance, plants would keep records documenting conformance with the monitoring requirements and the installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for the CPMS. For dry ESP, plants are required to use a COMS to measure and record the average hourly opacity of emissions exiting each stack of the control device. Plants must operate and maintain the COMS according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 of the NESHAP General Provisions and Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. These requirements include a quality control program that consists of a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero alignment. F. What are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? The proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are based on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. Table 2 of the proposed rule lists each of the requirements in the General Provisions ( § § 63.2 through 63.15) with an indication of whether they do or do not apply. The plant owner or operator is required to submit each initial notification required in the NESHAP General Provisions that applies to their plant. These include an initial notification of applicability with general information about the plant and notifications of performance tests and compliance status. Plants are required to maintain the records required by the NESHAP General Provisions that are necessary to document compliance, such as performance test results; copies of startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans and associated corrective action records; monitoring data; and inspection records. Except for the operation and maintenance plan for control devices, the fugitive dust emissions control plan, and the testing plan, all records must be kept for a total of 5 years, with the records from the most recent 2 years kept onsite. The proposed rule would require that the operation and maintenance plan for control devices subject to an operating limit, the fugitive dust emissions control plan, and the testing plan, be kept onsite and available for inspection upon request for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the rule requirements. Semiannual reports are required for any deviation from an emission limitation, including an operating limit. Each report is due no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period. If no deviation occurred, only a summary report is required. If a deviation did occur, more detailed information is required. An immediate report is required if there were actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that were not consistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and the source exceeded its emission limit. Deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if the owner or operator demonstrates to the authority with delegation for enforcement that the source was operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Plants must also submit the fugitive dust emissions control plan, testing plan, and all operation and maintenance plans on or before the applicable compliance date to the Administrator or delegated authority. G. What are the Compliance Deadlines? The owner or operator of an existing affected source must comply within [ DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. New or reconstructed sources that startup on or before the effective date of the final rule must comply by the effective date of the final rule. New or reconstructed sources that startup after the effective date of the final rule must comply upon initial startup. III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Affected Sources? An affected source is the collection of equipment, processes and activities within a source category to which an emission limitation, work practice standard, or other regulatory requirement in a MACT standard will apply. Depending on circumstance, we have adopted broader or narrower definitions of affected source. In some instances, we have adopted a definition as broad as all processes, equipment and activities at a source, while in other instances, we have defined affected source as narrowly as a single piece of equipment. The selection of affected VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 23 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77569 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules source is guided by the consideration of many factors including similarities and dissimilarities in emission units in terms of their size, type, and HAP emissions potential; the functional relationship of an emission unit or grouping of units within a plant or process; and the effect of an affected source definition on when and where new source MACT should apply. We considered three different approaches for designating the affected source: the entire taconite iron ore processing plant, groups of emission points, and individual emission points. In selecting the affected sources for regulation, we identified each HAPemitting operation, the HAP emitted, and the quantity of HAP emissions from individual or groups of emissions points. We determined that establishing the entire plant as the affected source does not take into account differences in the quantity and types of HAP emitted by different processing operations. We also determined that establishing each individual emission point as the affected source does not take advantage of similarities among certain processing operations. We concluded that the most appropriate approach is to designate the group of emission points associated with each major process area as an affected source. The resulting affected sources are ore crushing and handling operations, each indurating furnace, finished pellet handling operations, and each ore dryer. As previously mentioned, the term affected source is used primarily as a means of specifying what equipment or activities would be affected by the proposed standards. In addition, the term affected source serves to define where new source MACT applies. Specifically, the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 define the terms `` construction'' and `` reconstruction'' with reference to the term affected source and provide that new source MACT applies when construction and reconstruction occur. When establishing the affected sources for these proposed standards, we recognized that selecting a narrow definition of affected source ( e. g., each crusher, conveyor, and bin) would cause new source MACT requirements to be triggered more frequently than if the affected source were defined as a collection of equipment ( e. g., all ore crushing and handling emission units). We do not believe that the replacement of an individual emission unit that is part of a larger integrated process should trigger new source MACT. Therefore, we established affected sources for ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling that represent collections of equipment, rather than individual units. During the development of the affected source definitions, we considered combining the two affected sources into one due to similarities in emission characteristics and controls. However, we decided not to do so due to differences in the physical location and organization of the units. Specifically, ore crushing handling units are located upstream of the indurating furnace, and the finished pellet handling units are located downstream of the indurating furnace. As a result, the grouping of units that comprised the affected sources are typically located in different buildings at different parts of the plant. In addition, ore crushing handling units are organized with respect to the crushing lines, whereas finished pellet handling units are organized with respect to the indurating furnace lines. The ore crushing and handling affected source consists of the collection of equipment and operations needed to produce crushed ore suitable for processing into green pellets. Emission units include ore crushers ( primary, secondary, and tertiary), screens, conveyors, storage bins, and transfer points. The ore crushing and handling affected source begins where crude taconite iron ore is dumped into the primary crusher and ends where the unfired ( green) pellets enter the indurating furnace. We grouped all of these emission units into the one affected source based on their functional relationship, the similarity of their HAP emission characteristics, and the considerations for new source MACT stated above. The only HAP emitted from these units are metallic HAP, primarily manganese. We compared the outlet PM concentrations for the different types of emission units ( i. e., crushers, conveyors, bins, screens, and transfer points) and crushing stage ( primary, secondary, and tertiary) and observed no discernable difference in emissions. In addition, grouping all the ore crushing and handling emission units into one affected source will allow sources more flexibility in developing control strategies for achieving compliance. All wet process operations, including wet milling, magnetic separation, hydraulic separation, chemical flotation, and concentrate thickening in the concentrator area, and vacuum disk filters and balling drums in the pelletizing area, are excluded from the rule because the water effectively suppresses all emissions from these operations. Operations associated with the handling of limestone/ dolomite and bentonite are also excluded since they produce no HAP emissions. The finished pellet handling affected source consists of the following emission units: conveyors, storage bins, screens, and transfer points. The finished pellet handling affected source begins at the indurating furnace discharge and ends where the finished pellets are stockpiled. We grouped all of these emission units into the finished pellet handling affected source based on the similarity of their HAP emission characteristics and process equipment type. The only HAP emitted by these units are metallic HAP, primarily manganese. We compared the outlet PM concentrations for the different types of emission units ( i. e., conveyors, bins, screens, and transfer points) and observed no discernable difference in emissions. Therefore, we do not believe that subcategorization of the finished pellet handling affected source is warranted. Unlike the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling affected sources, we have selected a narrower definition of affected source for indurating furnaces by defining the affected source as each individual furnace, rather than the collection of indurating furnaces at a particular plant. We defined each indurating furnace as a separate affected source because furnaces are independent emission units. As independent emission units, each indurating furnace has it own dedicated emission controls. In contrast, emissions from several ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling process units are often combined and vented to a shared control device. In addition, since the indurating furnaces are the most significant source of HAP emissions, we wanted all new indurating furnaces to be subject to new source MACT. The indurating furnace affected source includes any furnace, including both straight grate and grate kiln designs, in which green pellets are hardened by firing to a high temperature of between 2,200 to 2,500 ° F. The indurating furnace begins at the point where the grate feed conveyor discharges green pellets onto the furnace traveling grate and ends where the hardened pellets exit the finished pellet cooler. Unlike ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling units, indurating furnaces are combustion sources, and as such, emit substantially more HAP. In addition to emitting metallic HAP, indurating furnaces emit acid gases ( HCl and HF) and products of incomplete combustion ( primarily formaldehyde). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77570 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules We are establishing subcategories within the indurating furnace affected source to distinguish between the two types of furnace designs grate kiln and straight grate. We have determined that grate kiln furnaces are higher emitting sources than straight grate furnaces due to physical and operational differences that affect emissions and the controllability of emissions. First, the grate kiln furnaces are larger than straight grate units with annual production rates approximately 30 percent higher than that of the straight grate furnaces. Second, the grate kiln furnaces are composed of two furnace sections, a continuous grate followed by a rotary kiln, while the straight grate furnaces include only a continuous grate. In the grate kiln, the pellets drop off a conveyor into the kiln and then tumble in the kiln as it rotates. As a result, there is substantially more disturbance of the pellets in the grate kiln furnace which contributes to an increase in pellet breakage and in the entrainment of particles in the air stream and causing higher PM loadings and HAP emissions. In addition, the average volume of air flowing through a grate kiln furnace is more than twice the average volume of air flowing through a straight grate furnace. The greater air flow in grate kilns causes more entrainment of particles in the air stream, causing higher exhaust gas PM loadings and HAP emissions. Available test data show that, when processing magnetite ore, PM loadings for grate kilns are twice that of straight grate furnaces. Because grate kiln furnaces and straight grate furnaces have unique physical and operational differences that affect emissions and the controllability of emissions, we have subcategorized based on furnace type. We have also concluded that, within the grate kiln furnace subcategory, higher PM emissions are observed when hematite ore is processed rather than magnetite ore. For example, PM emissions for one furnace were measured at 0.004 gr/ dscf when the furnace was processing magnetite. When the same furnace was processing hematite, the PM emissions were measured at 0.018 gr/ dscf. Contributing factors to the higher emissions include the fact that the hematite ore pellets are finer grained and subject to a higher breakage rate. As a result of the higher inlet PM loading, the controlled outlet PM emissions are higher when processing hematite than when processing magnetite. Therefore, to account for this difference in emissions, we are making a distinction on the basis of ore type within grate kilns. There are only two grate kiln furnaces that process hematite. Both of these indurating furnaces are located at the same plant in Michigan. These furnaces process hematite approximately eight months of the year and process magnetite the remainder of the year. There are no straight grate indurating furnaces processing hematite. Emissions from cooler vent stacks are excluded from the indurating furnace affected source based on the large size of the particles and the relatively low concentration of particulate emissions. Test data indicate that PM emissions from cooler vent stacks are primarily coarse PM with 80 percent of the PM larger than 50 microns and only less than 1 percent smaller than 10 microns. Uncontrolled PM emissions from cooler vent stacks are typically around 0.04 gr/ dscf. Cooler vent stacks are currently not controlled at any of the existing taconite plants. In Minnesota, cooler vent stacks are subject to the State's requirements that limit the PM concentrations based on volumetric flow rate. Based on typical volumetric flow rates in cooler vent stacks, the Industrial Process Equipment Rule ( IPER) limit values range from 0.04 to 0.05 gr/ dscf. In Michigan, cooler vent stacks are not recognized as emission points and are not addressed in operating permits. Similar to the indurating furnace affected source, we have selected a narrow definition of affected source for ore dryers by defining the affected source as each individual ore dryer, rather than the collection of ore dryers at a particular plant. We defined each ore dryer as a separate affected source because ore dryers are independent emission units with their own dedicated emission control devices. There are only two ore dryers, and both are located at the same plant in Michigan. The concentrate from the Michigan plant contains a higher percentage of fine particles than other taconite operations and, therefore, requires additional drying. The ore dryers are located just upstream of the balling drum. Both dryers are rotary designs that tumble the wet taconite ore concentrate through a heated air stream to reduce the amount of entrained moisture in the taconite ore concentrate. B. How Did We Select the Pollutants? Pollutants emitted by plants in the taconite iron ore processing source category include metallic HAP ( primarily naturally occurring compounds of manganese, arsenic, lead, nickel, and chromium, and lesser quantities of mercury), organic HAP resulting from incomplete combustion ( mainly formaldehyde), and acid gases ( hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid). Metallic HAP are emitted from ore crushing and handling units, indurating furnaces, finished pellet handling units, and ore dryers. We determined that it is not practical to establish individual standards for each metallic HAP that could be present in the various processes ( e. g., separate standards for manganese compound emissions, separate standards for lead compound emissions, and so forth for each metal compound group listed as HAP and which potentially could be present). When released, each of the metallic HAP compounds, except elemental mercury, behave as PM. As a result, strong correlations exist between PM emissions and emissions of the individual metallic HAP compounds. Control technologies used for the reduction of PM emissions achieve comparable levels of reduction of metallic HAP emissions. Standards requiring good control of PM emissions will also achieve a similar level of control of metallic HAP emissions. Therefore, we are establishing standards for total PM as a surrogate pollutant for the individual metallic HAP. Establishing separate standards for each metallic HAP would impose costly and significantly more complex compliance and monitoring requirements. In addition, establishing separate standards for each metallic HAP would achieve little, if any, HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be achieved using the total PM surrogate pollutant approach. Products of incomplete combustion, such as formaldehyde, are released from indurating furnaces at very low concentrations as a result of the burning of fuels, such as natural gas. Formaldehyde has been measured through stack testing at concentrations that are typically less than 1 ppm. Formaldehyde emissions are currently uncontrolled. Existing PM emission controls on indurating furnaces include ESP and wet scrubbers, neither of which are capable of controlling formaldehyde. In addition, since formaldehyde emissions are produced as a byproduct of burning fuels, generally natural gas, taconite plants cannot lower their formaldehyde emissions by switching raw materials or changing fuels. We know of no feasible control technology for reducing formaldehyde emissions at these extremely low concentrations and at the exhaust gas temperatures typically encountered at indurating furnaces. The only known technology for the control of formaldehyde emissions at VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77571 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules concentrations of less than 1 ppm is thermal catalytic oxidation in which formaldehyde is contacted with a precious metal catalyst in the presence of oxygen and high temperature ( 650 to 1,350 ° F) to yield carbon dioxide and water. Destruction efficiencies of 85 to 90 percent have been demonstrated on formaldehyde emissions contained in the exhaust gas from stationary combustion turbines at concentrations in the parts per billion range and temperatures of 1,000 ° F or higher. Destruction efficiencies, however, decrease exponentially at reaction temperatures below 650 ° F, down to eventually less than 10 percent at exhaust gas temperature of 300 ° F or less, which is typical of most indurating furnaces. Accordingly, the burning of large quantities of additional fuel, such as natural gas, would be needed to heat the exhaust gases to the desired temperature, which would generate additional quantities of carbon dioxide ( a global warming gas) and nitrogen oxides ( an ozone precursor). In addition, given the large volume of exhaust gas to be treated, on the order of several hundred thousand cubic feet per minute per furnace, and the complexity of retrofitting multiple stacks with gas burners and thermal catalytic oxidation units, the capital cost and operating cost for control would be enormous. Since formaldehyde emissions are currently uncontrolled, we conclude that the MACT floor for formaldehyde is no emissions reduction. In addition, due to the severe technical and economic constraints of controlling formaldehyde at high volumetric flow rates, very low concentrations and relatively low temperatures, we conclude that no beyond­ the­ floor control is feasible. Accordingly, specific emission limitations for formaldehyde are not included in the proposed rule. Acid gases ( hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid) are also emitted from indurating furnaces at very low concentrations, typically less than 3 ppm. Acid gases are formed in the indurating furnace due to the presence of chlorides and fluorides in pellet additives, such as dolomite and limestone. The taconite industry has not installed equipment to specifically control acid gases. The MACT floor for acid gases was determined to be no emissions reduction. Unlike formaldehyde, some air pollution control devices currently used by the industry to reduce PM emissions can achieve incidental control of acid gases. Due to the strong affinity of these acid gases for water, control equipment that use water, such as wet wall electrostatic precipitators and wet scrubbers, have the capability of reducing hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid emissions substantially. Therefore, a specific emission limitation for acid gases is not included in today's proposal. Indurating furnaces are also a source of mercury emissions. Mercury is a naturally occurring element in the taconite ore. As the taconite pellets are heated in the furnace, the naturally occurring mercury compounds are volatilized. The key factor affecting emissions is the mercury content of the ore. Currently, none of the plants in this industry have installed controls for mercury emissions. We also have not been able to identify any currently employed operating practices which effectively reduce mercury emissions. Since specific controls for mercury are not currently present in the industry and operating practices which effectively reduce mercury emissions have not been identified, the MACT floor for mercury was determined to be no emissions reduction. In evaluating potential above­ the­ floor options, we were unable to identify any viable control technologies or operating practices for achieving reductions in mercury emissions from indurating furnaces at taconite iron ore plants. As a result, a specific emission limitation for mercury has not been included in the proposed rule. We will reevaluate the feasibility of controlling mercury emissions from taconite iron ore plants as part of the assessment for residual risk standards. Due to the nature of the taconite iron ore deposits on the Mesabi Range in Northeast Minnesota, there is some potential for the occurrence of contaminant asbestos in some taconite ore mining areas. Asbestos is the name applied to a group of six different minerals that occur naturally in the environment. These minerals are made up of long thin fibers similar to fiberglass. The concern is mainly limited to two taconite plants located at the eastern end of the Mesabi Range where acicular ( needle­ like) minerals may be present in the ore. Asbestos emissions are currently regulated under NESHAP promulgated in April 1984 ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart M) that regulate the milling of commercial asbestos and the manufacturing and fabricating of asbestos products. The provisions of the NESHAP also apply to the demolition and renovation of buildings where asbestos­ containing material is present. The NESHAP do not apply to ore or other mineral processing operations that may contain asbestos as a contaminant. A work group within EPA is currently studying the complex issues involved with asbestos emissions from beneficiation and subsequent processing of minerals where asbestos may be present as a contaminant. That study was initiated in response to the events surrounding exposures of citizens to asbestos which occurred as a contaminant in a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana. The work group has developed an action plan which identifies steps necessary to gather the information that EPA needs to decide whether regulations for sources of contaminant asbestos are warranted. The work group has targeted vermiculite mining and processing operations as the first priority in the study. The work group also plans to study asbestos that occurs as a contaminant from other mining and processing operations, including taconite ore mining and processing. Decisions on whether to regulate asbestos that occurs as a contaminant in taconite ore mining and processing and other potential industries will be based on information gathered in the study. C. How Did We Determine the Bases and Levels of the Proposed Standards? We have taken alternative approaches to establishing the MACT floor, depending on the type, quality, and applicability of available data. The three approaches most commonly used involve reliance on the following: State and Federal regulations or permit limits, source test data that characterize actual emissions, and use of a technology floor with an accompanying demonstrated achievable emission level that accounts for process and/ or air pollution control device variability. We evaluated each of these MACT floor approaches when developing the MACT floor for each of the four affected sources: Ore crushing and handling, indurating furnaces, finished pellet handling, and ore dryers. As previously discussed in this preamble, we are establishing standards for total PM as a surrogate pollutant for individual metallic HAP compounds. 1. Ore Crushing and Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Although ore crushing handling and finished pellet handling are defined as separate affected sources, we combined the available test data on both sources for the MACT floor and MACT analyses. This is consistent with our usual practice in developing MACT standards in organizing, as appropriate, the available information for similar HAPemitting equipment into related groups for the purpose of determining MACT floors and MACT; yet, as appropriate, maintaining separate affected source VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77572 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules definitions for the purpose of defining the applicability of relevant standards. We identified 264 emission units within the ore crushing and handling affected source and 82 emission units within the finished pellet handling affected source at the eight taconite plants ( 346 emission units total). Particulate matter emissions from both operations are controlled primarily with medium energy wet scrubbers ( i. e., venturi­ rod scrubbers, impingement scrubbers, and marble bed scrubbers). Baghouses, low energy wet scrubbers ( i. e., rotoclones), multiclones, and ESP are also used. Relative to State and Federal regulations and permit conditions, some of the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling emission units in Minnesota are subject to the new source performance standards ( NSPS) for metallic mineral processing plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart LL). The NSPS limit PM emissions from each affected emission unit to 0.022 gr/ dscf. However, most of the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling emission units in Minnesota are subject to the IPER. The Minnesota IPER establishes PM concentration emission limits as a function of volumetric flow. The emission limit becomes more stringent as volumetric flow increases. Particulate matter emission limits for ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling units under the IPER range from approximately 0.030 gr/ dscf to approximately 0.095 gr/ dscf. Due to its proximity to Lake Superior, one of the Minnesota plants is subject to the following more stringent limits: 0.002 gr/ dscf for tertiary crushing and some storage/ transfer points, 0.010 gr/ dscf for cobbing and some storage/ transfer points, and 0.030 gr/ dscf for the rest of the emission points. The two taconite plants in Michigan are subject to a State PM emission limit of 0.1 pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas, which equates to 0.052 gr/ dscf. The PM emissions tests data used in the MACT analysis covers 60 emission units, which accounts for 17 percent of the combined 346 ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling emission units in the source category. Included are representative data on all crushing stages, screening operations, conveyor transfer points, and storage bins, as well as finished pellet screening operations and conveyor transfer points. These tests also cover the full range of control devices applied to both emission units. Each test is composed of three, 1­ hour test runs expressed in PM concentration units of gr/ dscf. We compared these 60 data points on actual emissions to the State and Federal emissions limitations to determine whether the limitations provided a reasonably realistic representation of actual emissions and performance. Based on this comparison, it is clear that actual PM emissions are considerably lower than the levels allowed by the State emission limits and the metallic mineral processing NSPS, and that the State and Federal PM emission limits do not realistically represent performance achieved in practice by the best performing sources. Test results in the data pool are on the order of 0.002 to 0.010 gr/ dscf, which is substantially below that generally allowed under the State and Federal emissions limitations cited above. We evaluated the test data by process stage ( i. e., primary crushing, secondary crushing, tertiary crushing, grate feed, and finished pellet handling) to determine whether PM emissions varied depending on process stage. We found no discernable differences in the types of controls or the level of controlled PM emissions among the various process stages. Consequently, we concluded that distinguishing among process stages was unnecessary, and that it was feasible to establish one PM emission limit that would apply to all ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling emission units. An underlying presumption when setting MACT standards is that all emission limitations must be met or complied with at all times. Consequently, when establishing MACT floors and ultimately MACT standards, we must consider the long­ term variability in performance expected to occur under reasonable worst­ case conditions or circumstances. We must assure that ensuing standards reflect the level of emissions control determined to be MACT. We must also assure that the standards are achievable under normal and recurring worst­ case circumstances. The MACT floor and the MACT level of control were determined based on each plant's flow­ weighted mean PM concentration for all emission units in both affected sources. By averaging higher emitting units with lower emitting units, each plant's flowweighted mean PM concentration value takes into account much of the variability in emissions among different units within the two affected sources and provides what we believe to be a reasonably accurate representation of the overall level of control that is being achieved by those affected sources. We then proceeded to establish the MACT floor based on the pool of credible data available to us for each plant. Of the eight existing taconite iron ore plants, three plants were excluded from the floor analysis due to a lack of sufficient test data. One of the plants had no PM emissions test data whatsoever, and the other two plants had only two tested units each. Each of the remaining five plants had emissions test data for 6 to 21 units. The first step in the MACT floor analysis was to calculate a flowweighted mean PM concentration value ( in gr/ dscf) for each of the five plants using the available PM emissions data for the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling units at each plant. For each unit with a PM emissions test, the total grains of PM emitted during the test was calculated by multiplying the test average in gr/ dscf by the test average flow rate in dscf. Then, for each plant, the grains of PM emitted by all the tested units at that plant were totaled. The total grains emitted were then divided by the total air flow for the tested units ( in dscf) to obtain the flow­ weighted mean PM concentration in gr/ dscf. The flowweighted mean PM concentration values ( in gr/ dscf) for each of the five plants were 0.0047, 0.0050, 0.0059, 0.0114 and 0.0116. The resulting MACT floor for the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling affected sources as determined using the flow­ weighted mean PM concentration for the five plants is 0.008 gr/ dscf. We then examined a beyond­ the­ floor alternative. The next increment of control beyond the floor is the installation of impingement scrubbers capable of meeting a concentration limit of 0.005 gr/ dscf, which is equivalent to the level of control we anticipate requiring for new sources. We estimate the additional capital cost of replacing existing controls with new impingement scrubbers performing at a level of 0.005 gr/ dscf to be $ 3.5 million and the total annual cost to be $ 653,000 per year. We estimate the corresponding incremental reduction in HAP metals achieved by reducing the PM concentration from 0.008 to 0.005 gr/ dscf to be 0.37 tons. The cost per ton of HAP is $ 1.7 million. The energy increase would be expected to be 2,870 mega­ watt hours per year, primarily due to the energy requirements of new scrubbers. We believe that the high cost, coupled with the small reduction in HAP emissions, does not justify this beyond­ the­ floor alternative at this time. We could not identify any other beyond­ the­ floor alternatives. Consequently, we chose the floor level of control of 0.008 gr/ dscf as MACT. For new ore crushing and handling and new finished pellet handling affected sources, we are selecting a PM outlet concentration of 0.005 gr/ dscf as VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77573 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules new source MACT. The 0.005 gr/ dscf level corresponds to the best performing source ( plant) with the lowest flowweighted mean PM concentration. 2. Indurating Furnaces Processing Magnetite There are 21 indurating furnaces at the eight operating taconite plants. Fourteen of the furnaces are grate kiln designs and seven are straight grate designs. As discussed previously in this preamble, we are establishing subcategories within the indurating furnace affected source to accommodate differences in the two furnace designs. We have determined that these furnace design types have unique physical and operational differences which warrant their separation into two subcategories. We are also differentiating the grate kiln furnaces based on type of ore processed ( i. e., hematite versus magnetite ore). We evaluated the existing State PM emission limitations as an option for establishing the MACT floor. However, a comparison of the State limits with data on actual PM emissions shows that the State limits are generally much more lenient than the actual emissions and, as such, are not appropriate for establishing the MACT floor. Most of the indurating furnaces in Minnesota are subject to the State's IPER. Particulate matter emission limits for indurating furnaces under the IPER range from 0.025 to 0.05 gr/ dscf. Due to its proximity to Lake Superior, one of the Minnesota plants, which operates straight grate furnaces, is subject to a more stringent State limit of 0.01 gr/ dscf. The two Michigan plants, both of which operate grate kiln furnaces, are subject to State PM emission limits also based on air flow rates. One plant which operates two furnaces has a PM emission limit of 0.065 pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas, which equates to 0.04 gr/ dscf. The other plant which operates four grate kilns has a PM emission limit of 0.10 pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas for two larger kilns, and 0.15 pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas for two smaller kilns. The two emission limits equate to 0.06 to 0.09 gr/ dscf, respectively. By contrast, the available information on actual PM emissions for 19 of 21 furnaces for which we have emissions test data indicate that the actual emissions are considerably lower than the levels allowed under the State limits. The average concentration of actual emissions measured from all 19 furnaces when processing magnetite range from 0.005 to 0.02 gr/ dscf, which is about 5 times lower than the typical State limit. Therefore, we concluded that the State PM emission limits and permit conditions do not realistically represent the emission levels actually achieved in practice by the best performing sources. We next examined the available emissions data to determine if the MACT floor could be based on actual emissions. We have credible PM test data for six of the seven straight grate furnaces and thirteen of the fourteen grate kiln furnaces. The test data for each furnace consists of a test for each furnace stack, with multiple tests for furnaces that discharge through more than one stack. Each test consists of three 1­ hour test runs expressed in gr/ dscf. For the furnaces with multiple stacks, the PM emissions from each indurating furnace were calculated as the flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions from all stacks. Given the amount and quality of available PM emissions test data, we conclude that the available information on actual emissions is more than adequate for the purpose of determining the requisite MACT floors for new and existing sources. As a first step in our MACT floor and MACT analysis for indurating furnaces, we initially explored the appropriateness of using a plantwide average approach similar to that used for ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling. After an assessment of the available test data, we determined that the plantwide average approach was not feasible due to insufficient data, and that an alternative approach that focuses on individual furnace emissions rather than plantwide emissions is more suitable. For plants using grate kiln furnaces, we have sufficient test data to calculate a plantwide value for only three of the five plants. For plants using straight grate furnaces, we have sufficient test data to calculate a plantwide value for only two of the three plants. Therefore, due to a lack of test data on some furnaces, it is not possible to use a plantwide approach to determine the MACT floor for indurating furnaces. As an alternative approach, we treated each of the 21 indurating furnaces as separate emission units. As a first step, we looked at all furnaces ( straight grate and grate kiln) with multiple PM emissions tests to account for the variability inherent in the performance tests. There are 12 grate kiln furnaces and three straight grate furnaces for which there were two or more emissions tests. To quantify the variability between tests for each of these furnaces, we calculated a relative standard deviation ( RSD) for each furnace. The RSD is calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the data by the mean of the data and multiplying the result by 100. The RSD provides a measure of the variability of the PM test data for each furnace relative to the mean of the PM test data for each furnace. The RSD is expressed as a percentage for each furnace, and these percentages were then compared between furnaces. The variability between tests for a given indurating furnace is due to normal variability in process operation and control device performance, as well as measurement error. These factors affect all furnaces similarly, and their affect on emissions is largely independent of furnace type and ore type. Therefore, we looked at the range of RSD values for all furnaces together ( grate kilns and straight grates) when determining the overall variability. The RSD for the 15 furnaces with multiple test data ranged from 9 to 112 percent and averaged 37 percent. This indicates that on average, the PM emissions tests for each furnace are within plus or minus 37 percent of the mean of the emissions tests. We then applied the average RSD of 37 percent to each emission test to include a measure of variability to each test. Next, we assigned a level of performance to each of the 19 furnaces for which we have actual emissions data. For furnaces for which we have two or more tests, we chose the higher of the test results as the representative value of performance for that furnace. We believe that selecting the higher of the test results provides more assurance that the inherent operational variability is fully accounted for in the selection of the representative value. For furnaces for which we have only one test, we used that single test result as the assigned value of performance. Since there are fewer than 30 sources in the straight grate and grate kiln indurating furnace subcategories, the MACT floors were determined using the best five performing sources. Each indurating furnace was then ranked within its subcategory according to its flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions after application of the RSD adjustment for variability. The five furnaces in each subcategory with the lowest adjusted PM concentration were identified as the best performing sources. The MACT floor was then determined as the mean PM concentration value for the five best performing sources. The adjusted PM concentration values for the five best performing straight grate furnaces were 0.0083, 0.0090, 0.0093, 0.0105, and 0.0126. The mean of the five best performing straight grate furnaces was determined to be 0.010 gr/ dscf. The VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77574 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules adjusted PM concentration values for the five best performing grate kiln furnaces were 0.0085, 0.0090, 0.0111, 0.0123, and 0.0123. The mean of the five best performing grate kiln furnaces was determined to be 0.011 gr/ dscf. We then examined a beyond­ the­ floor option. The next increment of control beyond the floor is the installation of venturi scrubbers or dry ESP capable of meeting a concentration limit of 0.006 gr/ dscf, which is equivalent to the level of control required for new straight grate furnaces and new grate kiln furnaces. For straight grate furnaces, we estimate the additional capital cost of going from a level of 0.010 gr/ dscf to a level of 0.006 gr/ dscf to be $ 71.2 million and the total annual cost to be $ 11.4 million per year. We estimate the corresponding additional reduction in HAP achieved from straight grate furnaces to be 30 tons. The cost per ton of HAP for straight grate furnaces is $ 379,000/ ton. The energy increase would be expected to be 17,139 mega­ watt hours per year, primarily due to the energy requirements of new wet scrubbers and dry ESP. For grate kiln furnaces, we estimate the additional capital cost of going from a level of 0.011 gr/ dscf to a level of 0.006 gr/ dscf to be $ 28.5 million and the total annual cost to be $ 5.3 million per year. We estimate the corresponding additional reduction in HAP achieved from grate kilns to be 12.8 tons. The cost per ton of HAP for grate kiln furnaces is $ 414,000/ ton. The energy increase would be expected to be 36,297 mega­ watt hours per year, primarily due to the energy requirements of new wet scrubbers and dry ESP. We believe that the high cost, coupled with the small reduction in HAP emissions, does not justify this beyond­ the­ floor alternative for either furnace subcategory. We could not identify any other beyond­ the­ floor alternatives. Consequently, we chose the MACT floor levels of control of 0.010 gr/ dscf for straight grate furnaces and 0.011 gr/ dscf for grate kiln furnaces as MACT for existing indurating furnace. For the new source MACT analysis, we did not adjust the PM emissions test results for variability. We believe that a variability adjustment is not necessary because new emission controls can be engineered to account for variability in process operation and control device performance, as well as measurement error. We ranked the representative PM concentrations for each straight grate furnace and for each grate kiln furnace from the lowest to the highest values. We selected the furnace with the lowest PM outlet concentration of 0.006 gr/ dscf as new source MACT for new straight grate indurating furnaces. We believe that this furnace, which is controlled by a venturi scrubber, represents the best controlled similar source among the seven operating straight grate furnaces. We selected the furnace with the lowest PM outlet concentration of 0.006 gr/ dscf as the new source MACT for new grate kiln indurating furnaces processing magnetite. We believe that this furnace, which is controlled by a dry ESP, represents the best controlled similar source among the 14 operating grate kiln furnaces. 3. Indurating Furnaces Processing Hematite There are two indurating furnaces that process hematite ore. Both furnaces are grate kiln designs and are located at the same plant in Michigan. Hematite is processed approximately 8 months of the year and magnetite is processed the remainder of the year. Both furnaces are similar in design, size, operating conditions and air pollution control. Each furnace is of the grate kiln design, which consists of a continuous traveling grate followed by a rotary kiln. The two kilns are both 25 feet in diameter and 160 feet long and have similar production rates. Exhaust gases from each furnace are controlled by three ESP, three dry units on one furnace and one wet and two dry units on the other furnace. All corresponding ESP for each furnace have similar configurations, including number of chambers and fields, and collection area; and similar operating conditions, including volumetric air flow, gas inlet temperature, primary and secondary currents, and primary and secondary voltages. We evaluated the existing State PM emission limitations as an option for establishing the MACT floor. However, a comparison of the State limit with data on actual PM emissions shows that the State limit is much more lenient than the actual emissions and, as such, is not appropriate for establishing the MACT floor. Both furnaces are subject to Michigan's PM emission limit of 0.065 pounds of particulate per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas, which equates to approximately 0.04 gr/ dscf. In comparison, available information on actual PM emissions for the two furnaces indicate that the actual emissions are considerably lower than the levels allowed under the State limit. The average concentration of actual emissions measured from the two furnaces when processing hematite range from 0.017 to 0.018 gr/ dscf, which is about half the State limit. Therefore, we concluded that the State PM emission limit does not realistically represent the emission levels actually achieved in practice by the two furnaces when processing hematite. We next examined the available emissions data to determine if the MACT floor could be based on actual emissions. We have credible PM test data for both furnaces while processing hematite. The test data for each furnace consists of a PM test of each furnace stack ( three tests per furnace). Each test consists of three 1­ hour test runs. The PM emissions from each furnace were calculated as the flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions in gr/ dscf from all stacks. We believe that this available information on actual emissions is adequate for the purpose of determining the requisite MACT floors for new and existing sources. A variability analysis for furnaces processing hematite could not be conducted because multiple valid PM emissions tests are not available for these furnaces. As a result, we relied on the RSD adjustment used when processing magnetite to account for process, control device, and measurement variability. As noted previously, these factors affect all furnaces similarly, and their affect on emissions is largely independent of furnace type and ore type. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to apply the RSD calculated for furnaces processing magnetite to furnaces processing hematite. Since there are only two indurating furnaces processing hematite, and these furnaces are ostensibly identical in design, size, operation and emissions control, we selected the MACT floor based on the higher of the two PM concentration values ( 0.023 and 0.025 gr/ dscf) after application of the RSD adjustment for variability. The resulting MACT floor for existing grate kiln indurating furnaces processing hematite is 0.025 gr/ dscf. We then examined a beyond­ the­ floor alternative. The next increment of control beyond the floor is the installation of a dry ESP capable of consistently meeting a concentration limit of 0.018 gr/ dscf, which is equivalent to the level of control required for new grate kiln furnaces processing hematite. We estimate the additional capital cost of going from a level of 0.025 gr/ dscf to a level of 0.018 gr/ dscf to be $ 25.9 million and the total annual cost to be $ 4.9 million per year. We estimate the corresponding additional reduction in HAP achieved from grate kiln furnaces processing hematite to be 0.3 tons. The cost per ton of HAP for grate kiln furnaces processing hematite is $ 19.6 million/ VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77575 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules ton. The energy increase would be expected to be 34,898 mega­ watt hours per year, primarily due to the energy requirements of new dry ESP. We believe that the high cost, coupled with the small reduction in HAP emissions, does not justify this beyond­ the­ floor alternative at this time. We could not identify any other beyond­ the­ floor alternatives. Consequently, we chose the MACT floor level of control of 0.025 gr/ dscf as MACT for existing grate kiln furnaces processing hematite. For the new source MACT analysis, we relied on the same emission source test data used above in the existing source MACT determination. However, we did not adjust the values from the emissions tests with a RSD adjustment for the new source MACT analysis. We believe that a variability adjustment is not necessary because new emission controls can be engineered to account for variability in process operation and control device performance. As noted previously, both furnaces are ostensibly identical in design, operation and control, with measured PM emissions based on one performance test per furnace of 0.017 and 0.018 gr/ dscf. Given the similarities between the two furnaces and their demonstrated performance, we selected a PM concentration of 0.018 gr/ dscf as the new source MACT for new grate kiln indurating furnaces when processing hematite. 4. Ore Dryers There are only two ore dryers in the source category. Both are rotary designs and are located at the same plant in Michigan. The first dryer measures 10 feet in diameter and 80 feet in length and has a rated capacity of 400 tons per hour. It is equipped with two cyclones and an impingement scrubber in series for PM control. The second dryer is somewhat larger measuring 12.5 feet in diameter and 100 feet in length with a rated capacity of 650 tons per hour. The exhaust gas from the second dryer is split into two streams, with each exhaust stream controlled by two cyclones and an impingement scrubber in series and discharging through a separate stack. Both ore dryers are subject to Michigan's PM emission limit of 0.1 pound of particulate per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas, which equates to approximately 0.052 gr/ dscf. We have one PM emission test for each dryer. Both dryers were tested in May 2002 while processing hematite. Tests were conducted at each of the three dryer stacks and included three 1­ hour test runs per stack. In the case of the two stack dryer, the test results were calculated on a flow­ weighted basis. The results, expressed in units of PM concentration, are 0.017 and 0.040 gr/ dscf for the smaller and larger dryer, respectively. We examined the test conditions under which each dryer was tested and have determined that the smaller dryer was tested under conditions not representative of normal long­ term operations. Specifically, the dryer had been idle prior to testing and brought back on­ line solely for the purpose of testing only 2 hours ahead of commencing the performance test, which was 3 hours in duration. We do not believe that a warm­ up period of only a few hours is adequate to produce conditions representative of the worstcase circumstance reasonably expected to occur under normal long­ term operations. We have, therefore, excluded these data from further consideration in our MACT assessment. We evaluated the existing State PM emission limit as an option for establishing the MACT floor. A comparison of the State limit of 0.052 gr/ dscf with the only credible data on actual PM emissions of 0.040 gr/ dscf indicates that the State limit is a reasonable proxy of actual performance and, as such, is appropriate for establishing the MACT floor level. Consequently, the MACT floor for ore dryers is determined to be the level of control indicated by the existing State limit of 0.052 gr/ dscf. We then examined a beyond­ the­ floor alternative. The next increment of control beyond the floor is the installation of venturi scrubbers capable of meeting a concentration limit of 0.025 gr/ dscf, which is equivalent to the level of control required for new ore dryers. We estimate the additional capital cost of going from a level of 0.052 gr/ dscf to a level of 0.025 gr/ dscf to be $ 98,000 and the total annual cost to be $ 256,000 per year. We estimate the corresponding additional reductions in HAP achieved from ore dryers to be 0.32 tons. The cost per ton of HAP for ore dryers is $ 790,000/ ton. The energy increase would be expected to be 3,520 megawatt hours per year, primarily due to the energy requirements of new wet scrubbers. We believe that the high cost, coupled with the small reduction in HAP emissions, does not justify this beyond­ the­ floor alternative at this time. We could not identify any other beyond the floor alternatives. Consequently, we chose the MACT floor level of control of 0.052 gr/ dscf as MACT for existing ore dryers. For new ore dryers, we are selecting a PM outlet concentration of 0.025 gr/ dscf as new source MACT. The 0.025 gr/ dscf level corresponds to the standard for dryers in the NSPS for calciners and dryers in mineral industries ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU). The dryers used to develop the NSPS limit are very similar to the dryers that are used by the taconite industry. Specifically, many of the dryers studied in the NSPS were of the rotary design, were controlled by wet scrubbers, and processed material with a particle size distribution similar to that of taconite ore. Therefore, due to these similarities, we believe that the level of 0.025 gr/ dscf from the NSPS for calciners and dryers in mineral industries is a reasonable proxy of the performance that can be achieved by new ore dryers in the taconite industry. D. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements? To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for the ore crushing and handling affected source, the flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. Similarly, for the finished pellet handling affected source, the flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions of all units within the affected source must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. For both affected sources, emission units must demonstrate their performance through initial testing. The performance test is to be conducted using EPA Method 5 or 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Factors that can affect the compatibility of the Method 5 and Method 17 results are stack temperature, moisture and the type and quantity of condensible material. Stack emissions from ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling emission units are typically at ambient temperature, and are low in moisture and condensible material. Therefore, under the conditions encountered at taconite plants for both units, we consider the results from Method 5 and Method 17 to be equivalent. There are a total of 346 ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling emission units in the industry. Combined, these units account for only 1 percent of the total HAP emitted from the entire source category. Requiring an initial EPA Method 5 or 17 PM test for all 346 units would cost approximately $ 1.73 million ($ 5,000 per test). The ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling operations at most taconite iron ore processing plants consist of parallel lines of crushers, screens, bins, and conveyors. In most cases, the parallel lines consist of nearly identical process units and emission control equipment. Therefore, to reduce VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77576 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules the burden of initial testing, we are allowing plants to group similar emission units with similar control equipment together and then conduct an initial performance test on one or more representative emission units within each group, depending on the number of similar units within the group. To ensure consistency in the grouping of similar emission units, the rule includes the following criteria: emission units must be the same type of process unit ( e. g., primary crushers are separate from secondary crushers); emissions from the units must be controlled by the same type of emission control device ( e. g., impingement scrubbers are separate from venturi scrubbers); the difference in the volumetric flow rate among similar emission units in dscf cannot vary by more than 10 percent; and the difference in the actual process throughput rate among similar emission units in long tons per hour cannot vary by more than 10 percent. Each plant must submit a testing plan to the permitting authority for approval. The testing plan must identify the emission units that will be grouped as similar and identify the representative unit that will be tested for each group. By allowing similar emission units to be grouped together, we estimate that the total number of emission units subjected to initial compliance testing would be reduced from 346 to 176 units. This would reduce the initial compliance burden by approximately half to $ 880,000. Even after grouping similar emission units, most plants would still have to test between 20 and 39 units ( ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling combined). We believe that 180 days does not allow sufficient time to schedule and test this number of emission units. In addition, plants will be conducting initial compliance tests for their indurating furnaces at the same time. Therefore, to further reduce the burden of initial compliance testing for both emission units, we are allowing plants 2 years following the compliance date to conduct all initial compliance tests for both emission units. We believe that by grouping similar units and allowing initial testing to be conducted within 2 years, the initial compliance burden will be minimized while still providing adequate assurance of initial compliance with the emission limits. To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for indurating furnaces, the flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions of all furnace stacks for each furnace must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. Indurating furnaces must demonstrate their performance through initial testing. The performance test is to be conducted using EPA Method 5 or 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. As mentioned above, factors that can affect the compatibility of the Method 5 and Method 17 results are stack temperature, moisture and the type and quantity of condensible material. Stack emissions from indurating furnaces typically range from 200 to 315 ° F, with an 8 to 14 percent moisture content, and low concentrations of condensible material. Under these conditions we consider the results from Method 5 and Method 17 to be equivalent. However, if the stack temperature is above 320 ° F and the furnace is burning a fuel other than natural gas, Method 5 must be used for the performance test. The initial compliance test for each indurating furnace must be performed within 180 calendar days of the compliance date. For indurating furnaces with multiple stacks, all stacks for the indurating furnace must be tested simultaneously. The 180­ day requirement is consistent with the requirements in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. The number of indurating furnaces per plant ranges from one to five, as well as the number of stacks per furnace. Based on the relatively small number of indurating furnaces, we believe that 180 days allows sufficient time for plants to complete initial testing of all indurating furnaces. To demonstrate initial compliance with the PM emission limit for ore dryers, the flow­ weighted mean concentration of PM emissions of all stacks for each dryer must not exceed the applicable PM emission limit. Ore dryers must demonstrate their performance through initial testing. The performance test is to be conducted using EPA Method 5 or 17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The initial compliance test for each ore dryer must be performed within 180 calendar days of the compliance date. For ore dryers with multiple stacks, all stacks for the ore dryer must be tested simultaneously. The 180­ day requirement is consistent with the requirements in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63. There are only two existing ore dryers in the source category. As such, we conclude that 180 days allows sufficient time to complete initial testing. The proposed rule would also require that certain operating limits on control devices be established during the initial compliance test to ensure that control devices operate properly on a continuing basis. All operating limits must be established during a performance test that demonstrates compliance with the applicable emission limit. During the initial compliance tests, operating limits must be established for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate for all wet scrubbers, and opacity ( using a COMS) for dry ESP. E. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements? For continuous compliance, we chose periodic performance testing for PM, which is consistent with current permit requirements. We consulted with the two States in which taconite ore processing plants are located to determine how they were implementing title V permitting requirements for performance tests. The requirements for the frequency and number of performance tests for ore crushing and handling, and finished pellet handling and ore drying units were determined to be variable and highly site­ specific. Consequently, for ore crushing and handling, and finished pellet handling and ore drying units, we decided that the schedule for conducting subsequent performance tests should be based on schedules established in each plant's title V operating permit. If a title V permit has not been issued, then the plant must submit a testing plan and schedule to the permitting authority for approval. For each indurating furnace, the proposed rule would require subsequent testing of all stacks based on the schedule in each plant's title V operating permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5­ year permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued, then the plant must submit a testing plan and schedule to the permitting authority for approval. The testing frequency in the testing plan can be no less frequent than twice per 5­ year period. Since the majority of the HAP emissions from this source category result from the operation of indurating furnaces, we believe that testing twice per permit term is appropriate. We also developed procedures to ensure that control equipment are operating properly on a continuous basis. Baghouses must be equipped with a bag leak detection system. Wet scrubbers must be monitored for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, and they must not fall below the parametric monitoring limits established during the performance test. Dry electrostatic precipitators must be monitored for opacity using COMS. The opacity must not exceed the operating limit established during the performance test. If a plant uses equipment other than a baghouse, scrubber, or dry ESP to control emissions from an affected source, the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77577 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules owner or operator is required to send us a monitoring plan containing information on the type of device, performance test results, appropriate operating parameters to be monitored, operating limits, and operation and maintenance. F. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? We selected the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A). One­ time notifications are required by the EPA to identify which plants are subject to the standards, if a plant has complied with the rule requirements, and when certain events such as performance tests and performance evaluations are scheduled. Semiannual compliance reports containing information on any deviation from rule requirements are also required. These reports would include information on any deviation that occurred during the reporting period; if no deviation occurred, only summary information ( such as a statement of compliance) is required. Consistent with the General Provisions, we also require an immediate report of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction where the actions taken in response were not consistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. This information is necessary to determine if changes to the plan are required. Recordkeeping requirements are limited to those records that are required to document compliance with the proposed rule. Recordkeeping requirements include: a copy of each notification and report submitted and all supporting documentation; records of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and opacity observations; and records related to control device performance. These notifications, reports, and records are the minimum required to ensure initial and continuous compliance with the proposed rule. IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts The environmental, energy, and economic impacts of the proposed rule are based on the replacement of poor performing controls at existing sources with new controls capable of meeting the emission limits established in the proposed rule. We estimated no impacts for new sources since we do not project any new or reconstructed affected sources becoming subject to the new source MACT requirements in the foreseeable future. Specifically, we anticipate that four plants will install new impingement scrubbers on a total of 54 out of the 264 ore crushing and handling emission units to meet the PM emission limit. We expect that four plants will install new venturi rod wet scrubbers or will upgrade existing wet scrubbers on at least one of their indurating furnaces. In total, we estimate that the existing controls will be replaced with new venturi rod wet scrubbers on 7 of the 47 indurating furnace stacks. We estimate that the existing controls will be upgraded with new components on 4 of the 47 indurating furnace stacks. We anticipate that three plants will install new impingement scrubbers on a total of 11 out of the 82 finished pellet handling units to meet the finished pellet handling PM emission limit. A. What are the Air Emission Impacts? The installation of new controls and upgrades discussed in the preceding paragraph will result in reductions in emissions of metal HAP, acid gases, and PM. Overall, the proposed standards are expected to reduce HAP emissions by a total of 370 tons/ year, a reduction of about 40 percent. Metallic HAP emissions will be reduced by 14 tons/ year ( a 40 percent reduction) and acid gas emissions ( HCl and HF) will be reduced by 356 tons/ year ( a 54 percent reduction). In addition, the proposed standards are expected to reduce PM emissions by 9,438 tons/ year, a reduction of about 65 percent. B. What Are the Cost Impacts? The total installed capital costs to the industry for the installation of control equipment are estimated to be $ 47.3 million. Total annualized costs are estimated at $ 7.0 million/ yr, which includes $ 4.1 million/ yr in capital recovery costs, $ 2.8 million/ yr in emission control device operation and maintenance costs, and $ 0.1 million/ yr for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. These costs are based on the installation of new wet scrubbers on 54 ore crushing and handling units, seven indurating furnace stacks, and 11 finished pellet handling units. The costs are also based on upgrading four wet scrubbers for one indurating furnace. In addition, the estimate includes the cost of bag leak detection systems for baghouses, continuous parameter monitoring systems for scrubbers, and continuous opacity monitors for ESP. C. What Are the Economic Impacts? We prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the impact this proposed rule would have on the producers and consumers of taconite and society as a whole. The taconite industry consists of eight companies owning eight mining operations, concentration plants, and pelletizing plants. The total annualized social cost of the proposed rule is $ 7 million ( in 2000 dollars). This cost is distributed among consumers ( mainly steel mills) who may buy less and/ or spend more on taconite iron ore as a result of the proposed NESHAP, including merchant taconite producers that sell their output on the market, integrated iron and steel plants that produce and consume the taconite captively within the company, steel producers that use electric arc furnace ( EAF) technology to produce steel from scrap, and foreign producers. Consumers incur $ 3.4 million of the total social costs, merchant producers incur $ 0.7 million in costs, and integrated iron and steel producers incur $ 5 million in costs. The EAF producers and foreign producers enjoy a net gain in revenues of $ 1.2 million and $ 0.7 million, respectively. Our analysis indicates that the taconite iron ore market will experience minimal changes in the price and quantity of produced, and in the prices and quantities of steel mill products ( some of which are produced using taconite). Prices in the taconite iron ore market are estimated to increase by 2/ 100th of a percent while production may decrease by less than 1/ 100th of 1 percent. The price of steel mill products is projected to increase by less than 1/ 100th of 1 percent and the quantity produced is projected to change by less than 1/ 100th of 1 percent. The EAF steel producers who make steel from scrap rather than iron ore are projected to increase their output by approximately 2/ 100th of 1 percent in response to the slight increase in the price of steel mill products. While the market overall shows minimal impacts associated with this proposed rule, the financial stability of the firms operating in this market is very uncertain. The past few years have been a period of tremendous change in the iron and steel industry, during which more than 27 companies in the industry have declared bankruptcy, several plants have closed, and EAF technology has secured a growing share of the market. These changes have occurred due to evolving economic conditions, both domestically and abroad, and technological developments within the industry. Conditions continue to be challenging for iron and steel producers. In an assessment of the impacts on the companies owning taconite plants, we find the estimated costs of the proposed rule are uniformly VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77578 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules less than 1 percent of baseline sales revenues, and typically less than 3 percent of baseline profits. However, four of the companies had negative operating income in 2000, a period of time during in which the entire nation experienced a drop in economic activity. Three of the companies owning taconite plants have filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code since September 2001. Thus, there is reason to be concerned about the financial condition of companies owning taconite plants. The incremental effect of the proposed rule on firm financial stability, however, is projected to be very small. We also prepared a sensitivity analysis that examined the regional impacts of the proposed rule. All the taconite production plants are located within four counties in Minnesota and one in Michigan. Thus, the impacts of the proposed rule are expected to be concentrated geographically. We modeled the supply and demand linkages of the various industries and households within each county to estimate changes that may occur in the region as the taconite industry complies with the proposed NESHAP. We estimate that as industries that interact with the taconite industry ( such as construction and earth moving equipment industries) react to the changes in the taconite market, and as household incomes are reduced as a result of changes in all the various industries in the region, the impact of the proposed rule will add approximately $ 4 million in economic cost to the region. This represents approximately 2/ 10ths of 1 percent of total sales in those counties. Thus, even though the impacts are concentrated in only five counties, we believe that the impacts on those county economies will not be very large. D. What Are the Non­ Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts? We project that the implementation of the rule as proposed would increase water usage by 8.4 billion gallons per year industrywide. This increased water usage would result from the installation of new wet scrubbers needed for compliance. Much of this water will be discharged as scrubber blowdown to the tailings basin( s) located at each plant. At two or more of the affected facilities, there is the potential that this increased wastewater burden will result in new or aggravated violations of permitted wastewater discharge limits from the tailings basins unless significant measures are taken to install new or upgrade existing wastewater treatment systems. The energy increase would be expected to be 15,298 megawatt­ hours per year, primarily due to the energy requirements of new wet scrubbers. V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal from all interested parties. You need to submit full supporting data and detailed analysis with your comments to allow use to make the best use of them. Be sure to direct your comments to the EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket), Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0039 ( see ADDRESSES). VI. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the 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 a `` 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 entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this regulatory action is not a `` significant regulatory action'' because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866. B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires the 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 rules 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 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. This proposed rule is mandated by statute and, does not impose requirements on States, however, States will be required to implement the rule by incorporating the rule into permits and enforcing the rule upon delegation. States will collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resource burden of implementing the rule. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, the EPA did consult with State and local officials in developing this rule. 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 the 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.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. No tribal governments own or operate taconite iron ore processing plants. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 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 the EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77579 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules The EPA interprets 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 rule. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is technology based and not based on health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Further, this proposed rule has been determined not to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866. E. 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, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective 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 the EPA 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 as to why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has 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 to the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this rule for any year has been estimated to be $ 8.9 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. F. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), As Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 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 Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, `` small entity'' is defined as: ( 1) A small business whose parent company has fewer than 500 employees ( the size standard set by the Small Business Administration for small businesses in NAICS 21221, Taconite Iron Ore Processing Facilities); ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government or a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not­ forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Since there are no small entities within the taconite industry, this proposed rule is not expected to impose regulatory costs on any small entities. Therefore, EPA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. G. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request ( ICR) document ( ICR No. 2050.01), and you may obtain a copy from Susan Auby by mail at U. S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 566 1672. You may also download a copy off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA ( 42 U. S. C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA's policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule would require applicable one­ time notifications required by the General Provisions for each affected source. As required by the NESHAP General Provisions, all plants would be required to prepare and operate by a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Plants also would be required to prepare an operation and maintenance plan for control devices subject to operating limits, a fugitive emissions control plan, and a performance testing plan. Records would be required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the monitoring, operation, and maintenance requirements for control devices and monitoring systems. Semiannual compliance reports also are required. These reports would describe any deviation from the standards, any period a continuous monitoring system was `` out­ of­ control,'' or any startup, shutdown, or malfunction event where actions taken to respond were inconsistent with startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. If no deviation or other event occurred, only a summary report would be required. Consistent with the General Provisions, if actions taken in response to a startup, shutdown, or malfunction event are not consistent with the plan, an immediate report must be submitted within 2 days of the event with a letter report 7 days later. Since the rule provides a 3­ year compliance period, periodic reporting, initial performance testing, and VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77580 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules subsequent performance testing activities would be conducted beyond the 3­ year period covered by the ICR. Therefore, the burden for these items is not included in the burden estimate. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the final rule) is estimated to total 518 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of $ 29,052, including labor, capital, and operation and maintenance. This burden estimate includes the preparation of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, an operating and maintenance plan, a fugitive dust emission control plan, and a performance testing plan. The total capital/ startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3­ year period of the ICR are estimated at $ 3.2 million ( annualized capital/ startup costs are $ 271,089/ year) with operating and maintenance equipment costs of $ 101,455 per year. 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 purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search existing 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 EPA's rules are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Comments are requested on the EPA'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. By U. S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or by courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6143, Washington DC 20460 ( 202 566 1700); and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 18, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 17, 2003. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 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 the 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 rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the following standards in this proposed rule: EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, and 17. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 2F and 2G. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the docket ( Docket Number A 2001 14) for this proposed rule. The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10, `` Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in this rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B. This search for emissions measurement procedures identified 14 voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that 12 of these 14 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in this proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for this determination for the 12 methods are available in the docket. Two of the 14 voluntary consensus standards identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of this proposed rule because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/ BSR MFC 13M, `` Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 ( and possibly 1); and ASME/ BSR MFC 12M, `` Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2. Sections 63.9621 and 63.9622 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRRR, list the EPA testing methods included in the proposed rule. Under § § 63.7( f) and 63.8( f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures. I. Executive Order 13211, Energy Effects This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Rules That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 26, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of 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 proposed to be amended by adding subpart RRRRR to read as follows: Subpart RRRRR National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Taconite Iron Ore Processing VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77581 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules What This Subpart Covers Sec. 63.9580 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.9581 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.9582 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.9583 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards 63.9590 What emission limitations must I meet? 63.9591 What work practice standards must I meet? Operation and Maintenance Requirements 63.9600 What are my operation and maintenance requirements? General Compliance Requirements 63.9610 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? Initial Compliance Requirements 63.9620 On which units and by what date must I conduct performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.9621 What test methods and other procedures must I use to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limits for particulate matter? 63.9622 What test methods and other procedures must I use to establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits? 63.9623 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations that apply to me? 63.9624 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice standards that apply to me? 63.9625 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me? Continuous Compliance Requirements 63.9630 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.9631 What are my monitoring requirements? 63.9632 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for my monitoring equipment? 63.9633 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.9634 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations that apply to me? 63.9635 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standards that apply to me? 63.9636 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me? 63.9637 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate continuous compliance? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.9640 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.9641 What reports must I submit and when? 63.9642 What records must I keep? 63.9643 In what form and how long must I keep my records? Other Requirements and Information 63.9650 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.9651 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.9652 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 Emission Limits Table 2 to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 Subpart RRRRR National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants for Taconite Iron Ore Processing What This Subpart Covers § 63.9580 What is the purpose of this subpart? This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for taconite iron ore processing. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with all applicable emission limitations ( emission limits and operating limits), work practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart. § 63.9581 Am I subject to this subpart? You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a taconite iron ore processing plant that is ( or is part of) a major source of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions on the first compliance date that applies to you. Your taconite iron ore processing plant is a major source of HAP if it emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year. § 63.9582 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? ( a) This subpart applies to each new and existing affected source at your taconite iron ore processing plant. ( b) The affected sources are each new or existing ore crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, and finished pellet handling operation at your taconite iron ore processing plant, as defined in § 63.9652. ( c) This subpart covers emissions from ore crushing and handling emission units; ore dryer stacks; indurating furnace stacks; finished pellet handling emission units; and fugitive dust emissions. ( d) An ore crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, or finished pellet handling operation at your taconite iron ore processing plant is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source before December 18, 2002. ( e) An ore crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, or finished pellet handling operation at your taconite iron ore processing plant is new if you commence construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after December 18, 2002. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of reconstruction in § 63.2. § 63.9583 When do I have to comply with this subpart? ( a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later than [ DATE 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ( b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date is on or before [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you by [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ( c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date is after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you upon initial startup. ( d) If your taconite iron ore processing plant is an area source that becomes a major source of HAP, the compliance dates in paragraphs ( d) ( 1) and ( 2) of this section apply to you. ( 1) Any portion of the taconite iron ore processing plant that is a new affected source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this subpart upon startup. ( 2) All other parts of the taconite iron ore processing plant must be in compliance with this subpart no later than 3 years after it becomes a major source. ( e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in § 63.9640. Several of these notifications must be submitted before the compliance date for your affected source. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77582 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards § 63.9590 What emission limitations must I meet? ( a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart that applies to you. ( b) You must meet each operating limit for control devices in paragraphs ( b) ( 1) through ( 4) of this section that applies to you. ( 1) For each negative pressure baghouse or positive pressure baghouse equipped with a stack applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart, you must operate the baghouse such that the bag leak detection system does not alarm for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in any semiannual reporting period. ( 2) For each scrubber applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart, you must maintain the average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum levels established during the initial performance test. ( 3) For each dry electrostatic precipitator applied to meet any particulate matter emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart, you must maintain the 6­ minute average opacity of emissions exiting the control device stack at or below the level established during the initial performance test. ( 4) An owner or operator who uses an air pollution control device other than a baghouse, scrubber, or dry electrostatic precipitator must submit a site specific monitoring plan as described in § 63.9631( d). § 63.9591 What work practice standards must I meet? ( a) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, a fugitive dust emissions control plan that describes in detail the measures that will be put in place to control fugitive dust emissions from the locations listed in paragraphs ( a) ( 1) through ( 6) of this section. ( 1) Stockpiles ( includes, but is not limited to, stockpiles of uncrushed ore, crushed ore, or finished pellets); ( 2) Material transfer points; ( 3) Plant roadways; ( 4) Tailings basin; ( 5) Pellet loading areas; and ( 6) Yard areas. ( b) A copy of your fugitive dust emissions control plan must be submitted for approval to the Administrator or delegated authority on or before the applicable compliance date for the affected source as specified in § 63.9583. The requirement for the plant to operate according to the fugitive dust emissions control plan must be incorporated by reference in the operating permit for the plant that is issued by the designated permitting authority under part 70 or 71 of this chapter. ( c) You can use an existing fugitive dust emissions control plan provided it meets the requirements in paragraphs ( c) ( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) The plan satisfies the requirements of paragraph ( a) of this section. ( 2) The plan describes the current measures to control fugitive dust emission sources. ( 3) The plan has been approved as part of a State Implementation Plan or title V permit. ( d) You must maintain a current copy of the fugitive dust emissions control plan onsite and available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart. Operation and Maintenance Requirements § 63.9600 What are my operation and maintenance requirements? ( a) As required by § 63.6( e)( 1)( i), you must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by this subpart. ( b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a written operation and maintenance plan for each control device subject to an operating limit in § 63.9590( b). Each plan must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority on or before the compliance date that is specified in § 63.9583 and must address the elements in paragraphs ( b) ( 1) and ( 2) of this section. You must maintain a current copy of the operation and maintenance plan onsite and available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart. ( 1) Preventative maintenance for each control device, including a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions for routine and long­ term maintenance. ( 2) In the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered for a baghouse, you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the cause of the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the corrective action as soon as practicable. Actions may include, but are not limited to, the actions listed in paragraphs ( b)( 2) ( i) through ( vi) of this section. ( i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in emissions. ( ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. ( iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing the control device. ( iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment. ( v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. ( vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions. General Compliance Requirements § 63.9610 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? ( a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The terms startup, shutdown, and malfunction are defined in § 63.2. ( b) During the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in § 63.9583 and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems have been installed and certified and any applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment. ( c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3). Initial Compliance Requirements § 63.9620 On which units and by what date must I conduct performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations? ( a) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart for ore crushing and handling, you must conduct an initial performance test for particulate matter as specified in paragraphs ( a) ( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Except as provided in paragraph ( e) of this section, an initial performance test must be performed on all stacks associated with ore crushing and handling. ( 2) The initial performance tests must be conducted within 2 years of the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77583 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules compliance date that is specified in § 63.9583. ( b) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart for each indurating furnace, you must conduct an initial performance test for all stacks associated with an indurating furnace within 180 calendar days of the compliance date that is specified in § 63.9583. For indurating furnaces with multiple stacks, all stacks for the indurating furnace must be tested simultaneously. ( c) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart for finished pellet handling, you must conduct an initial performance test for particulate matter as specified in paragraphs ( c) ( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Except as provided in paragraph ( e) of this section, an initial performance test must be performed on all stacks associated with finished pellet handling. ( 2) The initial performance tests must be conducted within 2 years of the compliance date that is specified in § 63.9583. ( d) To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart for each ore dryer, you must conduct an initial performance test for all stacks associated with an ore dryer within 180 calendar days of the compliance date that is specified in § 63.9583. For ore dryers with multiple stacks, all stacks for the ore dryer must be tested simultaneously. ( e) For ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling, in lieu of conducting initial performance tests for particulate matter on all stacks, you may elect to group similar emission units together and conduct an initial compliance test on a representative sample of emission units within each group of similar emission units. The determination of whether emission units are similar must meet the criteria in paragraph ( f) of this section. The number of units that must be tested within each group of similar units must be determined using the criteria in paragraph ( g) of this section. If you decide to test representative emission units, you must prepare and submit a testing plan as described in paragraph ( h) of this section. ( f) If you elect to test representative emission units as provided in paragraph ( e) of this section, the units that are grouped together as similar units must meet the criteria in paragraphs ( f) ( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) The emission units must be of the same type, which may include, but is not limited to, primary crushers, secondary crushers, tertiary crushers, fine crushers, ore conveyors, ore bins, ore screens, grate feed, pellet loadout, hearth layer, cooling stacks, pellet conveyor, and pellet screens. ( 2) The emission units must have the same type of air pollution control device, which may include, but is not limited to, venturi scrubbers, impingement scrubbers, rotoclones, multiclones, wet and dry electrostatic precipitators, and baghouses. ( 3) The volumetric air flow rates discharged from the air pollution control devices, in dry standard cubic feet ( dscf), must be within plus or minus 10 percent of the representative unit. ( 4) The actual process throughput rate, in long tons per hour, must be within plus or minus 10 percent of the representative unit. ( g) If you elect to test representative emission units as provided in paragraph ( e) of this section, the number of emission units tested within each group of similar units must be based on the criteria in paragraphs ( g) ( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) For each group of similar units with six or less units, you must test at least one unit. ( 2) For each group of similar units with greater than six, but equal to or less than 12 units, you must test at least two units. ( 3) For each group of similar units with greater than 12 units, you must test at least four units. ( h) If you are conducting initial testing on representative emission units within the ore crushing and handling or finished pellet handling, you must submit a testing plan for initial performance tests as required under paragraph ( e) of this section. This testing plan must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority on or before the compliance date that is specified in § 63.9583. The testing plan must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( h) ( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) A list of all emission units. This list must clearly identify all emission units that have been grouped together as similar emission units. Within each group of emission units, you must identify the emission unit( s) that will be the representative unit( s) for that group, and subject to initial performance testing. ( 2) The process type, type of emission control, the air flow rate in dscf, and the actual process throughput rate in long tons per hour for each emission unit. ( 3) A schedule indicating when you will conduct initial performance tests for particulate matter for each of the representative units. ( i) For each work practice standard and operation and maintenance requirement that applies to you where initial compliance is not demonstrated using a performance test, you must demonstrate initial compliance within 30 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.9583. ( j) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between December 18, 2002, and [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either the proposed emission limit or the promulgated emission limit no later than [ DATE 180 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or no later than 180 calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to § 63.7( a)( 2)( ix). ( k) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between December 18, 2002, and [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and you chose to comply with the proposed emission limit when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct a second performance test to demonstrate compliance with the promulgated emission limit by [ DATE 3 YEARS AND 180 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to § 63.7( a)( 2)( ix). § 63.9621 What test methods and other procedures must I use to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limits for particulate matter? ( a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your affected source according to the requirements in § 63.7( e)( 1) and the conditions detailed in paragraphs ( b) and ( c) of this section. ( b) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit for particulate matter in Table 1 of this subpart for ore crushing and handling, and for finished pellet handling, you must follow the test methods and procedures in paragraphs ( b) ( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter in the stack gas and the stack gas volumetric flow rate for each emission unit according to the test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The applicable test methods are listed in paragraphs ( b)( 1) ( i) through ( v) of this section. ( i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points. Sampling ports must be VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77584 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere. ( ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, as applicable, to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas. ( iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. ( iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas. ( v) Method 5, 5D or 17 to determine the concentration of particulate matter. ( 2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet of gas during each particulate matter test run. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test. ( 3) For each ore crushing and handling affected source, and for each finished pellet handling affected source you must determine the flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter emissions using the procedure in paragraph ( b)( 3) ( i) or ( ii) of this section. ( i) Compute the flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter emissions using Equation 1 of this section. C C Eq w i i n = = Q Q 1) i i i= 1 n 1 ( . Where: Cw = Flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for all emission units within the affected source, grains per dry standard cubic foot ( gr/ dscf); Ci = Three­ run average particulate matter concentration from emission unit `` i'', gr/ dscf; Qi = Three­ run average volumetric flow rate of stack gas from emission unit `` i'', dscf/ hr; and n = The number of emission units in the affected source. ( ii) If you are grouping similar units as allowed under § 63.9620( d), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( b)( 3)( ii) ( A) and ( B) of this section. ( A) All emission units within each group of similar units must be assigned the flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter emissions for the representative unit. ( B) All emission units within each group of similar units must be assigned the actual average operating volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas measured for each emission unit within each group of similar units. You cannot assign the average volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas measured for a representative unit to all emission units within each group of similar units. ( c) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit for particular matter in Table 1 of this subpart for each ore dryer and for each indurating furnace, you must follow the test methods and procedures in paragraphs ( c) ( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter for each stack according to the test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The applicable test methods are listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1) ( i) through ( v) of this section. ( i) Method 1 or 1A to select sampling port locations and the number of traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere. ( ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, as applicable, to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas. ( iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. ( iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas. ( v) Method 5, 5D or 17 to determine the concentration of particulate matter. ( 2) Collect a minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet of gas during each particulate matter test run. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a performance test. ( 3) For ore dryers and indurating furnaces with multiple stacks, all stacks must be tested simultaneously. ( 4) For each ore dryer and each indurating furnace, compute the flowweighted mean concentration of particulate matter for each test run using Equation 2 of this section. C C Eq a i i n = = Q Q 2) i i i= 1 n 1 ( . Where: Ca = Flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for run `` a'', gr/ dscf; Ci = Concentration of particulate matter from stack `` i'' for run `` a'', gr/ dscf; Qi = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas from stack `` i'' for run `` a'', dscf/ hr; n = Number of stacks; and a = Run number: 1, 2, or 3. ( 5) For each ore dryer and each indurating furnace, compute the flowweighted mean particulate matter concentration for the three test runs using Equation 3 of this section. C C C C Eq = + + 1 2 3 3 ( . 3) Where: C = Flow­ weighted mean particulate matter concentration, gr/ dscf; C1 = Flow­ weighted particulate matter concentration for run 1, gr/ dscf; C2 = Flow­ weighted particulate matter concentration for run 2, gr/ dscf; and C3 = Flow­ weighted particulate matter concentration for run 3, gr/ dscf. § 63.9622 What test methods and other procedures must I use to establish and demonstrate initial compliance with the operating limits? ( a) For a wet scrubber subject to operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in § 63.9590( b)( 2), you must establish sitespecific operating limits according to the procedures in paragraphs ( a) ( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Using the continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) required in § 63.9631( b), measure and record the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate every 15 minutes during each run of the particulate matter performance test. ( 2) Compute and record the average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating limits are the lowest average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate value in any of the three runs that meet the applicable emission limit. ( b) For a dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the operating limit in § 63.9590( b)( 3) for opacity, you must establish a site­ specific operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs ( b) ( 1) and ( 4) of this section. ( 1) Using the continuous opacity monitoring system ( COMS) required in § 63.9631( c), measure and record the opacity of emissions from each control device stack during the particulate matter performance test. ( 2) Compute and record the 6­ minute opacity averages from 24 or more data points equally spaced over each 6­ minute period ( e. g., at 15­ second intervals) during the test runs. ( 3) Using the opacity measurements from a performance test that meets the emission limit, determine the opacity value corresponding to the 99 percent upper confidence level of a normal distribution of the 6­ minute opacity averages. ( 4) In your semiannual compliance report required by 63.9641( b), report as a deviation any 6­ minute period during which the average opacity, as measured by the COMS, exceeds the opacity value corresponding to the 99 percent upper confidence level determined under paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section. ( c) You may change the operating limits for a wet scrubber, or dry VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 EP18DE02.000</ MATH> EP18DE02.001</ MATH> EP18DE02.002</ MATH> 77585 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules electrostatic precipitator if you meet the requirements in paragraphs ( c) ( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating limit. ( 2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limitation in Table 1 of this subpart. ( 3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable procedures n paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section. § 63.9623 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations that apply to me? ( a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs ( a) ( 1) through ( 6) of this section. ( 1) For ore crushing and handling, the flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in § 63.9620( a) and § 63.9621( b), must not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart. ( 2) For indurating furnaces, the flowweighted mean concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in § 63.9620( b) and § 63.9621( c), must not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart. ( 3) For finished pellet handling, the flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in § 63.9620( c) and § 63.9621( b), must not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart. ( 4) For ore dryers, the flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter, determined according to the procedures in § 63.9620( d) and § 63.9621( c), must not exceed the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart. ( 5) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in § 63.9590( b)( 2), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 5) ( i) and ( ii) of this section. ( i) Measure and record the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate during the performance test in accordance with § 63.9622( a). ( ii) Establish appropriate site­ specific operating limits. ( 6) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity operating limit in § 63.9590( b)( 3), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 6)( i) and ( ii) of this section. ( i) Measure and record the opacity during the performance test in accordance with § 63.9622( b). ( ii) Establish an appropriate sitespecific operating limit. ( b) For each emission limitation that applies to you, you must submit a notification of compliance status according to § 63.9640( e). § 63.9624 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice standards that apply to me? ( a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice standards by meeting the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) You must prepare a fugitive dust emissions control plan in accordance with the requirements in § 63.9591. ( 2) You must submit to the Administrator or delegated authority the fugitive dust emissions control plan in accordance with the requirements in § 63.9591. ( 3) You must implement each control practice according to the procedures specified in your fugitive dust emissions control plan. ( b) [ Reserved] § 63.9625 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me? You must demonstrate initial compliance by certifying in your notification of compliance status that you have met the requirements in paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section. ( a) You have prepared the operation and maintenance plan according to the requirements in § 63.9600( b). ( b) You operate each control device according to the procedures in the operation and maintenance plan. ( c) You submit a notification of compliance status according to the requirements in § 63.9640( e). Continuous Compliance Requirements § 63.9630 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? ( a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate continued compliance with the ore crushing and handling emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart according to the schedule developed by your permitting authority and shown in your title V permit. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and schedule, containing the information specified in paragraph ( e) of this section, to the permitting authority for approval. ( b) You must conduct subsequent performance tests on all stacks from indurating furnaces to demonstrate continued compliance with the indurating furnace limits in Table 1 of this subpart according to the schedule developed by your permitting authority and shown in your title V permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5­ year permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and schedule, containing the information specified in paragraph ( e) of this section, to the permitting authority for approval. For indurating furnaces with multiple stacks, all stacks for the indurating furnace must be tested simultaneously. ( c) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the finished pellet handling emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart according to the schedule developed by your permitting authority and shown in your title V permit. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and schedule, containing the information specified in paragraph ( e) of this section, to the permitting authority for approval. ( d) You must conduct subsequent performance tests on all stacks from ore dryers to demonstrate continued compliance with the ore dryer limits in Table 1 of this subpart according to the schedule developed by your permitting authority and shown in your title V permit. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must submit a testing plan and schedule, containing the information specified in paragraph ( e) of this section, to the permitting authority for approval. For ore dryers with multiple stacks, all stacks for the ore dryer must be tested simultaneously. ( e) If your plant does not have a title V permit, you must submit a testing plan for subsequent performance tests as required in paragraphs ( a) through ( d) of this section. This testing plan must be submitted to the Administrator or delegated authority on or before the compliance date that is specified in § 63.9583. The testing plan must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( e) ( 1) and ( 2) of this section. You must maintain a current copy of the testing plan onsite and available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart. ( 1) A list of all emission units. ( 2) A schedule indicating when you will conduct subsequent performance tests for particulate matter for each of the emission units. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77586 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 63.9631 What are my monitoring requirements? ( a) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in § 63.9590( b)( 1) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must at all times monitor the relative change in particulate matter loadings using a bag leak detection system according to the requirements in § 63.9632( a) and conduct inspections at their specified frequencies according to the requirements in paragraphs ( a) ( 1) through ( 8) of this section. ( 1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in the manual. ( 2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of removal mechanisms. ( 3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse­ jet baghouses each day. ( 4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an appropriate methodology. ( 5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through monthly visual inspection or equivalent means. ( 6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and shaker­ type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked ( kneed or bent) or laying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for shaker­ type baghouses using self­ tensioning ( spring­ loaded) devices. ( 7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks. ( 8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means. ( b) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in § 63.9590( b)( 2), you must at all times monitor the average pressure drop and water flow rate using a CPMS according to the requirements in § 63.9632( b) and ( c). ( c) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity operating limit in § 63.9590( b)( 3), you must at all times monitor the 6­ minute average opacity of emissions exiting each control device stack using a COMS according to the requirements in § 63.9632( d). ( d) An owner or operator who uses an air pollution control device other than a baghouse, scrubber, or dry electrostatic precipitator must submit a site specific monitoring plan that includes the information in paragraphs ( d) ( 1) through ( 4) of this section. The monitoring plan is subject to approval by the Administrator. You must maintain a current copy of the monitoring plan onsite and available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart. ( 1) A description of the device; ( 2) Test results collected in accordance with § 63.9621 verifying the performance of the device for reducing emissions of particulate matter to the atmosphere to the levels required by this subpart; ( 3) A copy of the operation and maintenance plan required in § 63.9600( b); and ( 4) Appropriate operating parameters that will be monitored to maintain continuous compliance with the applicable emission limitation( s). § 63.9632 What are the installation, operation, and maintenance requirements for my monitoring equipment? ( a) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in § 63.9590( b)( 1) for the bag leak detection system alarm, you must install, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection system according to the requirements in paragraphs ( a) ( 1) through ( 7) of this section. ( 1) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter ( 0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. ( 2) The system must provide output of relative changes in particulate matter loadings. ( 3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over a preset level. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel. ( 4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the guidance document, `` Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA 454/ R 98 015, September 1997. This document is available on the EPA's Technology Transfer Network at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ emc/ cem/ tribo. pdf ( Adobe Acrobat version) or http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ emc/ cem/ tribo. wpd ( WordPerfect version). You may install, operate, and maintain other types of bag leak detection systems in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. ( 5) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity ( range) and the averaging period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time. ( 6) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time, except as detailed in your operation and maintenance plan. Do not increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365­ day period unless a responsible official certifies, in writing, that the baghouse has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition. ( 7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. ( b) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits in § 63.9590( b)( 2) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the requirements in paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) For the pressure drop CPMS, you must follow the procedures in paragraphs ( b)( 1)( i) through ( vi) of this section. ( i) Locate the pressure sensor( s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure and that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. ( ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of the pressure range. ( iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily. ( iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. ( v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a new pressure sensor. ( vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. ( 2) For the scrubber water flow rate CPMS, you must follow the procedures in paragraphs ( b)( 2) ( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77587 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of the flow rate. ( iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually according to the manufacturer's instructions. ( iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. ( c) You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS for a wet scrubber according to the requirements in paragraphs ( c) ( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 5­ minute period. ( 2) Each CPMS must have valid data for at least 95 percent of every averaging period. ( 3) Each CPMS must determine and record the average of all recorded readings. ( d) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity operating limit in § 63.9590( b)( 3), you must install, operate, and maintain each COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs ( d) ( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) You must install each COMS and conduct a performance evaluation of each COMS according to § 63.8 and Performance Specification 1 in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. ( 2) You must develop and implement a quality control program for operating and maintaining each COMS according to § 63.8. At a minimum, the quality control program must include a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and annual zero alignment of each COMS. ( 3) You must operate and maintain each COMS according to § 63.8( e) and your quality control program. Identify periods the COMS is out of control, including any periods that the COMS fails to pass a daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, or annual zero alignment audit. ( 4) You must determine and record the 6­ minute average opacity collected for periods during which the COMS is not out of control. § 63.9633 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? ( a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities ( including as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously ( or collect data at all required intervals) at all times an affected source is operating. ( b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating levels, or to fulfill a minimum data availability requirement. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. ( c) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not considered malfunctions. § 63.9634 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations that apply to me? ( a) For each affected source subject to an emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs ( b) through ( f) of this section. ( b) For ore crushing and handling and for finished pellet handling, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for all ore crushing and handling emission units and for all finished pellet handling emission units must be maintained at or below the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart. ( 2) You must conduct subsequent performance tests for emission units in the ore crushing and handling and finished pellet handling affected sources following the schedule in your title V permit. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must conduct subsequent performance tests according to a testing plan approved by the Administrator or delegated authority. ( c) For ore dryers and indurating furnaces, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs ( c) ( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for all stacks from the ore dryer or indurating furnace must be maintained at or below the emission limits in Table 1 of this subpart. ( 2) For ore dryers, you must conduct subsequent performance tests following the schedule in your title V permit. For indurating furnaces, you must conduct subsequent performance tests following the schedule in your title V permit, but no less frequent than twice per 5­ year permit term. If a title V permit has not been issued, you must conduct subsequent performance tests according to a testing plan approved by the Administrator or delegated authority. ( d) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit for the bag leak detection system alarm in § 63.9590( b)( 1), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements in paragraphs ( d) ( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Maintaining each baghouse such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound for more than 5 percent of the operating time during any semiannual reporting period. To determine the percent of time the alarm sounded you must follow the procedure in paragraphs ( d)( 1) ( i) through ( v) of this section. ( i) Alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak detection system are not included in the calculation. ( ii) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not included in the calculation if the condition is described in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and all the actions you took during the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were consistent with the procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. ( iii) Count 1 hour of alarm time for each alarm when you initiated procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour. ( iv) Count the actual amount of time you took to initiate procedures to determine the cause of the alarm if you did not initiate procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm. ( v) Calculate the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak detection system sounds as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the total operating time multiplied by 100. ( 2) Maintaining records of the times the bag leak detection system alarm sounded, and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the corrective action( s) taken, and the date on which corrective action was completed. ( 3) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the requirements in § 63.9631( a) ( 1) through ( 8) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements. If you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection system beyond the limits specified in § 63.9632( a)( 6), you must include a copy of the required written certification by a responsible official in the next semiannual compliance report. ( e) For each wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for pressure drop VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77588 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules and scrubber water flow rate in § 63.9590( b)( 2), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of paragraphs ( e)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Maintaining the average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate at levels no lower than those established during the initial or subsequent performance test. ( 2) Inspecting and maintaining each scrubber CPMS according to § 63.9632( b) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements. ( 3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate according to § 63.9632( c) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements. ( f) For each dry electrostatic precipitator subject to the site­ specific opacity operating limit in § 63.9590( b)( 3), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by completing the requirements of paragraphs ( f)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Maintaining the 6­ minute average opacity of emissions no higher than the site­ specific limit established during the initial or subsequent performance test. ( 2) Operating and maintaining each COMS and reducing the COMS data according to § 63.9632( d). § 63.9635 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standards that apply to me? ( a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standard requirements in § 63.9591 by operating in accordance with your fugitive dust emissions control plan at all times. ( b) You must maintain a current copy of the fugitive dust emissions control plan required in § 63.9591 onsite and available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart. § 63.9636 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me? ( a) For each control device subject to an operating limit in § 63.9590( b), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements in § 63.9600( b) by completing the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Performing preventative maintenance for each control device according to § 63.9600( b)( 1) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements; and ( 2) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak detection system alarm according to § 63.9600( b)( 2) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements. ( b) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and maintenance plan required in § 63.9600( b) onsite and available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the requirements of this subpart. § 63.9637 What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate continuous compliance? ( a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limitation in Table 1 of this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You also must report each instance in which you did not meet the work practice standards in § 63.9591 and each instance in which you did not meet each operation and maintenance requirement in § 63.9600 that applies to you. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.9641. ( b) Startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. ( 1) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. ( 2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e). Notifications, Reports, and Records § 63.9640 What notifications must I submit and when? ( a) You must submit all of the notifications in § § 63.7( b) and ( c), 63.8( f)( 4), and 63.9( b) through ( h) that apply to you by the specified dates. ( b) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 2), if you start up your affected source before [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit your initial notification no later than [ DATE 120 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. ( c) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 3), if you start up your new affected source on or after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit your initial notification no later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart. ( d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as required in § 63.7( b)( 1). ( e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration, you must submit a notification of compliance status according to § 63.9( h)( 2)( ii). The initial notification of compliance status must be submitted by the dates specified in paragraphs ( e)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following completion of the initial compliance demonstration. ( 2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test according to § 63.10( d)( 2). § 63.9641 What reports must I submit and when? ( a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule, you must submit a semiannual compliance report to your permitting authority according to the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.9583 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes first after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.9583. ( 2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your first compliance report is due. ( 3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77589 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. ( 4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after the end of the semiannual reporting period. ( 5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( b) Compliance report contents. Each compliance report must include the information in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section and, as applicable, in paragraphs ( b)( 4) through ( 8) of this section. ( 1) Company name and address. ( 2) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name, title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the content of the report. ( 3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. ( 4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10( d)( 5)( i). ( 5) If there were no deviations from the continuous compliance requirements in § § 63.9634 through 63.9636 that apply to you, then provide a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations, work practice standards, or operation and maintenance requirements during the reporting period. ( 6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring system ( including a CPMS or COMS) was outof control as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), then provide a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS was out­ of­ control during the reporting period. ( 7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in Table 1 of this subpart that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a continuous monitoring system ( including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with an emission limitation in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section and the information in paragraphs ( b)( 7)( i) and ( ii) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( i) The total operating time of each affected source during the reporting period. ( ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations ( including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable and the corrective action taken. ( 8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system ( including a CPMS or COMS) to comply with the emission limitation in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section and the information in paragraphs ( b)( 8)( i) through ( xi) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped. ( ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring was inoperative, except for zero ( low­ level) and highlevel checks. ( iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring system was out­ of­ control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). ( iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. ( v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. ( vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period including those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during the reporting period. ( viii) A brief description of the process units. ( ix) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system. ( x) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system certification or audit. ( xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems, processes, or controls since the last reporting period. ( c) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report according to the requirements in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). ( d) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A). If you submit a compliance report for an affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), and the compliance report includes all the required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation or operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart, submission of the compliance report satisfies any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements for an affected source to your permitting authority. § 63.9642 What records must I keep? ( a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 3) 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, according to the requirements in § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv). ( 2) The records in § 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through ( v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( 3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations as required in § 63.10( b)( 2)( viii). ( b) For each COMS, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) Records described in § 63.10( b)( 2)( vi) through ( xi). ( 2) Monitoring data for COMS during a performance evaluation as required in § 63.6( h)( 7)( i) and ( ii). ( 3) Previous ( that is, superceded) versions of the performance evaluation plan as required in § 63.8( d)( 3). ( 4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77590 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. ( c) You must keep the records required in § § 63.9634 through 63.9636 to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement that applies to you. § 63.9643 In what form and how long must I keep my records? ( a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). ( b) As specified in § 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 keep each record on site for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record according to § 63.10( b)( 1). You can keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. Other Requirements and Information § 63.9650 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in § § 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. § 63.9651 Who implements and enforces this subpart? ( a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( 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 has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U. S. EPA Regional Office to find out if 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 subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph ( c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U. S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency. ( c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under § 63.7( e)( 2)( ii) and ( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 2) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under § 63.8( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 3) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10( f) and as defined in § 63.90. § 63.9652 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, and in this section as follows. Affected source means each new or existing ore crushing and handling operation, ore dryer, indurating furnace, or finished pellet handling operation, at your taconite iron ore processing plant. Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of continuously monitoring relative particulate matter ( dust) loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other upset conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on tribroelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter loadings. Conveyor belt transfer point means a point in the conveying operation where the taconite ore or taconite pellets are transferred to or from a conveyor belt, except where the taconite ore or taconite pellets are being transferred to a bin or stockpile. Crusher means a machine used to crush taconite ore and includes feeders or conveyors located immediately below the crushing surfaces. Crushers include, but are not limited to, gyratory crushers and cone crushers. 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 ( including operating limits) or operation and maintenance requirement; ( 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 ( 3) Fails to meet any emission limitation in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, or operating limit. Finished pellet handling means the transfer of fired taconite pellets from the indurating furnace to the finished pellet stockpiles at the plant. Finished pellet handling includes, but is not limited to, furnace discharge or grate discharge, and finished pellet screening, transfer, and storage. Fugitive dust emission source means a stationary source from which particles are discharged to the atmosphere due to wind or mechanical inducement such as vehicle traffic. Fugitive dust sources include, but are not limited to: ( 1) Stockpiles ( includes, but is not limited to, stockpiles of uncrushed ore, crushed ore, or finished pellets); ( 2) Material transfer points; ( 3) Plant roadways; ( 4) Tailings basins; ( 5) Pellet loading areas; and ( 6) Yard areas. Grate feed means the transfer of unfired taconite pellets from the pelletizer into the indurating furnace. Grate kiln indurating furnace means a furnace system that consists of a traveling grate, a rotary kiln, and an annular cooler. The grate kiln indurating furnace begins at the point where the grate feed conveyor discharges the green balls onto the furnace traveling grate and ends where the hardened pellets exit the cooler. The atmospheric pellet cooler vent stack is not included as part of the grate kiln indurating furnace. Indurating means the process whereby unfired taconite pellets, called green balls, are hardened at high temperature in an indurating furnace. Types of indurating furnaces include straight grate indurating furnaces and grate kiln indurating furnaces. Ore crushing and handling means the process whereby dry taconite ore is crushed and screened. Ore crushing and handling includes, but is not limited to, all dry crushing operations ( e. g., primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing), dry ore conveyance and transfer points, dry ore classification and screening, dry ore storage and stockpiling, dry milling, dry cobbing ( i. e., dry magnetic separation), and the grate feed. Ore crushing and handling specifically excludes any operations where the dry crushed ore is saturated with water, such as, wet milling and wet magnetic separation. Ore dryer means a rotary dryer that repeatedly tumbles wet taconite ore concentrate through a heated air stream to reduce the amount of entrained moisture in the taconite ore concentrate. Pellet cooler vent stacks means atmospheric vents in the cooler section of the grate kiln indurating furnace that exhaust cooling air that is not returned for recuperation. Pellet cooler vent stacks are not to be confused with the cooler discharge stack, which is in the pellet loadout or dumping area. Pellet loading area means that portion of a taconite iron ore processing plant VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77591 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules where taconite pellets are loaded into trucks or railcars. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in § 63.2. Screen means a device for separating material according to size by passing undersize material through one or more mesh surfaces ( screens) in series and retaining oversize material on the mesh surfaces ( screens). Storage bin means a facility for storage ( including surge bins and hoppers) of taconite ore or taconite pellets prior to further processing or loading. Straight grate indurating furnace means a furnace system that consists of a traveling grate that carries the taconite pellets through different furnace temperature zones. In the straight grate indurating furnace a layer of fired pellets, called the hearth layer, is placed on the traveling grate prior to the addition of unfired pellets. The straight grate indurating furnace begins at the point where the grate feed conveyor discharges the green balls onto the furnace traveling grate and ends where the hardened pellets drop off of the traveling grate. Taconite iron ore processing means the separation and concentration of iron ore from taconite, a low­ grade iron ore, to produce taconite pellets. Taconite ore means a low­ grade iron ore suitable for concentration of magnetite or hematite by fine grinding and magnetic or flotation treatment, from which pellets containing iron can be produced. Tailings basin means a natural or artificial impoundment in which gangue or other refuse material resulting from the washing, concentration or treatment of ground taconite iron ore is confined. Wet grinding and milling means the process where wet taconite ore is finely ground using rod and/ or ball mills. Tables to Subpart RRRRR of Part 63 As required in § 63.9590( a), you must comply with each applicable emission limit in the following table: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART RRRRR OF PART 63. EMISSION LIMITS For . . . You must comply with each of the following . . . 1. Existing ore crushing and handling emission units. The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all ore crushing and handling emission units, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( b), must not exceed 0.008 grains per dry standard cubic foot ( gr/ dscf). 2. New ore crushing and handling emission units. The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all ore crushing and handling emission units, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( b), must not exceed 0.005 gr/ dscf. 3. Each existing straight grate indurating furnace processing magnetite. The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all stacks, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( c), must not exceed 0.010 gr/ dscf. 4. Each new straight grate indurating furnace processing magnetite. The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all stacks, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( c), must not exceed 0.006 gr/ dscf. 5. Each existing grate kiln indurating furnace processing magnetite. The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all stacks, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( c), must not exceed 0.011 gr/ dscf. 6. Each new grate kiln indurating furnace processing magnetite. The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all stacks, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( c), must not exceed 0.006 gr/ dscf. 7. Each existing grate kiln indurating furnace processing hematite. The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all stacks, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( c), must not exceed 0.025 gr/ dscf. 8. Each new grate kiln indurating furnace processing hematite. The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all stacks, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( c), must not exceed 0.018 gr/ dscf. 9. Existing finished pellet handling emission units. The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all finished pellet handling emission units, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( b), must not exceed 0.008 gr/ dscf. 10. New finished pellet handling emission units The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all finished pellet handling emission units, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( b), must not exceed 0.005 gr/ dscf. 11. Each existing ore dryer ................................ The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all stacks, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( c), must not exceed 0.052 gr/ dscf. 12. Each new ore dryer ...................................... The flow­ weighted mean concentration of particulate matter discharged to the atmosphere from all stacks, as determined using the procedures in § 63.9621( c), must not exceed 0.025 gr/ dscf. As required in § 63.9650, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in the following table: TABLE 2 TO SUBPART RRRRR OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART RRRRR OF PART 63 Citation Subject Applies to Subpart RRRRR Explanation § 63.1 ..................................................... Applicability .......................................... Yes. § 63.2 ..................................................... Definitions ............................................ Yes. § 63.3 ..................................................... Units and Abbreviations ....................... Yes. § 63.4 ..................................................... Prohibited Activities ............................. Yes. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2 77592 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 18, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART RRRRR OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART RRRRR OF PART 63 Continued Citation Subject Applies to Subpart RRRRR Explanation § 63.5 ..................................................... Construction/ Reconstruction ................ Yes. § 63.6( a) ( g) .......................................... Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements. Yes. § 63.6( h) ................................................ Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emission ( VE) Standards. No ............................ Subpart RRRRR does not contain opacity and VE standards. § 63.6( i),( j) ............................................. Extension of Compliance and Presidential Compliance Extension. Yes. § 63.7( a)( 1) ( 2) ..................................... Applicability and Performance Test Dates. No ............................ Subpart RRRRR specifies performance test applicability and dates. § 63.7( a)( 3), ( b) ( h) ............................... Performance Testing Requirements .... Yes. § 63.8( a)( 1) ( a)( 3), ( b), ( c)( 1) ( 3), ( c)( 5) ( 8), ( d),( e), ( f)( 1) ( 5), ( g)( 1) ( 4). Monitoring Requirements ..................... Yes .......................... Continuous monitoring system ( CMS) requirements in § 63.8( c)( 5) and ( 6) apply only to COMS for dry electrostatic precipitators. § 63.8( a)( 4) ............................................ Additional Monitoring Requirements for Control Devices in § 63.11. No ............................ Subpart RRRRR does not require flares. § 63.8( c)( 4) ............................................ Continuous Monitoring System Requirements No ............................ Subpart RRRRR specifies requirements for operation of CMS. § 63.8( f)( 6) ............................................. Relative Accuracy Test Alternative ( RATA). No ............................ Subpart RRRRR does not require continuous emission monitoring systems § 63.8( g)( 5) ............................................ Data Reduction .................................... No ............................ Subpart RRRRR specifies data reduction requirements. § 63.9 ..................................................... Notification Requirements .................... Yes .......................... Additional notifications for CMS in § 63.9( g) apply to COMS for dry electrostatic precipitators. § 63.10( a), ( b)( 1) ( 2)( xii), ( b)( 2)( xiv), ( b)( 3),( c)( 1) ( 6) ( c)( 9) ( 15), ( d)( 1) ( 2), ( d)( 4) ( 5), ( e), ( f). Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Yes .......................... Additional records for CMS § 63.10( c) ( 1) ( 6),( 9) ( 15), and reports in § 63.10( d)( 1) ( 2) apply only to COMS for dry electrostatic precipitators. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiii) ................................... CMS Records for RATA Alternative .... No ............................ Subpart RRRRR doesn't require continuous emission monitoring systems § 63.10( c)( 7) ( 8) .................................... Records of Excess Emissions and Parameter Monitoring Exceedances for CMS. No ............................ Subpart RRRRR specifies record requirements § 63.10( d)( 3) .......................................... Reporting opacity or VE observations No ............................ Subpart RRRRR does not have opacity and VE standards § 63.11 ................................................... Control Device Requirements .............. No ............................ Subpart RRRRR does not require flares. § 63.12 ................................................... State Authority and Delegations .......... Yes § 63.13 ­ § 63.15 .................................... Addresses, Incorporation by Reference Availability of Information. Yes [ FR Doc. 02 31231 Filed 12 17 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 56 Dec 17, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 18DEP2. SGM 18DEP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.034759

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0048-0001

Proposed Rule

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; Proposed Rule

Wednesday, April 24, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; Proposed Rule VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20206 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [FRL– 7163– 6] RIN 2060– AG55 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for metal furniture surface coating operations located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. These proposed standards would implement section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring these operations to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The primary HAP emitted by these operations are xylene, toluene, glycol ethers, 2­ butoxy ethanol, ethylbenzene, and methyl ethyl ketone. Each of the HAP can cause toxic effects such as eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation, and blood cell, heart, liver, and kidney damage. Implementation of the proposed standards would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from major sources by about 70 percent. DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before June 24, 2002. Public Hearing. If anyone wishes to contact EPA to request to speak at a public hearing, they should do so by May 14, 2002. If requested, a public hearing will be held within approximately 30 days following publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 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– 97– 40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 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– 97– 40, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Room M– 1500, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at our Office of Administration Auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539– 03), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541– 7946, to request to speak at a public hearing or to find out if a hearing will be held. Docket. Docket No. A– 97– 40 contains supporting information used in developing the proposed 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: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539– 03), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541– 2379; facsimile number (919) 541– 5689; electronic mail (e­ mail) address: serageldin. mohamed@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by e­ mail to: a­ and­ rdocket epa. gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A– 97– 40. 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: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, c/ o OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404– 02), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The EPA 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 it is received by EPA, 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 Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539– 03), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541– 7946 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also contact Ms. Eck 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 considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. 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 will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307( d)( 7)( A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be obtained by mail from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 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 is also available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, 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. Regulated Entities. The proposed source category definition includes facilities that apply coatings to metal furniture or components of metal furniture. Metal furniture means furniture or components of furniture that are constructed either entirely or partially from metal. Metal furniture VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20207 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules includes, but is not limited to, components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: household, office, institutional, laboratory, hospital, public building, restaurant, barber and beauty shop, and dental furniture; office and store fixtures; partitions; shelving; lockers; lamps and lighting fixtures; and wastebaskets. In general, facilities that coat metal furniture are covered under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in table 1. However, facilities classified under other SIC or NAICS codes may be subject to the proposed regulation if they meet the applicability criteria. Not all facilities classified under the SIC and NAICS codes in table 1 will be subject to the proposed standard because some of the classifications cover products outside the scope of the proposed NESHAP for metal furniture. TABLE 1.— METAL FURNITURE PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS AND CORRESPONDING SIC AND NAICS CODES Product description 1987 SIC Code Equivalent 1997 NAICS Code( s) Equivalent 1997 NAICS Product Description Metal Household Furniture ................................................................... 2514 337124 Metal Household Furniture Manufacturing Office Furniture, Except Wood ............................................................. 2522 337214 Nonwood Office Furniture Manufacturing. Public Building and Related Furniture ................................................. 2531 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing. Office and Store Fixtures, Partitions, Shelving, and Lockers, Except Wood. 2542 337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing. Furniture and Fixtures, Not Classified Elsewhere ............................... 2599 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing. Hardware, Not Classified Elsewhere ................................................... 3429 332951 Hardware Manufacturing. Metal Stampings, Not Classified Elsewhere (Except Kitchen Utensils, Pots and Pans for Cooking, and Coins). 3469 332116 Metal Stamping. Wire Springs ......................................................................................... 3495 332612 Wire Spring Manufacturing. Fabricated Metal Products, Not Classified Elsewhere ......................... 3499 337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing. Residential Electric Lighting Fixtures ................................................... 3645 335121 Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixtures ..... 3646 335122 Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing. Laboratory Apparatus and Furniture .................................................... 3821 339111 Laboratory Furniture Manufacturing. Dental Equipment and Supplies ........................................................... 3843 339114 Dental Equipment Manufacturing. Manufacturing Industries, Not Classified Elsewhere ........................... 3999 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing. Reupholster and Furniture Repair ........................................................ 7641 81142 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair. State/ Federal Governmental Agencies ................................................ ...................... ...................... State correctional institutions and military installations that apply coatings to metal furniture. 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 coating operation would be regulated by this proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.4881 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 are used in the development of NESHAP? C. What are the health effects associated with HAP emissions from the surface coating of metal furniture? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What source categories would be affected by this proposed rule? B. What is the relationship to other rules? C. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions? D. What is the affected source? E. What are the proposed emission limits, operating limits, and other standards? F. What are the proposed testing and initial compliance requirements? G. What are the proposed continuous compliance provisions? H. What are the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How did we select the source category? B. How did we select the regulated pollutants? C. How did we select the affected source? D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards for exisiting and new sources? E. How did we select the format of the standards? F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements? G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements? H. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? I. How did we select the compliance date? IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts A. What are the air impacts? B. What are the cost impacts? C. What are the economic impacts? D. What are the nonair health, environmental, and energy impacts? V. 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, 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 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 certain area sources VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20208 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The Surface Coating of Metal Furniture category of major sources was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) under the Surface Coating Processes industry group. Major sources of HAP are those that, considering controls, emit or have the potential to emit equal to, or greater than, 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing 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 a level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better­ controlled and lower­ emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled 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 bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best­ performing five 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 the cost of achieving the emission reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. C. What Are the Health Effects Associated with HAP Emissions From the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture? The major HAP emitted from the surface coating of metal furniture include xylene, toluene, glycol ethers, 2­ butoxy ethanol, ethylbenzene, and methyl ethyl ketone. These compounds account for about 90 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category. Other HAP identified in emissions include methyl isobutyl ketone, hexane, and methylene chloride. These pollutants can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects following sufficient exposure. The potential toxic effects include eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation; nausea, vomiting, headache, and dizziness, and liver and kidney damage. The degree of adverse effects to human health from exposure to HAP can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human health effects may be experienced are dependent upon (1) the ambient concentration observed in the area (as influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); (2) the frequency and duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of exposed individuals (genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population; and (4) pollutant­ specific characteristics (toxicity, half­ life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence). II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What Source Categories Would Be Affected by This Proposed Rule? The proposed rule would apply to you if you own or operate a metal furniture surface coating facility that is a major source, or is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions. We have defined a metal furniture surface coating facility as one that applies coatings to metal furniture or components of metal furniture. Metal furniture means furniture or components that are constructed either entirely or partially from metal. You would not be subject to the proposed rule if your metal furniture surface coating facility is located at an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility that has the potential to emit HAP but is not a major source. You may establish area source status by limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through the permitting authority. You would not be subject to the proposed rule if you use only coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that contain no organic HAP. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations; or coating application using handheld nonrefillable aerosol containers. B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules? Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject to other rules. The relationship between this proposed rule and other rules is discussed below. We specifically request comments on how monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements can be consolidated for sources that are subject to more than one rule. We also request comments regarding instances where a facility could be subject to multiple surface coating NESHAP or where the applicability of one NESHAP versus another is unclear. Commenters should provide specific examples of these instances and discuss any associated adverse effects that would result. New Source Performance Standards— 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart EE. The metal furniture new source performance standards (NSPS) apply to facilities that apply organic coatings to metal furniture and that began construction, reconstruction, or modification after November 28, 1980. The pollutants regulated are volatile organic compounds (VOC). Emissions of VOC are limited to 0.09 kilogram (kg) per liter of coating solids applied, and the affected source is each individual coating operation. The proposed rule differs from the NSPS in three ways. First, the affected source for the proposed rule is defined broadly as the collection of all coating operations and related activities and equipment at the facility, whereas the affected facility for the NSPS is defined narrowly as each individual coating operation. This broader definition of affected source allows a facility's emissions to be combined for compliance purposes. Second, the proposed rule would regulate organic HAP. While most organic HAP emitted from metal furniture surface coating operations are VOC, some VOC are not listed as HAP and, therefore, the NSPS regulates a broader range of pollutants than would the proposed NESHAP. Third, the emission limitations in the proposed rule would be based on the amount of solids used at the affected source. The NSPS limitations are based on the amount of solids actually applied to the metal furniture which necessitates estimates of transfer efficiency in the compliance calculations. Because of the differences between the two rules, compliance with either rule cannot be deemed compliance with the other. A metal furniture surface coating facility that meets the applicability requirements of both rules must comply with both. Overlapping reporting, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements may be resolved through the title V permit process. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20209 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations— 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJ. There may be situations where a manufacturer of wood furniture also coats metal components of that wood furniture. The coating of these metal components would be subject to subpart JJ, the rule for wood furniture manufacturing. As such, the proposed rule would not apply to these facilities. The applicability section of the proposed rule clarifies this difference in applicability. Future national emission standards for the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts. Metal furniture often contains components, such as metal knobs, hinges, and screws, that have a wider use beyond metal furniture. The coating of such parts would not be subject to the proposed rule provided the coating takes place at a facility that does not apply coatings to other metal furniture. Such metal coating operations would be subject to the future NESHAP for the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts. Future national emission standards for the surface coating of plastic parts and products. Plastic parts and products may be components (e. g., plastic handles) of metal furniture. The coating of such plastic parts would be subject to the proposed rule if the coating takes place at a metal furniture surface coating facility; otherwise, the coating operation would be subject to the future NESHAP for the surface coating of plastic parts and products. C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Emissions? HAP Emission Sources. Emissions from coating application account for more than 60 percent of HAP emissions from the metal furniture surface coating process. Remaining emissions are primarily from cleaning. In most cases, HAP emissions from mixing and storage are relatively small. The organic HAP emissions associated with coatings (the term `` coatings'' includes protective and functional coatings, as well as adhesives) occur at several points. A coating is most often applied by using a spray gun in a spray booth or by dipping the substrate in a tank containing the coating. In a spray booth, volatile components evaporate from the coating applied to the part, as well as from the overspray. The coated part then passes through an open (flash­ off) area where additional volatiles evaporate from the coating. The coated part then passes through a drying/ curing oven, or is allowed to air dry, where the remaining volatiles are evaporated. Organic HAP emissions also occur from the activities undertaken during cleaning, where solvent is applied to remove coating residue or other unwanted materials. Cleaning in this industry includes cleaning of spray guns and transfer lines (e. g., tubing or piping), tanks, and the interior of spray booths. Cleaning also includes applying solvents to manufactured parts prior to coating application and to equipment (e. g., cleaning rollers, pumps, conveyors, etc.). Mixing and Storage. Organic HAP emissions can also occur from displacement of organic vapor­ laden air in containers used to store HAP solvents or to mix coatings containing HAP solvents. The displacement of organic HAP vapor­ laden air can occur due to filling of containers, temperature or barometric pressure changes, or due to agitation during mixing. Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the surface coating of metal furniture include xylene, toluene, glycol ethers, 2­ butoxy ethanol, ethylbenzene, and methyl ethyl ketone. These compounds account for over 90 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. Other significant organic HAP identified include methyl isobutyl ketone, hexane, and methylene chloride. Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported in survey responses during the development of the proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP, including chromium, lead, and manganese compounds are contained in two kinds of coatings used by this source category. No inorganic HAP were reported in cleaning materials. Nationwide inorganic HAP emissions are estimated to be less than 5 megagrams per year (Mg/ yr). D. What Is the Affected Source? We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. This proposed rule defines the affected source as the collection of all operations associated with the surface coating of metal furniture or components of metal furniture that are performed at a contiguous area under common control. These operations include preparation of a coating for application (e. g., mixing with thinners); surface preparation of the metal furniture or component; coating application and flash­ off; drying and/ or curing of applied coatings; cleaning of equipment used in surface coating; storage of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and handling and conveyance of waste materials from the surface coating operations. Coatings include such materials as adhesives and protective or decorative coatings. E. What Are the Proposed Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards? We are proposing standards that, if promulgated, would limit HAP emissions from the surface coating of metal furniture. The proposed standards include emission limits and operating limits. Emission Limits. We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions from each new and reconstructed affected source to no more than 0.094 kilogram HAP per liter of coating solids used (kg/ liter) (0.78 pound per gallon (lb/ gal)) each calendar month. The proposed limit for each existing affected source is 0.12 kg HAP/ liter used (1.0 lb/ gal). You would choose from several compliance options in the proposed rule to achieve the emission limit( s). You could comply by applying materials (coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials) that meet the emission limit, either individually or collectively, during each monthly compliance period. You could also use a capture system and add­ on control device to meet the emission limit, or a combination of both approaches. Operating Limits. If you reduce emissions by using a capture system and add­ on control device (other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a monthly liquid­ liquid material balance), the proposed operating limits would apply to you. These limits are site­ specific parameter limits you determine during the initial performance test of the system. For capture systems, you would establish average volumetric flow rate limits for each capture device (or enclosure) in each capture system. You would also establish limits on average pressure drop across openings in the capture system. For thermal and catalytic oxidizers, you would monitor temperature. For solvent recovery systems for which you do not conduct a monthly liquid­ liquid material balance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature and the amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. For condensers, you would monitor the temperature of the outlet gas temperature from the condenser. All operating limits must reflect operation of the capture system and control devices during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limit during representative operating conditions. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20210 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) also would apply to you as outlined in the proposed rule. The General Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliance­ related activities such as notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping, performance testing, and monitoring. The proposed rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that you should be aware of. However, unless specifically overridden in the proposed rule, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply to you. F. What Are the Proposed Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? Compliance Dates. Existing affected sources would have to be in compliance with the final standards no later than 3 years after the effective date of the subpart. The effective date is the date on which the final rule is published in the Federal Register. New and reconstructed sources would have to be in compliance upon startup of the affected source or no later than the effective date, whichever is later. The proposed initial compliance period is 1 month and begins on the compliance date and ends on the last day of the first full calendar month following the compliance date; except that for new and reconstructed sources required to conduct performance tests, it ends on the last day of the first full calendar month following the performance test. Being `` in compliance'' means that the owner or operator of the affected source meets all the requirements of the rule to achieve the proposed emission limit( s) and operating limits by the end of the initial compliance period. At the end of the initial compliance period, the owner or operator would use the data and records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in compliance for that period. If it does not meet the applicable limit( s), then it is out of compliance for the entire initial compliance period. Emission Limit( s). There are several proposed options for complying with the proposed emission limit( s), and the testing and initial compliance requirements vary accordingly. If you demonstrate compliance based on the materials used in the affected source, you would determine the mass of organic HAP and the volume of solids in all materials used during the initial compliance period. To determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials and the volume coating solids, you could either rely on manufacturer's data or on results from the test methods listed below. Under § 63.4941 of the proposed rule, you would be required to determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. To do this, you would count HAP that are present at 1 percent by mass or more if they are not carcinogens identified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) at 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4), and count HAP that are present at 0.1 percent by mass or more if they are OSHA­ identified carcinogens. Coating and solvent manufacturers are accustomed to providing a breakdown of material components according to this distinction and routinely report the values on Material Safety Data Sheets for the materials, as required by OSHA. We could have selected some other way to count HAP components of materials but concluded that allowing this longstanding approach to be used for compliance with the proposed NESHAP would provide the information needed for compliance assurance and would not impose any additional burden on the industry. We request comment on the appropriateness of this provision of the proposed rule. You may use alternative test methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with the NESHAP General Provisions, § 63.7( f). If there is any inconsistency between the test method results (either EPA's or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's data, the test method results would prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes. For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; The proposed rule allows you to use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP, which would include all organic HAP plus all other organic compounds. If you choose this option, then use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; and For volume coating solids, use either manufacturer's data or ASTM Method D2697– 86 (1998) or ASTM Method D6093– 97. To demonstrate initial compliance based on the materials used, you would be required to either ensure that the organic HAP content of each coating meets the emission limit and that you use no organic HAP­ containing thinners or cleaning materials; or ensure that the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials divided by the total volume of coating solids meets the emission limit. For the latter option, you would be required to: For the initial compliance period, determine the quantity of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the affected source. Determine the mass of organic HAP in each coating, thinner, and cleaning material. Determine the volume fraction solids for each coating. Calculate the total mass of organic HAP for materials and total volume of coating solids used in the affected source for the compliance period. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. The proposed calculation equation (Equation 1 in § 63.4951) adds together all the organic HAP in the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials and allows you to subtract organic HAP in waste materials as indicated above. The calculated mass of organic HAP is, therefore, not based on actual measurement of emissions to the atmosphere but rather assumes that all organic HAP used (less those in waste materials as appropriate) are emitted. This means of determining organic HAP emissions for compliance is consistent with the means by which we calculated emission rates from industry data on which the proposed emission limits are based. We believe that Equation 1 is a simple mass­ balance relationship which adequately quantifies the organic HAP emissions without imposing an excessive burden on respondents. We request comment on our approach for determining emissions and on any alternatives. Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP for the materials used to the total volume of coating solids used. Record the calculations and results and include them in your notification of compliance status (see section II. H of this preamble). If you use a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a monthly liquid­ liquid material balance, you would: Conduct an initial performance test to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the equipment (described below) and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis (also described below). The performance test would have to be completed no later than the compliance date for existing sources and 180 days after the compliance date for new and VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20211 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules reconstructed sources. You would also need to schedule it in time to obtain the results for use in completing your compliance determination for the initial compliance period. Determine the mass of organic HAP in each material and the volume fraction coating solids for each coating used during the initial compliance period. Calculate the organic HAP emissions from all the controlled coating operations using the capture and control efficiencies determined during the performance test and the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations. Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions from uncontrolled coating operations. Calculate the ratio of the total mass of HAP emissions from both controlled and uncontrolled coating operations to the total volume of coating solids used during the initial compliance period. Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. The capture and control efficiency for a capture and control system, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct monthly liquid­ liquid material balances, would be demonstrated based on emission capture and reduction efficiency. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (and all materials must be applied and dried within the enclosure), or use one of three protocols in § 63.4965 to measure capture efficiency. If you have a permanent total enclosure and all materials are applied and dried within the enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, then you would assume 100 percent capture. To determine the emission reduction efficiency of the control device, you would conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas streams. The test would consist of three runs, each run lasting 1 hour, using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A: Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas volumetric flow rate. Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. Method 4 to determine stack moisture. Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter concentration. In lieu of Method 25 or 25A, you may use Method 18 if you know the HAP constituents in the inlet and outlet gas streams and you quantify at least 90 percent of the organic compounds in the gas stream. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be used. If you use a solvent recovery system, you could determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid­ liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test. If you use the material balance alternative, you would be required to measure the amount of all materials used in the affected source during the initial compliance period and determine the total volatile matter contained in these materials. You would also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period. Then you would compare the amount recovered to the amount used to determine the overall control efficiency, and apply this efficiency to the organic HAP to solids ratio for the materials used. You would record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. Operating Limits. In accordance with section 114( a) of the CAA, the proposed operating limits would require the use of continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) to ensure that sources are in compliance. The monitoring must be capable of detecting deviations with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision, reliability, frequency, and timeliness to determine if compliance is continuous during a reporting period. As mentioned above, you would establish operating limits as part of the initial performance test of a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances. The operating limits are the minimum or maximum (as applicable) values achieved for capture systems and control devices during the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. If you operate your capture system and control device at different sets of representative operating conditions, you must establish operating limits for the parameters for each different operating condition. The proposed rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of emission control systems commonly used in the industry. You would be required to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and ensure that the CPMS meet the requirements in § 63.4968 of the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by the EPA and is not delegated to States. We request comment on whether there are alternative means of monitoring performance for add­ on controls which would be appropriate. Commenters should address the relative effectiveness and cost of alternatives. If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you would continuously monitor temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit would be the average temperature measured during the performance test, and during each 3­ hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limits would be the average combustion temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3­ hour period the average combustion temperature and the average temperature difference would have to be at or above these limits. If you use a solvent recovery system, and do not conduct liquid­ liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, then you would monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration. The operating limits would be the carbon bed temperature (not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or nitrogen used for desorption (to be met as a minimum). If you use a condenser, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature to ensure that the air stream is being cooled to a low enough temperature. The operating limit would be the average condenser outlet gas temperature measured during the performance test, and for each 3­ hour period the average temperature would have to be at or below this limit. For each capture system, you would establish operating limits for gas volumetric flow rate and pressure drop across an opening in each enclosure or capture device. The operating limit would be the average volumetric flow rate and average pressure drop across the opening during the performance test, to be met as a minimum. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20212 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules We request comment on the proposed testing and initial compliance requirements discussed above. G. What Are the Proposed Continuous Compliance Provisions? Emission Limit( s) If you demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limit( s) based on the materials used in the affected source, you would ensure, for each monthly compliance period, that the ratio of organic HAP to coating solids meets the emission limit. You would follow the same procedures as you would for the initial compliance period, as described in section II. F of this preamble. For each coating operation on which you use a capture system and control device, other than solvent recovery for which you conduct a monthly liquidliquid material balance, you would use the continuous parameter monitoring results for the month in determining the mass of organic HAP emissions. If the monitoring results indicate no deviations from the operating limits and there were no bypasses of the control device, then you would assume the capture system and control device is achieving the same percent emission reduction efficiency as it did during the performance test. You would then apply this percent reduction to the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations to determine the monthly emission rate from those operations. If there were any deviations from the operating limits during the month or any bypasses of the control device, you would account for them in the calculation of the monthly emission rate by assuming the capture system and control device were achieving zero emission reduction during the periods of deviation. For each coating operation on which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance each month, you would use the liquidliquid material balance to determine control efficiency. To determine the overall control efficiency, you must measure the amount of all materials applied during each month and determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month, calculate the overall control efficiency, and apply it to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions. The monthly emission rate for your affected source would be the total mass of organic HAP emissions from all controlled and uncontrolled coating operations divided by the total volume of coating solids used during the compliance period. Operating Limits. If you use a capture system and control device, the proposed rule would require you to achieve on a continuous basis the operating limits you establish during the performance test described in section II. F of this preamble. If the continuous monitoring shows that the capture system and control device is operating outside the range of values established during the performance test, then you have deviated from the established operating limits. If you operate a capture system and control device that allows emissions to bypass the control device, you would have to demonstrate that HAP emissions from each emission point within the affected source are being routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control device. You may choose from the following four monitoring procedures: (1) Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device; (2) Car­ seal or lock­ and­ key valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating; (3) Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or (4) Automatic shutdown system to stop the coating operation when flow is diverted from the control device. If the bypass monitoring procedures indicate that emissions are not routed to the control device, then you have deviated from the emission limit. Operations During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the capture system and control device. Emissions Reductions Plan for Mixing, Storage, and Waste Handling. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a plan for reducing emissions from mixing operations, storage tanks or other containers, and waste handling operations. This plan would include a description of all steps taken to minimize emissions from these sources (e. g., using closed storage containers, practices to minimize emissions during filling and transfer of contents from containers, using spill minimization techniques, placing solvent­ laden cloth in closed containers immediately after use, etc.). If you do not develop a plan or you do not implement the plan, this would be a deviation from the work practice standard. We request comment on the proposed continuous compliance requirements discussed above. H. What Are the Proposed Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in the proposed rule. The General Provisions notification requirements include: (1) Initial notifications, (2) notification of performance test if you are complying using a capture system and control device, (3) notification of compliance status, and (4) additional notifications required for affected sources with continuous monitoring systems. The General Provisions also require certain records and periodic reports. Initial Notifications. If the proposed standards apply to you, you would be required to send a notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your facility is located and to your State agency at least 1 year before the compliance date for existing sources and within 120 days after the date of initial startup for new and reconstructed sources, or 120 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later. This report notifies us and your State agency that you have an existing facility that is subject to the proposed standard or that you have constructed a new facility. Thus, it allows you and the permitting authority to plan for compliance activities. You would also need to send a notification of planned construction or reconstruction of a source that would be subject to the rule and apply for approval to construct or reconstruct. Notification of Performance Test. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device for which you do not conduct a monthly liquid­ liquid material balance, you would be required to conduct a performance test, as described in section II. F of this preamble, no later than the compliance date for your affected source. You would be required to notify your EPA Regional Office (or the delegated State or local agency) at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as indicated in the General Provisions for the NESHAP. Notification of Compliance Status. Your compliance procedures would depend on which compliance option you choose. For each compliance option, you would send us a VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20213 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules Notification of Compliance Status within 30 days after the end of the initial compliance period described in section II. F of this preamble. In the notification, you would certify whether the affected source has complied with the standards, identify the option you used to demonstrate initial compliance, summarize the data and calculations supporting the compliance demonstration, and describe how you will determine continuous compliance. If you elect to comply by using a capture system and control device for which you conduct performance tests, you must provide the results of the tests. Your notification would also include the measured range of each monitored parameter and the operating limits established during the performance test, and information showing whether the source has achieved its operating limits during the initial compliance period. Recordkeeping Requirements. You would be required to keep records of reported information and all other information necessary to document compliance with the proposed rule for 5 years. As required under the General Provisions, records for the 2 most recent years would be required to be kept onsite the other 3 years' records could be kept off­ site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of the control and monitoring equipment would have to be kept for the life of the equipment. Depending on the compliance option that you choose, you could need to keep records of the following: Organic HAP content, volatile matter content, solids content, and quantity of the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during each compliance period; All documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device, you would also need to keep records of the following: The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system and control device; All maintenance performed on the capture system and control device; Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction that are different from the procedures specified in the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when the plan procedures are followed; All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's plan for minimizing emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling operations; Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or inoperative (including out­ of­ control periods); All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards; and All results of performance tests. The proposed rule would require you to collect and keep records according to certain minimum data requirements for the CPMS. Failure to collect and keep the specified minimum data would be a deviation that is separate from any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard. Deviations, as determined from these records, would need to be recorded and also reported, as described in section II. H of this preamble. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or obligation established by the proposed rule including, but not limited to, the emission limit( s), operating limits, and work practice standards, is not met. If you use a capture system and control device to reduce HAP emissions, you would have to make your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. It would stay in your records for the life of the affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the standards. If you revise the plan, you would need to keep the previous superceded versions on record for 5 years following the revision. Periodic Reports. Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period, you would submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in continuous compliance. If deviations occur, you would need to document them in the report as follows: Report each deviation from the monthly emission limit. If you are complying by using a thermal oxidizer, report all times when a 3­ hour average temperature is below the operating limit. If you are complying by using a catalytic oxidizer, report all times when a 3­ hour average temperature difference across the catalyst bed is below the operating limit, and when a 3­ hour average combustion temperature before the catalyst bed is below the operating limit. If you are complying by using oxidizers, or solvent recovery systems where liquid­ liquid material balances are not conducted, report all times when the value of the site­ specific operating parameter used to monitor the capture system performance was less than the operating limit established for the capture system. If you are complying by using a carbon adsorber for which you do not conduct liquid­ liquid material balances, report all times when the steam or nitrogen flow is less than, and/ or the carbon bed temperature is more than, the operating limits. If you are complying by using a condenser, report all times when a 3­ hour average outlet temperature is higher than the operating limit. If your capture system contains bypass lines that could divert emissions from the control device to the atmosphere, report all times when emissions were not routed to the control device. Report other specific information on the periods of time the deviations occurred. You would also have to include an explanation in each semiannual report if a change occurs that might affect the compliance status of the affected source or you change to another option for meeting the emission limit. Other Reports. You would be required to submit reports for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the capture system and control device. If the procedures you follow during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction are inconsistent with your plan, you would report those procedures with your semiannual reports in addition to the immediate reports required by § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). We request comment on the proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements discussed above. III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Source Category? The surface coating of metal furniture is a source category that is on the list of source categories to be regulated because it contains major sources which emit or have the potential to emit, considering controls, at least 10 tons of any one HAP or at least 25 tons of any combination of HAP annually. The proposed rule would control HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources. Area sources are not being regulated under this proposed rule. The surface coating of metal furniture as described in the listing includes any facility engaged in the surface coating and manufacture or repair of metal furniture parts or products (including, but not limited to, chairs, tables, cabinets, and bookcases). We use the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20214 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules metal furniture product lists contained in the SIC and NAICS code descriptions to describe the vast array of metal furniture parts and products. We intend the source category to include facilities for which the surface coating of metal furniture is either their principal activity or is an integral part of a production process which is the principal activity. Most coating operations are located at plant sites that are dedicated to these activities. However, some may be located at sites for which some other activity is principal. Collocated surface coating operations comparable to the types and sizes of the dedicated facilities, in terms of the coating process and applicable emission control techniques, are included in the source category. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations. The statute gives us discretion to determine if and how to subcategorize. Once the floor has been determined for new or reconstructed and existing affected sources for a source category or subcategory, we must set MACT standards that are no less stringent than the MACT floor. Such standards must then be met by all sources within the source category or subcategory. A subcategory is a group of similar sources within a given source category. As part of the regulatory development process, we evaluate the similarities and differences between industry segments or groups of facilities comprising a source category. In establishing subcategories, we consider factors such as process operations (type of operation, raw materials, chemistry/ formulation data, associated equipment, and final products); emission characteristics (amount and type of HAP); control device applicability; and opportunities for pollution prevention. We may also consider existing regulations or guidance from States and other regulatory agencies in determining subcategories. The data available to us indicate that there are not significant differences across the source category in the substrates coated, the coating technologies used, the range of HAP content in the coatings and materials used, or the applicability of control measures used. Based on this information, we believe that subcategories are not warranted for the metal furniture surface coating source category. We specifically request comment on this view and ask that commenters provide data, information, and rationale to support their position. B. How Did We Select the Regulated Pollutants? Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the surface coating of metal furniture include xylene, toluene, glycol ethers, 2­ butoxy ethanol, ethylbenzene, and methyl ethyl ketone. These compounds account for about 90 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. However, many other organic HAP are used, or can be used, in metal furniture coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Therefore, the proposed rule would regulate emissions of all organic HAP. Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported in response to surveys during the development of the proposed NESHAP, most of the coatings used in this source category do not contain inorganic HAP. Approximately 680 coatings were reported in the survey responses from the metal furniture industry, and only 2 coatings are reported as containing inorganic HAP such as chromium, lead, or manganese compounds. These 2 coatings represent less than 0.5 percent of the total volume of coatings reported in the survey responses. The facilities in this source category using coatings with inorganic HAP employ either a waterwash system or dry particulate filters that reduce inorganic HAP emissions from the spray booth exhaust. At this time, it does not appear that emissions of inorganic HAP from this source category warrant Federal regulation. C. How Did We Select the Affected Source? In selecting the affected source( s) for emission standards, our primary goal is to ensure that MACT is applied to HAPemitting operations or activities within the source category being regulated. The affected source also serves to distinguish where new source MACT applies under a particular standard. Specifically, the General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 define the terms `` construction'' and `` reconstruction'' with reference to the term `` affected source'' (40 CFR 60.2) and provide that new source MACT applies when construction or reconstruction of an affected source occurs (40 CFR 60.5). The collection of equipment and activities evaluated in determining MACT (including the MACT floor) is used in defining the affected source. When an emission standard is based on a collection of emissions sources, or total facility emissions, we select an affected source based on that same collection of emission sources, or the total facility, as well. This approach for defining the affected source broadly is particularly appropriate for industries where a plantwide emission standard provides the opportunity and incentive for owners and operators to utilize control strategies that are more cost effective than if separate standards were established for each emission point within a facility. Selection of the Affected Source. The affected source for these proposed standards is broadly defined to include all operations associated with the coating and cleaning of metal furniture and cleaning of equipment. These operations include storage and mixing of coatings and other materials; surface preparation of the metal furniture prior to coating application; coating application and flash­ off, drying and curing of applied coatings; cleaning operations; and waste handling operations. In selecting the affected source, we considered, for each operation, the extent to which HAP­ containing materials are used and the level of HAP that are emitted. Cleaning and coating application, flash­ off, and curing/ drying operations account for the majority of HAP emissions at metal furniture surface coating operations, and most of the industry's emission reduction efforts have been focused on these areas. Thus, we included these operations in the affected source. We were not able to obtain data to adequately quantify HAP emissions from storage, mixing, and waste handling. However, solvents that are added to coatings as thinners, and other HAP­ containing additives to coatings, may be emitted during mixing and storage. The level of emissions would depend on the type of mixing equipment, the type of storage container, and the work practices adopted at the facility. Emissions from waste handling operations depend on the type of system used to collect and transport organic HAP­ containing waste coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials in the facility. For example, solvent­ laden rags that are used to clean spray booths or tanks could be a source of HAP emissions. The method used to isolate and store such rags would affect the level of emissions to ambient air. Mixing, storage, and waste handling operations are included in the affected source. A broad definition of the affected source was selected to provide maximum flexibility in complying with the proposed emission limits for organic HAP. In planning its total usage of HAPVerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20215 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules containing materials, each facility can select among available coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials to comply with the proposed limits. Additional information on the metal furniture surface coating operations selected for regulation, and other operations, are included in the docket for the proposed standards. D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources? The sections below present the rationale for determining the MACT floor, regulatory alternatives beyond the floor, and selection of the proposed standards for existing and new affected sources. How did we determine the MACT floor technology? After we identify the specific source categories or subcategories of sources to regulate under section 112, we must develop emission standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112 establishes a minimum baseline or `` floor'' for standards. For new sources in a category or subcategory, the standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source (section 112( d)( 3)). The 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 (or the best­ performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). Within the metal furniture industry, organic HAP emission control for cleaning and surface coating operations is accomplished primarily through the use of lower­ HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Add­ on capture and control systems for organic HAP are rarely used by the industry. While lower organic HAP materials are broadly used throughout the industry, each particular coating technology is not used at every facility. Rather, facilities use various combinations of low­ HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Thus, the most reasonable approach to establishing a MACT floor appeared to be evaluation of a facility's organic HAP emissions from all coating­ related operations. To account for differences in production levels from one facility to another, we normalized the organic HAP emissions by the volume of coating solids used. We believe coating solids usage is an appropriate indicator of overall production level. We used information obtained from industry survey responses to estimate the sourcewide organic HAP emissions. We calculated total organic HAP emissions by assuming that 100 percent of the volatile components in all coatings (including adhesives), thinners, and cleaning materials (including surface preparation materials) are emitted. The survey response information was also used to determine the total volume of coating solids used. We included protective and functional coatings, as well as adhesives, in this total. Using the sourcewide organic HAP emissions and the total volume of coating solids used. We calculated the normalized organic HAP emission rate in units of kilograms organic HAP per liter of coating solids used. The facilities were then ranked from the lowest emission rate to the highest. We based this analysis on a total of 49 facilities reporting over 9 million liters usage of approximately 680 coatings and adhesives, as well as 730,000 liters of cleaning materials. A detailed description of the determination of the MACT floor is provided in a memo (the MACT floor memo) in the docket for the proposed rule. The description includes all the assumptions and it documents the methodology that was used. (See ADDRESSES section of this preamble for information on the docket). We specifically request comment on the methodology used to determine the MACT floor, as summarized below. The MACT floor for existing sources was determined by the arithmetic mean of the HAP emission rates of the top 12 percent of 49 facilities, which were the top 6 facilities. This mean value was 0.12 kg organic HAP/ liter of coating solids used (1.0 lb/ gal) and represents the existing source MACT floor for organic HAP. The survey data showed no appreciable differences between the floor facilities and the remaining facilities in the database in the substrates coated, the coating technologies used, or the applicability of control measures across the various operations. Using the list of facilities ranked by emission rates, we observed that the best controlled source emitted 0.094 kg organic HAP/ liter of coating solids used (0.78 lb/ gal). Before establishing this level of emissions as the new source MACT floor, we evaluated the metal furniture surface coating operations at this source to determine if the coating technology (in terms of the coating type and application method) used was transferable throughout the industry. We also determined whether the product type produced at this source affected the emissions such that the source may not be similar to all other sources in the category. For example, a source that coats only interior parts could have significantly different requirements and coating choices than a source that had the visual and quality requirements associated with coating parts for the exterior of the product. We also determined that the emission limit represented by the lowest­ emitting source could be achieved through the use of add­ on control devices for those facilities electing to use higher organic HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. The best­ controlled source produces products (metal storage cabinets, lockers, and racks) that are not unusual for the industry. The source spray applies solvent­ based coatings, and all cleaning materials used for surface preparation prior to coating are free of organic HAP. Coating application equipment is cleaned with solvents containing organic HAP. Thus, the source is employing technologies that are already in widespread use throughout the metal furniture coating industry. We believe that this source is similar to other sources in the category and represents the best­ controlled source in our database. We recognize that some sources may have limited choices in the coatings available for their particular application. As a result, lower­ HAP coatings may not be available to meet the needs of every source. However, if the source is also using cleaning materials that contain organic HAP, then it may be able to meet the emission limit by reformulating these cleaning materials. A source also would have the option of using capture systems and control devices to reduce emissions although we believe choice of this option is not likely for most sources. How did we consider beyond­ the­ floor technology? After the floors have been determined for new and existing sources in a source category or subcategory, we must set emission standards that are no less stringent than the floors. Such standards must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. We identify and consider any reasonable regulatory alternatives that are `` beyond the floor, '' taking into account emission reduction, cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. These alternatives may be different for new and existing sources because of different MACT floors, and separate standards may be established for new and existing sources. We identified three regulatory alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor level of control for organic HAP. These alternatives were (1) VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20216 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules conversion to powder coatings; (2) conversion to liquid coatings that have a very low, or no, organic HAP content; and (3) use of add­ on capture systems and control devices. Information indicates that several metal furniture surface coating facilities have converted to using only powder coatings. Such facilities typically produce a single type of product (such as warehouse shelving units), do not require unusual finishes, and use a small number of colors. Many metal furniture surface coating facilities, however, manufacture more than one product and often use a wide array of colors. Many also achieve finish types that cannot be duplicated with powder coatings. Powder coating may not produce the varied surface finishes and colors available from liquid coatings. Although powder coatings may be somewhat more durable than conventional liquid coatings, specialty finishes such as antique and crackle, as well as the palette of designer colors offered by some manufacturers, may not be adequately duplicated by powder coatings. Consequently, while powder coating is a proven technology that can be used in many situations, we do not believe it is appropriate to require the use of powder coatings for all segments of the metal furniture industry and have not included them in our proposal as a beyond­ the­ floor option. Lower organic HAP liquid coatings fall into two primary categories. The most common are coatings formulated with solvents that are not organic HAP (but may be VOC). The second category are those coatings that result from alternate technologies such as Ultraviolet (UV)­ curable coatings and autophoretic coatings. The UV­ curable coatings may or may not include organic solvents, which may contain HAP or VOC, to keep the pigment and other components of the coating in solution until curing. Autophoretic coatings use no organic HAP and only small amounts of VOC, but they may contain inorganic HAP. These coatings are applied using a dip application method where a chemical reaction deposits the coating on the surface of the part. These lower organic HAP coatings are currently in production use but their applicability is limited for this industry. The selection of lower organic HAP coatings is limited and is not extensive enough to broadly meet the needs of all segments of the metal furniture industry. Given the limited applicability of UV­ curable and autophoretic coating technologies, we do not believe it is feasible to require the use of these coating technologies and have not included them in our proposal as a beyond­ the­ floor option for organic HAP. It is technically feasible to achieve organic HAP emission rates lower than the MACT floor levels through the use of emission capture systems and control devices. For example, the use of a permanent total enclosure and an oxidizer could further reduce organic HAP emissions from typical sources by about 4.2 Mg (4.6 tons) to 31 Mg (34 tons) per year. However, the cost of such a system could be approximately $1 million. We believe that the additional emission reduction would not justify the additional cost. Therefore, we have not included the use of emission capture and control systems in our proposal as a beyond­ the­ floor option. How did we select the standards? For existing sources, we based the standards on the existing source MACT floor. As described earlier, we believe that beyond­ the­ floor options are not technically or economically feasible for all existing sources. For the same reasons, we are basing the proposed standards for new sources on the new source MACT floor. Without having information on the benefits that would be achieved by further reducing emissions beyond the floor, we believe that the additional emission reductions that could be achieved do not warrant the costs that each source could incur. Therefore, we would not require beyond­ the­ floor levels of emission reductions in this proposed rule. After implementation of a final MACT rule for this category, we will evaluate the health and environmental risks that may be posed as a result of exposure to emissions from the metal furniture surface coating source category, as required by section 112( f) of the CAA. At that time, we will evaluate whether additional controls are warranted in light of the available risk information. We specifically request comment on our proposal not to base the CAA section 112( d) standards on a beyond­ the­ floor option. A beyond­ thefloor option could apply to all segments of the metal furniture surface coating source category or to only certain segments. Comments supporting our proposed decision not to go beyond the floor as well as comments opposing the decision should include data, information, and rationale supporting the position of the commenter. We note here that our assumption, in the development of the MACT floors, that 100 percent of the organic HAP in the materials used are emitted by the affected source would not apply when the source sends waste organic HAPcontaining materials to a facility for treatment or disposal. We made this assumption because the industry survey responses provided little information as to the amount of organic HAP recovered and recycled or treated and disposed. We, therefore, believe that this practice is not common within the metal furniture industry. We recognize, however, that some metal furniture facilities may conduct such activities and should be allowed to account for such activities in determining their emissions. Thus, the proposed regulation would allow you to reduce the affected sourcewide organic HAP emissions by the amount of any organic HAP contained in waste treated or disposed at a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility that is regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. E. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards? Numerical emission standards are required by section 112 of the CAA unless we determine that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, in which case a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard can be set (section 112( h) of the CAA). The formats considered for the proposed standards and the considerations in selection of the format are discussed below. We selected as the format of the proposed standards for organic HAP, mass of organic HAP per volume of coating solids used. The performancebased nature of this proposed format would allow metal furniture coating operation owners and operators flexibility in choosing any combination of means (including coating reformulation, use of lower­ HAP or nonHAP materials, solvent elimination, work practices, and add­ on control devices) to comply with the emission limit that is workable for their particular situations. We selected volume of coating solids as a component of the proposed standards to normalize the rate of organic HAP emissions across all sizes and types of facilities. We could not normalize by surface area due to lack of information. We selected the volume of coating solids used because it is directly related to the surface area coated (i. e., the average dry film thickness of coatings on most metal furniture products is generally consistent) and, therefore, provides an equitable basis for all coatings, regardless of differences in coating densities. A format based on the mass or weight of coating solids (instead of volume) could result in inequitable standards for higher­ density pigmented coatings, such as basecoats or enamels, VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20217 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules compared to coatings with lower densities per unit volume. Other choices for the format of the standards that we considered, but rejected, included a usage limit (mass per unit time) and a never­ to­ beexceeded limit on the organic HAP content of coatings and cleaning materials. As it is not our intent to limit a facility's production under these proposed standards, we have not proposed a usage limit. We also chose not to propose a never­ to­ be­ exceeded limit because the availability of all the different kinds of coatings required by the metal furniture industry at or below such a limit does not appear to be sufficient to meet the needs of all segments of the industry. F. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? The proposed standards would allow you to choose among several methods to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards for organic HAP: (1) Coatings with low or no organic HAP; (2) an overall organic HAP emission rate from all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that is less than the applicable emission limit; or (3) capture systems and control devices. Coatings with Low or No Organic HAP. You would be required to document the organic HAP content of all coatings and show that each is less than the applicable emission limit. You would also have to show that each thinner and each cleaning material used contains no organic HAP. Method 311 is the method developed by EPA for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP in coatings and has been used in previous surface coating NESHAP. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 311 for use in the proposed standards. Method 24 is the method developed by EPA for determining the mass fraction of volatile matter for coatings and can be used if you choose to determine the nonaqueous volatile matter content as a surrogate for organic HAP. In past standards, VOC emission control measures have been implemented in the coatings industry, with Method 24 as the compliance method. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 24 for use in the proposed standards. The proposed requirements for determining volume coating solids would allow you to choose between using manufacturer's data or measuring the volume with either ASTM Method D2697– 86 (1998) or ASTM Method D6093– 97. Overall Organic HAP Emission Rate. To demonstrate compliance using this option, you would calculate the organic HAP emission rate for your affected source, based on the mass of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners, and cleaners and the volume of coating solids used during the compliance period, and demonstrate that it does not exceed the applicable emission limit. You would document these values using the methods discussed previously. Capture Systems and Control Devices. If you use a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery device for which you conduct a monthly liquid­ liquid material balance, you would be required to conduct an initial performance test of the system to determine its overall control efficiency. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance, you would determine the quantity of volatile matter applied in the affected source and the quantity recovered during the initial compliance period to determine its overall control efficiency. For both cases, the overall control efficiency would be combined with the monthly mass of organic HAP in the coatings and other materials used in the affected source to derive the monthly HAP emission rate in kg HAP/ liter of coating solids used. If you conduct a performance test, you would also determine parameter operating limits during the test. The test methods that the proposed standards would require for the performance test (described in section II. F of this preamble) have been required under many standards of performance for industrial surface coating sources under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over these methods. G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements? To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed organic HAP emission limit( s) and/ or operating limits, the proposed standards would require continuous parameter monitoring of capture systems and control devices and recordkeeping. We selected the following requirements based on reasonable cost, ease of execution, and usefulness of the resulting data to both the owners or operators and EPA for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limit( s) and/ or operating limits. We are proposing that certain parameters be continuously monitored for the types of capture systems and control devices commonly used in the industry. These monitoring parameters have been used in other standards for similar industries. The values of these parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed emission limit( s) are established during the initial or most recent performance test that demonstrates compliance. These values are your operating limits for the capture system and control device. You would be required to determine consecutive 3­ hour average values for most monitored parameters for the affected source. We selected this averaging period to ensure the control system is continuously operating at conditions that are the same or better than those recorded during a performance test demonstrating compliance with the emission limit( s). To demonstrate continuous compliance with the monthly emission limit( s), you would also need records of the quantity of coatings and other materials used and the data and calculations supporting your determination of their HAP content. If you conduct monthly liquid­ liquid material balances, you would need records of the quantity of volatile matter used in the affected source and the quantity recovered by the solvent recovery system each month. H. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 2 of the proposed subpart RRRR. We evaluated the General Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be the minimum notification, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to ensure compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the proposed standards. I. How Did We Select the Compliance Date? You would be allowed 3 years to comply with the final standards for existing affected sources. This is the maximum period allowed by the CAA. We believe that 3 years for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to accommodate the variety of compliance methods that existing sources may use. Most sources in this category would need this 3­ year maximum amount of time to develop and test reformulated coatings, particularly those who may opt to comply using a different loweremitting coating technology. We want to encourage the use of these pollution prevention technologies. In addition, time would be needed to establish VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20218 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules records management systems required for enforcement purposes. Sources that choose to use emission capture and control systems may need this time to purchase and install them and to obtain a permit for the use of add­ on controls. The CAA requires that new or reconstructed affected sources comply with standards immediately upon startup or the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts Model plants were developed to aid in the estimation of the impacts the MACT floor level of control would have on the metal furniture industry. Three model plants distinguished by size, as measured by the total volume of coating solids used, were developed. Impacts were then developed for each model plant, and these individual impacts were scaled to nationwide levels based on the number of facilities corresponding to each model plant size. We used the model plant approach because we did not have adequate data to determine impacts for each actual facility. A variety of compliance methods are available to the industry to meet the proposed emission limit( s). We analyzed the information obtained from the industry survey responses, industry site visits, trade groups, and industry representatives to determine which compliance methods would most likely be used by existing and new sources. We expect that the most widely­ used method would be low­ HAP content liquid coatings (coatings with HAP contents at or below the emission limits) and lower­ HAP cleaning materials. Powder coatings and add­ on capture and control systems would likely be used to a lesser extent. Various combinations of these methods may be used. For the purpose of assessing impacts, we assumed that all existing sources would convert to lower­ HAP content liquid coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. We assumed that new sources would also use lower­ HAP materials. We first estimated the impacts of the proposed emission limits on the three model plants. To scale up the model plant impacts to nationwide levels, we multiplied the individual model plant impacts by the estimated number of major sources in the United States corresponding to each model plant size. We used United States Census Bureau data as the basis for this estimate, which was a total of 655 facilities. For more information on how impacts were estimated, see Chapters 7 and 8 of the background information document, EPA– 453/ R– 01– 010. A. What Are the Air Impacts? For existing major sources, we estimated that compliance with the proposed emission limits would result in a reduction of nationwide organic HAP emissions of 13,900 Mg/ yr (15,274 tpy). This represents a reduction of approximately 70 percent from the baseline organic HAP emissions of 20,300 Mg/ yr (22,308 tpy). The estimated baseline organic HAP emissions for new sources (20 over the first 5 years after promulgation of the final rule) would be approximately 635 Mg (698 tons) in the fifth year. Emissions from new sources would be reduced by approximately 465 Mg (511 tons) in the fifth year as a result of the proposed standards (73 percent reduction). B. What Are the Cost Impacts? An affected source may incur three types of costs to comply with the proposed standards: capital, direct, and indirect. Capital costs represent the onetime purchase of equipment. We have included coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials as direct costs incurred on a continuing basis for materials consumed in the manufacturing process. The cost of utilities, where applicable, is also included in the direct costs. Indirect costs typically include overhead, taxes, insurance, and administrative costs, as well as capital recovery costs. Existing sources. To comply with the proposed emission limits, we estimated that existing facilities would likely use reformulated coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. No capital costs have been attributed to these compliance methods. We estimated full costs for 517 facilities. Approximately 60 facilities would have only recordkeeping and reporting costs because these facilities would already be in compliance with the proposed standards (based on survey responses). Facilities that would achieve area source status before the compliance date of the final standards will only incur costs of reading the rule. In addition to the direct costs, all affected sources would incur some recordkeeping and reporting costs. We estimated no incremental costs associated with the use of lower­ HAP coatings and thinners. Only the incremental cost of organic HAP­ free cleaning materials over organic HAP cleaning materials was counted. The average annual cost for each facility incurring full costs is approximately $26,574. This value includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. We estimated total nationwide annual costs in the fifth year to comply with the proposed emission limits to be $14.8 million for existing sources. These costs include $4.66 million direct costs associated with material usage and $10.1 million for recordkeeping and reporting. New Sources. We estimated the number of new major sources based on information from industry trade groups. Starting with the anticipated annual sales growth for the industry, excluding price increases and inflation, we determined the amount of coating capacity that would be needed to meet the predicted increase in demand. Based on information provided by industry representatives, we assumed that 75 percent of this coating capacity could be absorbed by excess capacity at existing facilities. The remaining 25 percent increase in capacity was estimated to be met by the construction of four new facilities per year for the first 5 years after promulgation of the final standards. Based on available information, we determined which compliance methods will most likely be used by new sources and, therefore, which compliance methods to use to estimate the cost impacts. We determined that new sources would choose reformulated lower organic HAP content materials to meet the new source emission limit. For the 20 new facilities anticipated over the 5­ year period after promulgation of the final standards, annual costs in the fifth year are estimated to be $0.6 million. We estimated no incremental costs associated with use of lower­ HAP coatings and thinners. Only the incremental cost of organic HAP­ free cleaning materials over organic HAP cleaning materials was counted. There are no anticipated capital costs. C. What Are the Economic Impacts? We performed an economic impact analysis (EIA) to provide an estimate of the facility and market impacts of the proposed standards as well as its social costs. In general, we expect the economic impacts of the proposed standards to be minimal, with price increases and production decreases of less than 0.1 percent. Given the negligible market impacts of this proposed rule, the social costs are expected to be roughly the same as the estimated engineering compliance costs of $14.8 million for existing sources. For affected facilities, the distribution of costs is slanted toward the lower impact levels with many facilities VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20219 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules incurring only those related to recordkeeping and reporting. The EIA indicates that these regulatory costs are expected to represent only 0.1 percent of the value of product shipments, which should not cause producers to cease or alter their current operations. Hence, no firms or facilities are expected to become at risk of closure because of the proposed standards. International trade impacts would only occur for the metal household furniture segment of the industry, but the small price increase (i. e., 0.04 percent) on this segment indicates negligible impacts, if any. Based on the projected characteristics and costs for new sources, EPA does not expect any differential impacts on these sources. For more information, refer to the `` Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed NESHAP: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture'' (Docket No. A– 97– 40). D. What are the Nonair Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts? Based on information from the industry survey responses, there was no indication that the use of low organic HAP content coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials would result in any increase or decrease in nonair health, environmental, and energy impacts. There would be no change in the utility requirements associated with the use of these materials, so there would be no change in the amount of energy consumed as a result of the material conversion. Also, we estimate that there would be no significant change in the amount of materials used or the amount of waste produced and there would be no additional energy requirements for affected sources. V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the 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, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a `` significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted the action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the docket (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 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. '' Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. 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. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132, it has been determined that this rule does not have `` federalism implications, '' because it does not meet the necessary criteria. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. 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. No tribal governments own or operate metal furniture surface coating facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA 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 considered by the Agency. The EPA interprets 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 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20220 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866. E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. Affected sources are expected to comply with the proposed rule through pollution prevention rather than end­ of­ pipe controls, and therefore, there would be no increase in energy usage. 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, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least­ costly, most costeffective 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 the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly most cost­ effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has 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. The maximum total annual cost of this rule for any year has been estimated to be less than $15.4 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule contains requirements that may apply to State governments' correctional institutions that manufacture or repair metal furniture. However, these requirements do not uniquely or significantly affect those institutions. 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 the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed standards on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business ranging from 100– 1,000 employees or less than $5 million in annual sales (see Table 2); (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 forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. TABLE 2.— SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS FOR COMPANIES OWNING FACILITIES IN THE METAL FURNITURE SOURCE CATEGORY BY NAICS CODES a, b 1997 NAICS code Product description SBA size standard (employees) 421610 ................................. Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Construction Material Wholesalers. 100 337124 ................................. Metal Household Furniture Manufacturing ................................................................... 500 337214 ................................. Nonwood Office Furniture Manufacturing .................................................................... 500 336360 ................................. Motor Vehicle Fabric Accessories and Seat Manufacturing ........................................ 500 337127 ................................. Institutional Furniture Manufacturing ............................................................................ 500 337215 ................................. Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing ......................................... 500 332951 ................................. Hardware Manufacturing .............................................................................................. 500 332116 ................................. Metal Stamping ............................................................................................................ 500 332612 ................................. Wire Spring Manufacturing .......................................................................................... 500 337215 ................................. Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing ......................................... 500 335121 ................................. Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing ..................................................... 500 335122 ................................. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing ....... 500 339111 ................................. Laboratory Apparatus and Furniture Manufacturing .................................................... 500 339114 ................................. Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing .......................................................... 500 337211 ................................. Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing .......................................................................... 500 337212 ................................. Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing .................................... 500 332312 ................................. Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing (pt) ........................................................... 500 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20221 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2.— SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS FOR COMPANIES OWNING FACILITIES IN THE METAL FURNITURE SOURCE CATEGORY BY NAICS CODES a, b —Continued 1997 NAICS code Product description SBA size standard (employees) 336391 ................................. Motor Vehicle Air­ Conditioning Manufacturing ............................................................ 750 811420 ................................. Reupholstery and Furniture Repair .............................................................................. $5 million (sales) a The Agency assumed a small business size definition of 1,000 employees for those companies included in the SBREFA analysis without available information on SIC or NAICS code. b Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Small Business Size Standards­ Part 121. 13­ CFR– 121. January 2001. As obtained from <http:// www. sba. gov/ regulations/ part121. pdf>. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In accordance with the RFA and SBREFA, the EPA conducted an assessment of the proposed standards on small businesses within the metal furniture coating industry. Based on Small Business Administration size definitions and reported sales and employment data, EPA's survey identified 10 of the 24 companies owning metal furniture facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses represent almost 42 percent of the companies within the source category, they are expected to incur 12 percent of the total industry compliance costs. Under the proposed standards, the average annual compliance cost share of sales for small businesses is 0.18 percent, with two of the ten small businesses not expected to incur any additional costs because they are permitted as synthetic minor HAP emission sources. In addition, small businesses in this industry typically have 5 percent profit margins. For more information, consult the docket for this project. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless worked aggressively to minimize the impact of this proposed rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under the CAA. We solicited input from small entities during the data­ gathering phase of the proposed rulemaking. We are proposing compliance options which give small entities flexibility in choosing the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative for their operation. For example, a facility could purchase and use low­ HAP coatings (i. e., pollution prevention) that meet the proposed standards instead of using add­ on capture and control systems. This method of compliance can be demonstrated with minimum burden by using purchase and usage records. No testing of materials would be required, as the facility owner could show that their coatings meet the emission limits by providing formulation data supplied by the manufacturer. 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 the proposed standards have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1952.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Collection Strategies Division (2822), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at farmer. sandy@ epa. gov, or by calling (202) 260– 2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all owners and operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U. S. C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed standards would require maintaining records of all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials data and calculations used to determine compliance. This information includes the volume used during each monthly compliance period, mass fraction organic HAP, density, and, for coatings only, volume fraction solids. If an add­ on control device is used, records must be kept of the capture efficiency of the capture system, destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device, and the monitored operating parameters. In addition, records must be kept of each calculation of the affected sourcewide emissions for each monthly compliance period and all data, calculations, test results, and other supporting information used to determine this value. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden in the fifth year after the effective date of the promulgated rule is estimated to be approximately 165,000 labor hours at a cost of approximately $11 million for new and existing sources. 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 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 EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501, et seq., the EPA must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information collection request in a proposed or final rule. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20222 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 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. By U. S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; or by courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 401 M Street, SW., Room 925H, West Tower; Washington, DC; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 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 April 24, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 24, 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 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113, section 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e. g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by one or more VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when EPA does not use available and applicable VCS. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS for use in emissions monitoring. The search for emissions monitoring procedures identified 20 VCS that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the available standards, EPA determined that ten of the candidate consensus standards (ASTM D3154– 00, ASTM D3271– 87, ASTM D3464– 96, ASTM D3796– 90, ASTM D3960– 98, ASTM D6053– 96, ASTM E337– 84, ISO 9096: 1992, PTC 19– 10– 1981, and EN 1093– 4: 1996) identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to the proposed emission standards would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and validation data (Docket A– 97– 47). Seven of the remaining candidate consensus standards (BSR/ ASME MFC 13m, ASTM Z6871Z, ISO/ DIS 14164, ISO PWI 17895, ISO/ DIS 11890– 1, ISO/ DIS 11890– 2, and PREN 12619) are under development. The EPA plans to follow, review, and consider adopting these standards after their development is completed. The ASTM 2369– 98 is practical for EPA use as an acceptable alternative in measuring the volatile matter content of surface coatings. This VCS uses the same techniques, equipment, and procedures as Method 24. The EPA will incorporate by reference ASTM D2369– 98 into 40 CFR 63.14 in the near future. The ASTM D2697– 86 (1998) and ASTM D6093– 97 are acceptable procedures for use in determining the volume fraction of solids for a variety of coatings. The EPA will incorporate by reference ASTM D2697– 86 (1998) and ASTM D6093– 97 into 40 CFR 63.14 in the near future. Six consensus standards: ASTM D1475– 98, ASTM D2369– 98, ASTM D3792– 99, ASTM D4017– 96a, ASTM D4457– 85( Reapproved 91), and ASTM D5403– 93 are already incorporated by reference in EPA Method 24; and five consensus standards: ASTM D1979– 97, ASTM D3432– 89, ASTM D4747– 87, ASTM D4827– 93, and ASTM PS 9– 94 are incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311. The EPA takes comment on proposed compliance demonstration requirements in the proposed standards and specifically invites the public to identify potentially­ applicable VCS. Commentors should also explain why the proposed standards should adopt these VCS in lieu of EPA's methods. 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 method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used). Sections 63.4964 through 63.4966 of the proposed standards list EPA testing methods and performance standards included. Most of the standards have been used by States and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, any State or source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative methods in place of any of the EPA testing methods or performance standards listed. 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: March 19, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of 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 RRRR to read as follows: Subpart RRRR— National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture Sec. What This Subpart Covers 63.4880 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.4881 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.4882 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.4883 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emission Limitations 63.4890 What emission limits must I meet? 63.4891 What are my options for meeting the emission limits? 63.4892 What operating limits must I meet? 63.4893 What work practice standards must I meet? General Compliance Requirements 63.4900 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.4901 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.4910 What notifications must I submit? 63.4920 What reports must I submit? 63.4930 What records must I keep? 63.4931 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? Compliance Requirements for the Compliant Material Option 63.4940 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? 63.4941 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4942 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20223 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate Without Add­ On Controls Option 63.4950 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? 63.4951 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4952 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate With Add­ On Controls Option 63.4960 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.4961 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? 63.4962 How do I determine the organic HAP emission rate for a controlled coating operation not using a liquidliquid material balance if I operate it under different sets of representative operating conditions? 63.4963 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4964 What are the general requirements for performance tests? 63.4965 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? 63.4966 How do I determine the add­ on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? 63.4967 How do I establish the emission capture system and add­ on control device operating limits during the performance test? 63.4968 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) installation, operation, and maintenance? Other Requirements and Information 63.4980 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.4981 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart RRRR of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart RRRR of Part 63. Operating Limits if Using the Emission Rate with Add­ on Controls Option Table 2 to Subpart RRRR of Part 63. Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart RRRR Table 3 to Subpart RRRR of Part 63. Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends Table 4 to Subpart RRRR of Part 63. Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups What This Subpart Covers § 63.4880 What is the purpose of this subpart? This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for metal furniture surface coating facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations. § 63.4881 Am I subject to this subpart? (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the source category to which this subpart applies is surface coating of metal furniture. (1) Surface coating is the application of coatings to a substrate using, for example, spray guns or dip tanks. (2) Metal furniture means furniture or components of furniture constructed either entirely or partially from metal. Metal furniture includes, but is not limited to, components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: household, office, institutional, laboratory, hospital, public building, restaurant, barber and beauty shop, and dental furniture; office and store fixtures; partitions; shelving; lockers; lamps and lighting fixtures; and wastebaskets. (b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source, as defined in § 63.4882, in the source category defined in paragraph (a) of this section and that is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). A major source of HAP emissions is 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 any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (Mg) (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 Mg (25 tons) or more per year. (c) This subpart does not apply to surface coating that meets any of the criteria of paragraphs (c)( 1) through (5) of this section. (1) Surface coating conducted at a source that uses only coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that contain no organic HAP. (2) Surface coating of metal components of wood furniture conducted in an operation that is subject to the wood furniture manufacturing NESHAP in subpart JJ of this part. (3) Surface coating that occurs at research or laboratory facilities or that is part of janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations. (4) Surface coating of only small items such as knobs, hinges, or screws that have a wider use beyond metal furniture are not subject to this subpart unless the surface coating occurs at a metal furniture source. (5) Surface coating of metal furniture conducted for the purpose of repairing or maintaining metal furniture used by a facility and not for commerce is not subject to this subpart, unless organic HAP emissions from the surface coating itself are as high as the rates specified in paragraph (b) of this section. § 63.4882 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? (a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, and existing affected source. (b) The affected source is the collection of all of the items listed in paragraphs (b)( 1) through (4) of this section that are used for surface coating of metal furniture: (1) All coating operations as defined in § 63.4981; (2) All storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; (3) All manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and (4) All storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. (c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced its construction after April 24, 2002, and the construction is of a completely new metal furniture surface coating facility where previously no metal furniture surface coating facility had existed. (d) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in § 63.2. (e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed. § 63.4883 When do I have to comply with this subpart? The date by which you must comply with this subpart is called the compliance date. The compliance date for each type of affected source is specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. The compliance date begins the initial compliance period during which you conduct the initial compliance demonstration described in §§ 63.4940, 63.4950, and 63.4960. (a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, the compliance date is the applicable date in paragraph (a)( 1) or (2) of this section: (1) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source is before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the compliance date is [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the compliance date is the date of initial startup of your affected source. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20224 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules (b) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is the date 3 years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (c) For an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP emissions, the compliance date is specified in paragraphs (c)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) For any portion of the source that becomes a new or reconstructed affected source subject to this subpart, the compliance date is the date of initial startup or [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. (2) For any portion of the source that becomes an existing affected source subject to this subpart, the compliance date is the date 1 year after the area source becomes a major source or 3 years after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. (d) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.4910 according to the dates specified in that section and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before the compliance dates described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. Emission Limitations § 63.4890 What emission limits must I meet? (a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, you must limit organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 0.094 kilogram (kg) organic HAP per liter (0.78 pound per gallon (lb/ gal)) of coating solids used during each compliance period, determined according to the procedures in § 63.4941, § 63.4951, or § 63.4961. (b) For an existing affected source, you must limit organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere to no more than 0.12 kg organic HAP per liter (1.0 lb/ gal) of coating solids used during each compliance period, determined according to the procedures in § 63.4941, § 63.4951, or § 63.4961. § 63.4891 What are my options for meeting the emission limits? You must include all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in the affected source when determining whether the organic HAP emission rate is equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890. To make this determination, you must use at least one of the three compliance options listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. You may apply any of the compliance options to an individual coating operation or to multiple coating operations as a group or to the entire affected source. You may use different compliance options for different coating operations or at different times on the same coating operation. However, you may not use different compliance options at the same time on the same coating operation. If you switch between compliance options for any coating operation or group of coating operations, you must document this switch as required by § 63.4930( c), and you must report it in the next semiannual compliance report required in § 63.4920. (a) Compliant material option. Demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each coating used in the coating operation( s) is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890 and that each thinner and each cleaning material used contains no organic HAP. You must meet all the requirements of §§ 63.4940, 63.4941, and 63.4942 to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit using this option. (b) Emission rate without add­ on controls option. Demonstrate that, based on the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation( s), the organic HAP emission rate for the coating operation( s) is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, calculated as a monthly emission rate. You must meet all the requirements of §§ 63.4950, 63.4951, and 63.4952 to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit using this option. (c) Emission rate with add­ on controls option. Demonstrate that, based on the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation( s), and the emission capture and add­ on control efficiencies achieved, the organic HAP emission rate for the coating operation( s) is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, calculated as a monthly emission rate. If you use this compliance option, you must also demonstrate that all capture systems and add­ on control devices for the coating operation( s) meet the operating limits required in § 63.4892, except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to § 63.4961( j); and that you meet the work practice standards required in § 63.4893. You must meet all the requirements of §§ 63.4960 through 63.4968 to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards using this option. § 63.4892 What operating limits must I meet? (a) For any coating operation( s) on which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate without addon controls option, you are not required to meet any operating limits. (b) For any controlled coating operation( s) on which you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, except those for which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance according to § 63.4961( j), you must meet the operating limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart. These operating limits apply to the emission capture and control systems on the coating operation( s) for which you use this option, and you must establish the operating limits during the performance test according to the procedures in § 63.4967. You must meet the operating limits at all times after you establish them. (c) If you use an add­ on control device other than those listed in Table 1 of this subpart, or wish to monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a different operating limit, you must apply to the Administrator for approval of alternative monitoring under § 63.8( f). § 63.4893 What work practice standards must I meet? (a) For any coating operation( s) on which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate without addon controls option, you are not required to meet any work practice standards. (b) If you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, you must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, the controlled coating operation( s) for which you use this option; or you must meet an alternative standard as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. The plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure that, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (b)( 1) through (5) of this section are implemented. (1) All organic­ HAP­ containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers. (2) Spills of organic­ HAP­ containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized. (3) Organic­ HAP­ containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed containers or pipes. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20225 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules (4) Mixing vessels which contain organic­ HAP­ containing coatings and other materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents. (5) Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment. (c) As provided in § 63.6( g), we, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), may choose to grant you permission to use an alternative to the work practice standards in this section. General Compliance Requirements § 63.4900 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart as specified in paragraphs (a)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) Any coating operation( s) for which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate without add­ on controls option, as specified in § 63.4891( a) and (b), must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890 at all times. (2) Any coating operation( s) for which you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, as specified in § 63.4891( c), must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890 at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Each controlled coating operation must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add­ on control devices required by § 63.4892 at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to § 63.4961( j). Each controlled coating operation must be in compliance with the work practice standards in § 63.4893 at all times. (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 1)( i). (c) If your affected source uses an emission capture system and add­ on control device, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add­ on control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in § 63.4883 and the date when the initial emission capture system and add­ on control device performance tests have been completed, as specified in § 63.4960. This requirement does not apply to a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance according to § 63.4961( j). (d) If your affected source uses an emission capture system and add­ on control device, you must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3). The plan must address startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or the add­ on control device. The plan must also address any coating operation equipment that may cause increased emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the process equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among enclosures. § 63.4901 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 2 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. Notifications, Reports, and Records § 63.4910 What notifications must I submit? (a) General. You must submit the notifications in §§ 63.7( b) and (c), 63.8( f)( 4), and 63.9( b) through (e) and (h) that apply to you by the dates specified in those sections, except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. (b) Initial Notification. You must submit the Initial Notification required by § 63.9( b) for a new or reconstructed affected source no later than 120 days after initial startup or 120 days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. For an existing affected source, you must submit the Initial Notification no later than 1 year after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (c) Notification of Compliance Status. You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.9( h) no later than 30 calendar days following the end of the initial compliance period described in §§ 63.4940, 63.4950, or 63.4960 that applies to your affected source. The Notification of Compliance Status must contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)( 1) through (9) of this section and in § 63.9( h). (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. (3) Date of the report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. The reporting period is the initial compliance period described in §§ 63.4940, 63.4950, or 63.4960 that applies to your affected source. (4) Identification of the compliance option or options specified in § 63.4891 that you used on each coating operation in the affected source during the initial compliance period. (5) Statement of whether or not the affected source achieved the emission limitations for the initial compliance period. (6) If you had a deviation, include the information in paragraphs (c)( 6)( i) and (ii) of this section. (i) A description of and statement of the cause of the deviation. (ii) If you failed to meet the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, include all the calculations you used to determine the kg organic HAP emitted per liter of coating solids used. You do not need to submit information provided by the materials suppliers or manufacturers or test reports. (7) For each of the data items listed in paragraphs (c)( 7)( i) through (iv) of this section that is required by the compliance option( s) you used to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit, include an example of how you determined the value, including calculations and supporting data. Supporting data can include a copy of the information provided by the supplier or manufacturer of the example coating or material or a summary of the results of testing conducted according to § 63.4941( a), (b), or (c). You do not need to submit copies of any test reports. (i) Mass fraction of organic HAP for one coating, for one thinner, and for one cleaning material. (ii) Volume fraction of coating solids for one coating. (iii) Density for one coating, one thinner, and one cleaning material, except that if you use the compliant material option, only the example coating density is required. (iv) The amount of waste materials and the mass of organic HAP contained in the waste materials for which you are claiming an allowance in Equation 1 of § 63.4951. (8) The calculation of kg organic HAP emitted per liter coating solids used for the compliance option( s) you used, as specified in paragraphs (c)( 8)( i) through (iii) of this section. (i) For the compliant material option, provide an example calculation of the organic HAP content (Hc) for one coating, using Equation 1 of § 63.4941. (ii) For the emission rate without addon controls option, provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions during the initial VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20226 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules compliance period (He); the calculation of the total volume of coating solids used during the initial compliance period (Vst); and the calculation of the organic HAP emission rate for the initial compliance period (Havg), using Equations 1, 2, and 3, respectively, of § 63.4951. (iii) For the emission rate with add­ on controls option, provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during the initial compliance period (He), using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of § 63.4951; the calculation of the total volume of coating solids used during the initial compliance period (Vst), using Equation 2 of § 63.4951; the calculation of the mass of organic HAP emission reduction during the initial compliance period by emission capture systems and add­ on control devices, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1D of § 63.4961 for HC, and Equations 2 and 3 of § 63.4961 for HCSR, as applicable; and the calculation of the organic HAP emission rate (HHAP) for the initial compliance period, using either Equation 4 of § 63.4961 or Equation 1 of § 63.4962, as applicable. (9) For the emission rate with add­ on controls option, you must include the information specified in paragraphs (c)( 9)( i) through (iv) of this section. The requirements in paragraphs (c)( 9)( i) through (iii) of this section do not apply to solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to § 63.4961( j). (i) For each emission capture system, a summary of the data and copies of the calculations supporting the determination that the emission capture system is a permanent total enclosure (PTE) or a measurement of the emission capture system efficiency. Include a description of the protocol followed for measuring capture efficiency, summaries of any capture efficiency tests conducted, and any calculations supporting the capture efficiency determination. If you use the data quality objective (DQO) or lower confidence limit (LCL) approach, you must also include the statistical calculations to show you meet the DQO or LCL criteria in appendix A to subpart KK of this part. You do not need to submit complete test reports. (ii) A summary of the results of each add­ on control device performance test. You do not need to submit complete test reports. (iii) A list of each emission capture system's and add­ on control device's operating limits and a summary of the data used to calculate those limits. (iv) A statement of whether or not you developed and implemented the work practice plan required by § 63.4893. § 63.4920 What reports must I submit? (a) Semiannual compliance reports. You must submit semiannual compliance reports for each affected source according to the requirements of paragraphs (a)( 1) through (7) of this section. The semiannual compliance reporting requirements may be satisfied by reports required under other parts of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as specified in paragraph (a)( 2) of this section. (1) Dates. Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10( a), you must prepare and submit each semiannual compliance report according to the dates specified in paragraphs (a)( 1)( i) through (iv) of this section. (i) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the first semiannual reporting period which begins the day after the end of the initial compliance period described in §§ 63.4940, 63.4950, or 63.4960 that applies to your affected source and ends on June 30 or December 31, whichever occurs first following the end of the initial compliance period. (ii) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must cover the subsequent semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. (iii) Each 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. (iv) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the date specified in paragraph (a)( 1)( iii) of this section. (2) Inclusion with Title V report. Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A). If an affected source submits a semiannual compliance report pursuant to this section along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), and the semiannual compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation in this subpart, its submission shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a semiannual compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. (3) General requirements. The semiannual compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs (a)( 3)( i) through (v) of this section, and the information specified in paragraphs (a)( 4) through (7) and (c)( 1) of this section that is applicable to your affected source. (i) Company name and address. (ii) 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. (iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. The reporting period is the 6­ month period ending on June 30 or December 31. (iv) Identification of the compliance option or options specified in § 63.4891 that you used on each coating operation during the reporting period. If you switched between compliance options during the reporting period, you must report the beginning and ending dates you used each option. (v) If you used the emission rate without add­ on controls or the emission rate with add­ on controls compliance option (§ 63.4891( b) or (c)), the calculation results for each monthly organic HAP emission rate during the 6­ month reporting period. (4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission limitations in §§ 63.4890, 63.4892, and 63.4893 that apply to you, the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If you used the emission rate with add­ on controls option and there were no periods during which the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) were out­ ofcontrol as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS were out­ of­ control during the reporting period. (5) Deviations: compliant material option. If you used the compliant material option, and there was a VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20227 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)( 5)( i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the emission limit, and of each thinner and cleaning material used that contained organic HAP, and the dates and time periods each was used. (ii) The calculation of the organic HAP content (HC, using Equation 1 of § 63.4941) for each coating identified in paragraph (a)( 5)( i) of this section. You do not need to submit background data supporting this calculation, for example, information provided by coating suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. (iii) The determination of mass fraction of organic HAP for each coating, thinner, and cleaning material identified in paragraph (a)( 5)( i) of this section. You do not need to submit background data supporting this calculation, for example, information provided by material suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. (iv) A statement of the cause of each deviation. (6) Deviations: emission rate without add­ on controls option. If you used the emission rate without add­ on controls option, and there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)( 6)( i) through (iii) of this section. (i) The beginning and ending dates of each compliance period during which the organic HAP emission rate exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890. (ii) The calculations used to determine the organic HAP emission rate for the compliance period in which the deviation occurred. You must submit the calculations for Equations 1, 1A through 1C, 2, and 3 in § 63.4951; and if applicable, the calculation used to determine Rw according to § 63.4951( e)( 4). You do not need to submit background data supporting these calculations, for example, information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. (iii) A statement of the cause of each deviation. (7) Deviations: emission rate with add­ on controls option. If you used the emission rate with add­ on controls option, and there was a deviation from an emission limitation (including any periods when emissions bypassed the add­ on control device and were diverted to the atmosphere), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (a)( 7)( i) through (xiv) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. (i) The beginning and ending dates of each compliance period during which the organic HAP emission rate exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890. (ii) The calculations used to determine the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period in which a deviation occurred. You must provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during the compliance period (He), using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of § 63.4951 and, if applicable, the calculation used to determine Rw according to § 63.4951( e)( 4); the calculation of the total volume of coating solids used during the compliance period (Vst), using Equation 2 of § 63.4951; the calculation of the mass of organic HAP emission reduction during the compliance period by emission capture systems and add­ on control devices, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1D of § 63.4961 for HC, and Equations 2 and 3 of § 63.4961 for HCSR, as applicable; and the calculation of the organic HAP emission rate for the compliance period (HHAP), using either Equation 4 of § 63.4961 or Equation 1 of § 63.4962, as applicable. You do not need to submit the background data supporting these calculations, for example information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. (iii) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped. (iv) A brief description of the CPMS. (v) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit. (vi) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero (low­ level) and high­ level checks. (vii) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out­ of­ control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). (viii) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 of this subpart; date and time period of any bypass of the add­ on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. (ix) A summary of the total duration of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 of this subpart and each bypass of the add­ on control device during the semiannual reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period. (x) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart and bypasses of the add­ on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. (xi) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the semiannual reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period. (xii) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation, emission capture system, or add­ on control device since the last semiannual reporting period. (xiii) For each deviation from the work practice standards, a description of the deviation; the date and time period of the deviation; and the actions you took to correct the deviation. (xiv) A statement of the cause of each deviation. (b) Performance test reports. If you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, you must submit reports of performance test results for emission capture systems and add­ on control devices no later than 60 days after completing the tests as specified in § 63.10( d)( 2). (c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. If you used the emission rate with add­ on controls option and you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (c)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) If your actions were consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must include the information specified in § 63.10( d) in the semiannual compliance report required by paragraph (a) of this section. (2) If your actions were not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report as described in paragraph (c)( 2)( i) and (ii) of this section. (i) You must describe the actions taken during the event in a report delivered by facsimile, telephone, or other means to the Administrator within 2 working days after starting actions that are inconsistent with the plan. (ii) You must submit a letter to the Administrator within 7 working days after the end of the event, unless you have made alternative arrangements with the Administrator as specified in VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20228 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). The letter must contain the information specified in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). § 63.4930 What records must I keep? You must collect and keep records of the data and information specified in this section. Failure to collect and keep these records is a deviation from the applicable standard. (a) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, and the documentation supporting each notification and report. (b) A current copy of information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, such as manufacturer's formulation data, or test data used to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP and density for each coating, thinner, and cleaning material and the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. If you conducted testing to determine mass fraction of organic HAP, density, or volume fraction of coating solids, you must keep a copy of the complete test report. If you use information provided to you by the manufacturer or supplier of the material that was based on testing, you must keep the summary sheet of results provided to you by the manufacturer or supplier. You are not required to obtain the test report or other supporting documentation from the manufacturer or supplier. (c) For each compliance period, the records specified in paragraphs (c)( 1) through (4) of this section. (1) A record of the coating operations at which you used each compliance option and the time periods (beginning and ending dates and times) you used each option. (2) For the compliant material option, a record of the calculation of the organic HAP content for each coating (H c), using Equation 1 of § 63.4941. (3) For the emission rate without addon controls option, a record of the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during each compliance period (He), using Equations 1, 1A through 1C, and 2 of § 63.4951 and, if applicable, the calculation used to determine Rw according to § 63.4951( e)( 4); the calculation of the total volume of coating solids used during each compliance period (Vst), using Equation 2 of § 63.4951; and the calculation of the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period (Havg), using Equation 3 of § 63.4951. (4) For the emission rate with add­ on controls option, records of the calculations specified in paragraphs (c)( 4)( i) through (v) of this section. (i) The calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during each compliance period (He), using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of § 63.4951 and, if applicable, the calculation used to determine Rw according to § 63.4951( e)( 4); (ii) The calculation of the total volume of coating solids used during each compliance period (Vst), using Equation 2 of § 63.4951; (iii) The calculation of the mass of organic HAP emission reduction by emission capture systems and add­ on control devices, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1D of § 63.4961 for HC, and Equations 2 and 3 of § 63.4961 for HCSR, as applicable; (iv) The calculation of the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period (HHAP), using either Equation 4 of § 63.4961 or Equation 1 of § 63.4962, as applicable. (d) A record of the name and volume of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used during each compliance period. (e) A record of the mass fraction of organic HAP for each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used during each compliance period. (f) A record of the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating used during each compliance period. (g) A record of the density for each coating used during each compliance period; and, if you use either the emission rate without add­ on controls or the emission rate with add­ on controls compliance option, the density for each thinner and cleaning material used during each compliance period. (h) If you use an allowance in Equation 1 of § 63.4951 for organic HAP contained in waste materials sent to or designated for shipment to a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) according to § 63.4951( e)( 4), you must keep records of the information specified in paragraphs (h)( 1) through (3) of this section. (1) The name and address of each TSDF to which you sent waste materials for which you use an allowance in Equation 1 of § 63.4951, a statement of which subparts under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, and 266 apply to the facility, and the date of each shipment. (2) Identification of the coating operations producing waste materials included in each shipment and the month or months in which you used the allowance for these materials in Equation 1 of § 63.4951. (3) The methodology used in accordance with § 63.4951( e)( 4) to determine the total amount of waste materials sent to or the amount collected, stored, and designated for transport to a TSDF each month; and the methodology to determine the mass of organic HAP contained in these waste materials. This must include the sources for all data used in the determination, methods used to generate the data, frequency of testing or monitoring, and supporting calculations and documentation, including the waste manifest for each shipment. (i) [Reserved] (j) You must keep records of the date, time, and duration of each deviation. (k) If you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (k)( 1) through (9) of this section. (1) For each deviation, a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. (2) The records in § 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. (3) The records required to show continuous compliance with each operating limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart that applies to you. (4) If you operate under multiple operating conditions that affect emission capture system efficiency or add­ on control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency, and you are using different emission capture system efficiency or add­ on control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency factors for each condition, then you must keep records of the data you used to calculate the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period, as described by Equation 1 in § 63.4962. (5) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and documentation you used to support a determination that the capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent, as specified in § 63.4965( a). (6) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the requirements specified in §§ 63.4964 and 63.4965( b) through (e), including the records specified in paragraphs (k)( 6)( i) through (iii) of this section that apply to you. (i) Records for a liquid­ to­ uncapturedgas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. Records of the mass of total volatile hydrocarbon (TVH) as measured by Method 204A or F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for each material used in the coating operation, and the total TVH for all VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20229 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules materials used, during each capture efficiency test run, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. (ii) Records for a gas­ to­ gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. Records of the mass of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture system as measured by Method 204B or C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 at the inlet to the add­ on control device, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. (iii) Records for an alternative protocol. Records needed to document a capture efficiency determination using an alternative method or protocol as specified in § 63.4965( e), if applicable. (7) The records specified in paragraphs (k)( 7)( i) and (ii) of this section for each add­ on control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency determination as specified in § 63.4966. (i) Records of each add­ on control device performance test conducted according to §§ 63.4964 and 63.4966. (ii) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add­ on control device performance test showing that the performance test was conducted under representative operating conditions. (8) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the emission capture and add­ on control device operating limits as specified in § 63.4967 and to document compliance with the operating limits as specified in Table 1 of this subpart. (9) A record of the work practice plan required by § 63.4893 and documentation that you are implementing the plan on a continuous basis. § 63.4931 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). Where appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets or as a database. (b) As specified in § 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 keep each record on site for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). You may keep the records off site for the remaining 3 years. Compliance Requirements for the Compliant Material Option § 63.4940 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements in § 63.4941. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4883 and ends on the last day of the first full month following the compliance date. The initial compliance demonstration includes the calculations according to § 63.4941 and supporting documentation showing that, during the initial compliance period, you used no coating with an organic HAP content that exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890 and you used no thinners or cleaning materials that contained organic HAP. § 63.4941 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? You may use the compliant material option for any individual coating operation, for any group of coating operations in the affected source, or for all the coating operations in the affected source. You must use either the emission rate without add­ on controls option or the emission rate with add­ on controls option for any coating operation in the affected source for which you do not use this option. To demonstrate initial compliance using the compliant material option, the coating operation or group of coating operations must use no coating with an organic HAP content that exceeds the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890 and must use no thinner or cleaning material that contains organic HAP as determined according to this section. Any coating operation for which you use the compliant material option is not required to meet the operating limits or work practice standards required in §§ 63.4892 and 63.4893, respectively. To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations using the compliant material option, you must meet all the requirements of this section for the coating operation or group of coating operations using this option. Use the procedures in this section on each coating, thinner, and cleaning material in the condition it is in when it is received from its manufacturer or supplier and prior to any alteration. You do not need to redetermine the HAP content of cleaning materials that are reclaimed and reused onsite provided these materials in their condition as received were demonstrated to comply with the compliant material option. (a) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material used. You must determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used during the compliance period by using one of the options in paragraphs (a)( 1) through (5) of this section. (1) Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). You may use Method 311 for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP. Use the procedures specified in paragraphs (a)( 1)( i) and (ii) of this section when performing a Method 311 test. (i) Count each organic HAP that is measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4) and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not an OSHA carcinogen) is measured to be 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four places after the decimal point (for example, 0.3791). (ii) Calculate the total mass fraction of organic HAP in the test material by adding up the individual organic HAP mass fractions and truncating the result to three places after the decimal point (for example, 0.763). (2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of non­ aqueous volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic HAP. (3) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP once the Administrator has approved it. You must follow the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20230 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules procedure in § 63.7( f) to submit an alternative test method for approval. (4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the test methods specified in paragraphs (a)( 1) through (3) of this section, such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHAdefined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4) and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene (not an OSHA carcinogen) is 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. If there is a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted according to paragraphs (a)( 1) through (3) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence. (5) Solvent blends. Solvent blends may be listed as single components for some materials in data provided by manufacturers or suppliers. Solvent blends may contain organic HAP which must be counted toward the total organic HAP mass fraction of the materials. When test data and manufacturer's data for solvent blends are not available, you may use the default values for the mass fraction of organic HAP in these solvent blends listed in Table 3 or 4 of this subpart. If you use the tables, you must use the values in Table 3 for all solvent blends that match Table 3 entries, and you may only use Table 4 if the solvent blends in the materials you use do not match any of the solvent blends in Table 3 and you only know whether the blend is aliphatic or aromatic. However, if the results of a Method 311 test indicate higher values than those listed on Table 3 or 4 of this subpart, the Method 311 results will take precedence. (b) Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. You must determine the volume fraction of coating solids (liters of coating solids per liter of coating) for each coating used during the compliance period by a test or by information provided by the supplier or the manufacturer of the material, as specified in paragraphs (b)( 1) and (2) of this section. If test results obtained according to paragraph (b)( 1) of this section do not agree with the information obtained under paragraph (b)( 2) of this section, the test results will take precedence. (1) ASTM Method D2697– 86( 1998) or D6093– 97. You may use ASTM Method D2697– 86( 1998) or D6093– 97 to determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent obtained with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of coating solids. (2) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may obtain the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating from the supplier or manufacturer. (c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of each coating used during the compliance period from test results using ASTM Method D1475– 98 or information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475– 98 test results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test results will take precedence. (d) Calculate the organic HAP content of each coating. Calculate HC, the organic HAP content, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids, of each coating used during the compliance period, using Equation 1 of this section: H D W V c c c s = ( ) ( ) ( ) Eq. 1 Where: HC = organic HAP content of the coating, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids. DC = density of coating, kg coating per liter coating, determined according to paragraph (c) of this section. WC = mass fraction of organic HAP in the coating, kg organic HAP per kg coating, determined according to paragraph (a) of this section. VS = volume fraction of coating solids, liter coating solids per liter coating, determined according to paragraph (b) of this section. (e) Compliance demonstration. The calculated organic HAP content, HC, for each coating used during the initial compliance period must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890; and each thinner and cleaning material used during the initial compliance period must contain no organic HAP, determined according to paragraph (a) of this section. You must keep all records required by §§ 63.4930 and 63.4931. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required in § 63.4910, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the compliant material option and submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was (were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because you used no coatings for which the organic HAP content exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, and you used no thinners or cleaning materials that contained organic HAP. § 63.4942 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? (a) For each compliance period, to demonstrate continuous compliance, you must use no coating for which the organic HAP content, HC, determined using Equation 1 of § 63.4941, exceeds the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, and use no thinner or cleaning material that contains organic HAP, determined according to § 63.4941( a). Each month following the initial compliance period described in § 63.4940 is a compliance period. (b) If you choose to comply with the emission limitations by using the compliant material option, the use of any coating, thinner, or cleaning material that does not meet the criteria specified in paragraph (a) of this section is a deviation from the emission limitations that must be reported as specified in §§ 63.4910( c)( 6) and 63.4920( a)( 5). (c) As part of each semiannual compliance report required by § 63.4920, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the compliant material option. If there were no deviations from the emission limitations in § 63.4890, submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was (were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period because you used no coating for which the organic HAP content exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890 and you used no thinner or cleaning material that contained organic HAP. (d) You must maintain records as specified in §§ 63.4930 and 63.4931. Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate Without Add­ On Controls Option § 63.4950 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.4951. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4883 and ends on the last day of the first full month following the compliance date. The initial compliance demonstration includes the calculations showing that the organic HAP emission rate for the initial compliance period was equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890. § 63.4951 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? You may use the emission rate without add­ on controls option for any individual coating operation, for any VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20231 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules group of coating operations in the affected source, or for all the coating operations in the affected source. You must use either the compliant material option or the emission rate with add­ on controls option for any coating operation in the affected source for which you do not use this option. To demonstrate initial compliance using the emission rate without add­ on controls option, the coating operation or group of coating operations must meet the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, but is not required to meet the operating limits or work practice standards in §§ 63.4892 and 63.4893, respectively. You must meet all the requirements of this section to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890 for the coating operation( s). When calculating the organic HAP emission rate according to this section, do not include any coatings, thinners, or cleaning materials used on coating operations for which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate with add­ on controls option. You do not need to include organic HAP in coatings, thinners, or cleaning materials that are reclaimed and reused in the coating operation for which you use the emission rate without add­ on controls option. (a) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material. Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used during the compliance period according to the requirements in § 63.4941( a). (b) Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating used during the compliance period according to the requirements in § 63.4941( b). (c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used during the compliance period according to the requirements in § 63.4941( c) from test results using ASTM Method D1475– 98, information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475– 98 test results and such other information sources, the test results will take precedence. (d) Determine the volume of each material used. Determine the volume (liters) of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used during the compliance period by measurement or usage records. (e) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emissions. The mass of organic HAP emissions, He, is the combined mass of organic HAP contained in all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during the compliance period minus the organic HAP in certain waste materials. Calculate He using Equation 1 of this section: H A B C R Eq. e w = + + ( ) 1 Where: He = total mass of organic HAP emissions during the compliance period, kg. A = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the compliance period, kg, as calculated in Equation 1A of this section. B = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used during the compliance period, kg, as calculated in Equation 1B of this section. C = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used during the compliance period, kg, as calculated in Equation 1C of this section. Rw = total mass of organic HAP in waste materials sent or designated for shipment to a hazardous waste TSDF for treatment or disposal during the compliance period, kg, determined according to paragraph (e)( 4) of this section. (You may assign a value of zero to Rw if you do not wish to use this allowance.) (1) Calculate A, the kg organic HAP in the coatings used during the compliance period using Equation 1A of this section: A Vol D W c i c i c i m = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) i= ,,, Eq. 1A 1 Where: A = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the compliance period, kg. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the compliance period, liters. Dc, i = density of coating, i, kg coating per liter coating. Wc, i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg organic HAP per kg coating. m = number of different coatings used during the compliance period. (2) Calculate B, the kg of organic HAP in the thinners used during the compliance period using Equation 1B of this section: B Vol D W t j t j t j m = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) j= ,,, Eq. 1B 1 Where: B = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used during the compliance period, kg. Volt, j = total volume of thinner, j, used during the compliance period, liters. Dt, j = density of thinner, j, kg per liter. Wt, j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner, j, kg organic HAP per kg thinner. n = number of different thinners used during the compliance period. (3) Calculate C, the kg organic HAP in the cleaning materials used during the compliance period using Equation 1C of this section: C Vol D W s k s k s k p = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) k= ,,, Eq. 1C 1 Where: C = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used during the compliance period, kg. Vols, k = total volume of cleaning material, k, used during the compliance period, liters. Ds, k = density of cleaning material, k, kg per liter. Ws, k = mass fraction of organic HAP in cleaning material, k, kg organic HAP per kg material. p = number of different cleaning materials used during the compliance period. (4) If you choose to account for the mass of organic HAP contained in waste materials sent or designated for shipment to a hazardous waste TSDF (Rw) in the calculation of He (Equation 1 of this section), then you must determine Rw according to paragraphs (e)( 4)( i) through (iv) of this section. (i) You may include in the determination of Rw only waste materials that are generated by coating operations for which you use Equation 1 of this section and that will be treated or disposed of by a facility regulated as a TSDF under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. The TSDF may be either off site or on­ site. You may not include in Rw the organic HAP contained in wastewater. (ii) You must determine either the amount of the waste materials sent to a TSDF during the compliance period or the amount collected and stored during the compliance period and designated for future transport to a TSDF. Do not include in your determination of Rw any waste materials sent to a TSDF during a compliance period if you have already VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20232 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules included them in the amount collected and stored during that or a previous compliance period. (iii) Determine the total mass of organic HAP contained in the waste materials specified in paragraph (e)( 4)( ii) of this section. (iv) You may use any reasonable methodology to determine the amount of waste materials and the total mass of organic HAP they contain, and you must document your methodology as required in § 63.4930( h). To the extent that waste manifests include this information, they may be used as part of the documentation of the amount of waste materials and mass of organic HAP contained in them. (f) Calculate the total volume of coating solids used. Determine Vst, the total volume of coating solids used, liters, which is the combined volume of coating solids for all the coatings used during the compliance period, using Equation 2 of this section: V Vol V st i s i m = ( ) ( ) ( ) i= c,, Eq. 2 1 Where: Vst = total volume of coating solids used during the compliance period, liters. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the compliance period, liters. Vs, i = volume fraction of coating solids for coating, i, liter solids per liter coating, determined according to § 63.4941( b). m = number of coatings used during the compliance period. (g) Calculate the organic HAP emission rate. Calculate Havg, the organic HAP emission rate for the compliance period, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids used, using Equation 3 of this section: H H V avg e st = ( ) Eq. 3 Where: Havg = organic HAP emission rate for the compliance period, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids. He = total mass of organic HAP emissions from all materials used during the compliance period, kg, as calculated by Equation 1 of this section. Vst = total volume of coating solids used during the compliance period, liters, as calculated by Equation 2 of this section. (h) Compliance demonstration. The organic HAP emission rate for the initial compliance period, Havg, must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890. You must keep all records as required by §§ 63.4930 and 63.4931. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.4910, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the emission rate without add­ on controls option and submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was (were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, determined according to this section. § 63.4952 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? (a) To demonstrate continuous compliance, the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period, determined according to § 63.4951( a) through (g), must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890. Each month following the initial compliance period described in § 63.4950 is a compliance period. (b) If the organic HAP emission rate for any compliance period exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, this is a deviation from the emission limitations for that compliance period and must be reported as specified in §§ 63.4910( c)( 6) and 63.4920( a)( 6). (c) As part of each semiannual compliance report required by § 63.4920, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the emission rate without add­ on controls option. If there were no deviations from the emission limitations, you must submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was (were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890. (d) You must maintain records as specified in §§ 63.4930 and 63.4931. Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate With Add­ On Controls Option § 63.4960 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? (a) New and reconstructed affected sources. For a new or reconstructed affected source, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)( 1) through (4) of this section. (1) All emission capture systems, on control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4883. Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid liquid material balances according to § 63.4961( j), you must conduct a performance test of each capture system and add­ on control device according to §§ 63.4964, 63.4965, and 63.4966, and establish the operating limits required by § 63.4892, no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4883. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to § 63.4961( j), you must initiate the first material balance no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4883. (2) You must develop and begin implementing the work practice plan required by § 63.4893 no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.4883. (3) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.4961. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4883 and ends on the last day of the first full month following the compliance date. The initial compliance demonstration includes the results of emission capture system and add­ on control device performance tests conducted according to §§ 63.4964, 63.4965, and 63.4966; results of liquid liquid material balances conducted according to § 63.4961( j); calculations showing whether the organic HAP emission rate for the initial compliance period was equal to or less than the emission limit in § 63.4890( a); the operating limits established during the performance tests and the results of the continuous parameter monitoring required by § 63.4968; and documentation of whether you developed and implemented the work practice plan required by § 63.4893. (4) You do not need to comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and add­ on control device required by § 63.4892 until after you have completed the performance tests specified in paragraph (a)( 1) of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add­ on control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin complying with the operating limits for your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests addspecified in paragraph (a)( 1) of this section. The requirements in this paragraph do not apply to solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances. (b) Existing affected sources. For an existing affected source, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)( 1) through (3) of this section. (1) All emission capture systems, add on control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20233 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 63.4883. Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.4961( j), you must conduct a performance test of each capture system and add­ on control device according to the procedures in §§ 63.4964, 63.4965, and 63.4966, and establish the operating limits required by § 63.4892, no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.4883. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to § 63.4961( j), you must initiate the first material balance no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.4883. (2) You must develop and begin implementing the work practice plan required by § 63.4893 no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.4883. (3) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.4961. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4883 and ends on the last day of the first full month following the compliance date. The initial compliance demonstration includes the results of emission capture system and add­ on control device performance tests conducted according to §§ 63.4964, 63.4965, and 63.4966; results of liquidliquid material balances conducted according to § 63.4961( j); calculations showing whether the organic HAP emission rate for the initial compliance period was equal to or less than the emission limit in § 63.4890( b); the operating limits established during the performance tests and the results of the continuous parameter monitoring required by § 63.4968; and documentation of whether you developed and implemented the work practice plan required by § 63.4893. § 63.4961 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? (a) When add­ on controls are used. You may use the emission rate with add­ on controls option for any coating operation, for any group of coating operations in the affected source, or for all of the coating operations in the affected source. You may include both controlled and uncontrolled coating operations in a group for which you use this option. You must use either the compliant material option or the emission rate without add­ on controls option for any coating operation in the affected source for which you do not use the emission rate with add­ on controls option. To demonstrate initial compliance, the coating operation( s) for which you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option must meet the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, and each controlled coating operation must meet the operating limits and work practice standards required in §§ 63.4892 and 63.4893, respectively. You must meet all the requirements of this section to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations. When calculating the organic HAP emission rate according to this section, do not include any coatings, thinners, or cleaning materials used on coating operations for which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate without add­ on controls option. (b) Compliance with operating limits. Except as provided in § 63.4960( a)( 4), you must establish and demonstrate continuous compliance during the initial compliance period with the operating limits required by § 63.4892, using the procedures specified in §§ 63.4967 and 63.4968. (c) Compliance with work practice requirements. You must develop, implement, and document your implementation of the work practice plan required by § 63.4893 during the initial compliance period, as specified in § 63.4930. (d) Compliance with emission limits. You must follow the procedures in paragraphs (e) through (n) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890. (e) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP, density, volume used, and volume fraction of coating solids. Follow the procedures specified in § 63.4951( a) through (d) to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP, density, and volume of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used during the compliance period; and the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating used during the compliance period. (f) Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before add­ on controls. Using Equation 1 of § 63.4951, calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before add­ on controls from all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during the compliance period, He. (g) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation. Determine the mass of organic HAP emissions reduced for each controlled coating operation during the compliance period. The emission reduction determination quantifies the total organic HAP emissions that pass through the emission capture system and are destroyed or removed by the add­ on control device. Use the procedures in paragraph (h) of this section to calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation using an emission capture system and add­ on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances. For each controlled coating operation using a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance, use the procedures in paragraph (j) of this section to calculate the organic HAP emission reduction. (h) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for controlled coating operations not using liquidliquid material balance, HC. For each controlled coating operation using an emission capture system and add­ on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances, calculate HC, using Equation 1 of this section. The calculation of HC applies the emission capture system efficiency and add­ on control device efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that are used in the coating operation served by the emission capture system and add­ on control device during the compliance period. For any period of time a deviation specified in § 63.4963( c) or (d) occurs in the controlled coating operation, including a deviation during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you must assume zero efficiency for the emission capture system and add­ on control device. Equation 1 of this section treats the materials used during such a deviation as if they were used on an uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the deviation: H ABC CE DRE H Eq c I I I unc = + + ( ) × + ( ) 100 100 . 1 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20234 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules Where: HC = mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the controlled coating operation during the compliance period, kg. AI = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the controlled coating operation during the compliance period, excluding coatings used during deviations, kg, as calculated in Equation 1A of this section. BI = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the controlled coating operation during the compliance period, excluding thinners used during deviations, kg, as calculated in Equation 1B of this section. CI = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used in the controlled coating operation during the compliance period, excluding cleaning materials used during deviations, kg, as calculated in Equation 1C of this section. CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the add­ on control device, percent. Use the test methods and procedures specified in §§ 63.4964 and 63.4965 to measure and record capture efficiency. DRE = organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device, percent. Use the test methods and procedures in §§ 63.4964 and 63.4966 to measure and record the organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency. Hunc = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during all deviations specified in § 63.4963( c) and (d) that occurred during the compliance period in the controlled coating operation, kg, as calculated in Equation 1D of this section. (1) Calculate AI, the mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the controlled coating operation, kg, using Equation 1A of this section. Do not include in the calculation of AI the coatings used during any deviation specified in § 63.4963( c) or (d) that occurred during the month. Include such coatings in the calculation of Hunc in Equation 1D of this section. A Vol D W I cicici m = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) i= ,,, Eq. 1A 1 Where: AI = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the controlled coating operation during the compliance period, excluding coatings used during deviations, kg. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the compliance period except during deviations, liters. Dc, i = density of coating, i, kg per liter. Wc, i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg per kg. m = number of different coatings used. (2) Calculate BI, the mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the controlled coating operation, kg, using Equation 1B of this section. Do not include in the calculation of BI the thinners used during any deviation specified in § 63.4963( c) or (d) that occurred during the month. Include such coatings in the calculation of Hunc in Equation 1D of this section. B Vol D W I tjtjtj n = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) j= ,,, Eq. 1B 1 Where: BI = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the controlled coating operation during the compliance period, excluding thinners used during deviations, kg. Volt, j = total volume of thinner, j, used during the compliance period except during deviations, liters. Dt, j = density of thinner, j, kg per liter. Wt, j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner, j, kg per kg. n = number of different thinners used. (3) Calculate CI, the mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used in the controlled coating operation, kg, using Equation 1C of this section. Do not include in the calculation of CI the cleaning materials used during any deviation specified in § 63.4963( c) or (d) that occurred during the compliance period. Include such cleaning materials in the calculation of Hunc in Equation 1D of this section. C Vol D W I sksksk p = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) k= ,,, Eq. 1C 1 Where: CI = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used in the controlled coating operation during the compliance period, excluding cleaning materials used during deviations, kg. Vols, k = total volume of cleaning material, k, used during the compliance period except during deviations, liters. Ds, k = density of cleaning material, k, kg per liter. Ws, k = mass fraction of organic HAP in cleaning material, k, kg per kg. p = number of different cleaning materials used. (4) Calculate Hunc, the mass of organic HAP in the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in the controlled coating operation during deviations specified in § 63.4963( c) and (d), using Equation 1D of this section: H Vol D W unc h h h q = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) h= Eq. 1D 1 Where: Hunc = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during all deviations specified in § 63.4963( c) and (d) that occurred during the compliance period in the controlled coating operation, kg. Volh = total volume of coating, thinner, or cleaning material, h, used in the controlled coating operation during deviations, liters. Dh = density of coating, thinner, or cleaning material, h, kg per liter. Wh = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, thinner, or cleaning material, h, kg organic HAP per kg coating. q = number of different coatings, thinning solvents, or cleaning materials. (i) [Reserved] (j) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for controlled coating operations using liquid­ liquid material balance, HCSR. For each controlled coating operation using a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances, VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20235 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules calculate HCSR by applying the volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that are used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period. Perform a liquidliquid material balance for each compliance period as specified in paragraphs (j)( 1) through (6) of this section. Calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction by the solvent recovery system as specified in paragraph (j)( 7) of this section. (1) For each solvent recovery system, install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications, a device that indicates the cumulative amount of volatile organic matter recovered by the solvent recovery system each compliance period. The device must be initially certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to within ± 2.0 percent of the mass of volatile organic matter recovered. (2) For each solvent recovery system, determine the mass, M VR, of volatile organic matter recovered for the compliance period, kg, based on measurement with the device required in paragraph (j)( 1) of this section. (3) Determine the mass fraction, CV, of volatile organic matter for each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or an EPA approved alternative method, or you may use information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or an approved alternative method, the test method results will govern. (4) Determine the density of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period, kg per liter, according to § 63.4951( c). (5) Measure the volume of each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period, liters. (6) Calculate the solvent recovery system's volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency, RV, using Equation 2 of this section: R M Vol D WV Vol D WV Vol D WV v VR i i ci jj tj kk sk p n m = + + ( ) k= j= i= 100 1 1 1 ,,, Eq. 2 Where: RV = volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency of the solvent recovery system during the compliance period, percent. MVR = mass of volatile organic matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period, kg. Voli = volume of coating, i, used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period, liters. Di = density of coating, i, kg per liter. WVc, i = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for coating, i, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. Volj = volume of thinner, j, used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period, liters. Dj = density of thinner, j, kg per liter. WVt, j = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for thinner, j, kg volatile organic matter per kg thinner. Volk = volume of cleaning material, k, used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period, liters. Dk = density of cleaning material, k, kg per liter. WVs, k = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for cleaning material, k, kg volatile organic matter per kg cleaning material. m = number of different coatings used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period. n = number of different thinners used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period. p = number of different cleaning materials used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period. (7) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period, HCSR, using Equation 3 of this section: H ABC R CSR I I I V = + + ( ) ( ) 100 Eq. 3 Where: HCSR = mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the compliance period, kg. AI = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, calculated using Equation 1A of this section. BI = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, calculated using Equation 1B of this section. CI = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, calculated using Equation 1C of this section. RV = volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency of the solvent recovery system, percent, from Equation 2 of this section. (k) Calculate the total volume of coating solids used. Determine Vst, the total volume of coating solids used, liters, which is the combined volume of coating solids for all the coatings used during the compliance period, using Equation 2 of § 63.4951. (l) Calculate the organic HAP emissions rate. Determine HHAP, the organic HAP emission rate to the atmosphere, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids used during the compliance period, using either Equation 4 of this section or Equation 1 of § 63.4962. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20236 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules H H HH V HAP e Ci q CSR j r st = ( ) ( ) ( ) i= j= ,, 1 1 Eq. 4 Where: HHAP = organic HAP emission rate for the compliance period, kg. He = total mass of organic HAP emissions before add­ on controls from all the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during the compliance period, kg, determined according to paragraph (f) of this section. HC, i = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction for controlled coating operation, i, not using liquid­ liquid material balances, during the compliance kg, from Equation 1 of this section. HCSR, j = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction for controlled coating operation, j, using a liquid­ liquid material balance, during the compliance period, kg, from Equation 3 of this section. Vst = total volume of coating solids used during the compliance period, liters, from Equation 2 of § 63.4951. q = number of controlled coating operations except those controlled with a solvent recovery system. r = number of coating operations controlled with a solvent recovery system. (m) Compliance demonstration. To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit, HHAP, calculated using either Equation 4 of this section or Equation 1 of § 63.4962, must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890. You must keep all records as required by §§ 63.4930 and 63.4931. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.4910, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the emission rate with add­ on controls option and submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was (were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, and you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.4892 and the work practice standards required by § 63.4893. § 63.4962 How do I determine the organic HAP emission rate for a controlled coating operation not using a liquid­ liquid material balance if I operate it under different sets of representative operating conditions? (a) This section applies only to controlled coating operations for which you do not conduct liquid­ liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance. If you operate such a controlled coating operation, its emission capture system, or its add­ on control device at multiple sets of representative operating conditions that result in different capture system or add­ on control device efficiencies during a compliance period, you must determine the organic HAP emission rate according to either paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. The cases described in paragraphs (a)( 1) and (2) of this section are examples of such operating conditions. (1) You use a single add­ on control device to reduce emissions from two or more coating operations and the number of coating operations vented to the add on control device is variable during the compliance period. This case also includes situations where you have more than one capture device on the same coating operation and the number of capture devices vented to the add­ on control device is changed during the compliance period. (2) The coatings or cleaning materials you apply or the products to which you apply them differ during the compliance period, and the differences in resulting emissions are such that the emission capture efficiency or add­ on control device efficiency changes. This case includes a change in the shape or size of the product coated such that there is a change in capture efficiency of the capture system. This case also includes a change in the materials that results in an inlet concentration to the add­ on control device that is sufficiently lower such that the percent reduction the addperiod on control device can achieve changes, or a change in the volatility of the organic HAP in the materials used such that a lower proportion of the HAP is captured by the capture system and a higher amount is not captured by the capture system. (b) If you conduct performance tests under the representative operating conditions that are expected to result in the lowest emission capture system and add­ on control device efficiencies, as allowed under § 63.4964( b)( 2), then determine the organic HAP emission rate according to the procedures and equations in § 63.4961. You do not need to follow paragraph (c) of this section. (c) If you conduct performance tests under multiple sets of representative operating conditions to establish different emission capture system and add­ on control device efficiencies for each set of operating conditions, as allowed under § 63.4964( b)( 1), then determine the organic HAP emission rate according to paragraphs (c)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) You must use Equation 1 of this section for determining HHAP, the organic HAP emission rate, kg organic HAP emitted per liter coating solids used: H H HHH H V HAP e q c i c i C r CSR st n j = + + ( ) ( ) ( ) i= j= 1 1 1 2 ,, ,i ... Eq. 1 Where: HHAP = organic HAP emission rate for the compliance period, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids. He = total mass of organic HAP emissions before add­ on controls from all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used during the compliance period, kg, determined according to § 63.4961( f). HC, i1, HC, i2,HC, in = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction, kg, for controlled coating operation, i, while operating under each operating condition, n, during the compliance period, from Equation 1 of § 63.4961. HCSR, j = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction, kg, for controlled coating operation, j, using a liquid­ liquid material balance during the compliance period, from Equation 3 of § 63.4961. Vst = total volume of coating solids used during the compliance period, liters, from Equation 2 of § 63.4951. n = number of different operating conditions that affect emission capture system efficiency or add­ on control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency under which the coating operation operated during the compliance period. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 19: 41 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm11 PsN: 24APP2 20237 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules q = number of controlled coating operations not controlled by a solvent recovery system. r = number of coating operations controlled by a solvent recovery system. (2) To determine the HC, in in Equation 1 of this section, follow the steps in paragraphs (c)( 2)( i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Use Equation 1 of § 63.4961 to calculate the HC for each operating condition, n, of each controlled coating operation, i. (ii) For the factors AI, BI, and CI in Equation 1 of § 63.4961, use the mass of organic HAP contained in the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in each controlled coating operation, i, while operating under each operating condition, n. (iii) In Equation 1 of § 63.4961, use the emission capture system efficiency and addon control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency that apply under each operating condition, n. These efficiencies for each operating condition are determined from the performance test required by § 63.4960 and as specified in § 63.4964( b). § 63.4963 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? (a) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period, determined according to the procedures in § 63.4961 (and in § 63.4962, if applicable), must be equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890. Each month following the initial compliance period described in § 63.4960 is a compliance period. (b) If the organic HAP emission rate for any compliance period exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, this is a deviation from the emission limitation for that compliance period and must be reported as specified in §§ 63.4910( c)( 6) and 63.4920( a)( 7). (c) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit required by § 63.4892 that applies to you, as specified in Table 1 of this subpart. (1) If an operating parameter is out of the allowed range specified in Table 1 of this subpart, this is a deviation from the operating limit that must be reported as specified in §§ 63.4910( b)( 6) and 63.4920( a)( 7). (2) If an operating parameter deviates from the operating limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart, then you must assume that the emission capture system and add­ on control device were achieving zero efficiency during the time period of the deviation. For the purposes of completing the compliance calculations specified in §§ 63.4961 and 63.4962, you must treat the materials used during a deviation on a controlled coating operation as if they were used on an uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the deviation, as indicated in Equation 1 of § 63.4961. (d) You must meet the requirements for bypass lines in § 63.4968( b) for controlled coating operations for which you do not conduct liquid­ liquid material balances. If any bypass line is opened and emissions are diverted to the atmosphere when the coating operation is running, this is a deviation that must be reported as specified in §§ 63.4910( c)( 6) and 63.4920( a)( 7). For the purposes of completing the compliance calculations in §§ 63.4961 and 63.4962, you must treat the materials used during a deviation on a controlled coating operation as if they were used on an uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the deviation, as indicated in Equation 1 of § 63.4961. (e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standards in § 63.4893. If you did not develop a work practice plan, or you did not implement the plan, or you did not keep the records required by § 63.4930( k)( 9), this is a deviation from the work practice standards that must be reported as specified in §§ 63.4910( c)( 6) and 63.4920( a)( 7). (f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in § 63.4920, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the emission rate with add­ on controls option. If there were no deviations from the emission limitations, submit a statement that you were in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4890, and you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.4892 and the work practice standards required by § 63.4893 during each compliance period. (g) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system, add­ on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency, you must operate in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by § 63.4900( d). (h) Consistent with §§ 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system, add­ on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e). (i) [Reserved] (j) You must maintain records as specified in §§ 63.4930 and 63.4931. § 63.4964 What are the general requirements for performance tests? (a) You must conduct each performance test required by § 63.4960 according to the requirements in § 63.7( e)( 1) and under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7( h). (1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, and periods of nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. (2) Representative emission capture system and add­ on control device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when the emission capture system and add­ on control device are operating at a representative flow rate, and the add­ on control device is operating at a representative inlet concentration. You must record information that is necessary to document emission capture system and add­ on control device operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. (b) If the coating operation, emission capture system, or add­ on control device will be operated at different sets of representative operating conditions, you must conduct the performance test according to either paragraph (b)( 1) or (2) of this section: (1) Test at each of the representative operating conditions and establish emission capture system and add­ on control device efficiencies and operating limits for each operating condition. To demonstrate continuous compliance following the performance test, record the conditions under which the process, emission capture system, and add­ on control device are operating during each time period of operation, and calculate the organic HAP emission rate as described in § 63.4962. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20238 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules (2) Test at the representative operating conditions that are expected to result in the lowest emission capture system and add­ on control device efficiencies and establish efficiencies and operating limits based on this test. Use these efficiencies in the emission calculations in § 63.4961. (c) You must conduct each performance test of an emission capture system according to the requirements in § 63.4965. You must conduct each performance test of an add­ on control device according to the requirements in § 63.4966. (d) The performance test to determine add­ on control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency must consist of three runs as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3) and each run must last at least 1 hour. § 63.4965 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine capture efficiency as part of the performance test required by § 63.4960. (a) Assuming 100 percent capture efficiency. You may assume the capture system efficiency is 100 percent if both of the conditions in paragraphs (a)( 1) and (2) of this section are met: (1) The capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and directs all the exhaust gases from the enclosure to an add­ on control device. (2) All coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation are applied within the capture system; coating solvent flash­ off and coating, curing, and drying occurs within the capture system; and the removal of or evaporation of cleaning materials from the surfaces they are applied to occurs within the capture system. For example, this criterion is not met if parts enter the open shop environment when being moved between a spray booth and a curing oven. (b) Measuring capture efficiency. If the capture system does not meet both of the criteria in paragraphs (a)( 1) and (2) of this section, then you must use one of the three protocols described in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section to measure capture efficiency. The capture efficiency measurements use TVH capture efficiency as a surrogate for organic HAP capture efficiency. For the protocols in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the capture efficiency measurement must consist of three test runs. Each test run must be at least 3 hours duration or the length of a production run, whichever is longer, up to 8 hours. For the purposes of this test, a production run means the time required for a single part to go from the beginning to the end of production, which includes surface preparation activities and drying or curing time. (c) Liquid­ to­ uncaptured­ gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. The liquid­ touncaptured gas protocol compares the mass of liquid TVH in materials used in the coating operation, referred to as TVHused, to the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the emission capture system, referred to as TVHuncaptured. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure and the procedures in paragraphs (c)( 1) through (6) of this section to measure emission capture system efficiency using the liquid­ touncaptured gas protocol. (1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure around the coating operation where coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are applied, and all areas where emissions from these applied coatings and materials subsequently occur, such as flash­ off, curing, and drying areas. The areas of the coating operation where capture devices collect emissions for routing to an add­ on control device, such as the entrance and exit areas of an oven or spray booth, must also be inside the enclosure. The enclosure must meet the applicable definition of a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. (2) Use Method 204A or 204F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to determine the mass fraction, kg TVH per kg material, of TVH liquid input from each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation during each capture efficiency test run. To make the determination, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the methods. (3) Use Equation 1 of this section to calculate TVHused, the total mass of TVH liquid input from all the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation during each capture efficiency test run: TVH TVH Vol D used i i i n = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) i= Eq. 1 1 Where: TVHi = mass fraction of TVH in coating, thinner, or cleaning material, i, that is used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, kg TVH per kg material. Voli = total volume of coating, thinner, or cleaning material, i, used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, liters. Di = density of coating, thinner, or cleaning material, i, kg material per liter material. n = number of different coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run. (4) Use Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure TVHuncaptured, the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions that are not captured by the emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods. (i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total enclosure. (ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure. During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined, must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally. (5) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent capture efficiency, CE, of the emission capture system using Equation 2 of this section: CE TVH TVH TVH used uncaptured used = ( ) × ( ) 100 Eq. 2 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20239 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules Where: CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the add­ on control device, percent. TVHused = total mass of TVH liquid input used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, kg. TVHuncaptured = total mass of TVH that is not captured by the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test run, kg. (6) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test runs. (d) Gas­ to­ gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. The gas­ to­ gas protocol compares the mass of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture system, referred to as TVHcaptured, to the mass of TVH emissions not captured, referred to as TVHuncaptured. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure and the procedures in paragraphs (d)( 1) through (5) of this section to measure emission capture system efficiency using the gas­ to­ gas protocol. (1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure around the coating operation where coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are applied, and all areas where emissions from these applied coatings and materials subsequently occur, such as flash­ off, curing, and drying areas. The areas of the coating operation where capture devices collect emissions generated by the coating operation for routing to an add­ on control device, such as the entrance and exit areas of an oven or a spray booth, must also be inside the enclosure. The enclosure must meet the applicable definition of a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. (2) Use Method 204B or 204C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure TVHcaptured, the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture system during each capture efficiency test run as measured at the inlet to the add­ on control device. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods. (i) The sampling points for the Method 204B or 204C measurement must be upstream from the add­ on control device and must represent total emissions routed from the capture system and entering the add­ on control device. (ii) If multiple emission streams from the capture system enter the add­ on control device without a single common duct, then the emissions entering the add­ on control device must be simultaneously measured in each duct and the total emissions entering the add­ on control device must be determined. (3) Use Method 204D or 204E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure TVHuncaptured, the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions that are not captured by the emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods. (i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total enclosure. (ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure. During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined, must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally. (4) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent capture efficiency, CE, of the emission capture system using Equation 3 of this section: CE TVH TVH TVH captured captured uncaptured = + ( ) × ( ) 100 Eq. 3 Where: CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the add­ on control device, percent. TVHcaptuted = total mass of TVH captured by the emission capture system as measured at the inlet to the add­ on control device during the emission capture efficiency test run, kg. TVHuncaptured = total mass of TVH that is not captured by the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test run, kg. (5) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test runs. (e) Alternative capture efficiency protocol. As an alternative to the procedures specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, you may determine capture efficiency using any other capture efficiency protocol and test methods that satisfy the criteria of either the DQO or LCL approach as described in appendix A to subpart KK of this part. § 63.4966 How do I determine the add­ on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine the add­ on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency as part of the performance test required by § 63.4960. You must conduct three test runs as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour. (a) For all types of add­ on control devices, use the test methods specified in paragraphs (a)( 1) through (5) of this section. (1) Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points. (2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate. (3) Use Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. (4) Use Method 4 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, to determine stack gas moisture. (5) Methods for determining gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during each test run. (b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the inlet and outlet of the add­ on control device simultaneously, using either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as specified in paragraphs (b)( 1) through (3) of this section. You must use the same method for both the inlet and outlet measurements. (1) Use Method 25 if the add­ on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at the control device outlet. (2) Use Method 25A if the add­ on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device outlet. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20240 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules (3) Use Method 25A if the add­ control device is not an oxidizer. (c) If two or more add­ on control devices are used for the same emission stream, then you must measure emissions at the outlet of each device. For example, if one add­ on control device is a concentrator with an outlet for the high­ volume, dilute stream that has been treated by the concentrator, and a second add­ on control device is an oxidizer with an outlet for the lowvolume concentrated stream that is treated with the oxidizer, you must measure emissions at the outlet of the oxidizer and the high volume dilute stream outlet of the concentrator. (d) For each test run, determine the total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rates for the inlet and the outlet of the add­ on control device, using Equation 1 of this section. If there is more than one inlet or outlet to the addon control device, you must calculate the total gaseous organic mass flow rate using Equation 1 of this section for each inlet and each outlet and then total all of the inlet emissions and total all of the outlet emissions. M QC Eq f sdc = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 12 0 0416 10 6 .. 1 Where: Mf = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate, kg/ per hour (h). Cc = concentration of organic compounds as carbon in the vent gas, as determined by Method 25 or Method 25A, parts per million by volume (ppmv), dry basis. Qsd = volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting the add­ on control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, dry standard cubic meters/ hour (dscm/ h). 0.0416 = conversion factor for molar volume, kg­ moles per cubic meter (mol/ m 3 ) (@ 293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury (mmHg)). (e) For each test run, determine the add­ on control device organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency, DRE, using Equation 2 of this section: DRE M M M Eq fi fo fi = ( ) . 2 Where: DRE = organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device, percent. Mfi = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at the inlet( s) to the add­ on control device, using Equation 1 of this section, kg/ h. Mfo = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at the outlet( s) of the add­ on control device, using Equation 1 of this section, kg/ h. (f) Determine the emission destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device as the average of the efficiencies determined in the three test runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this section. § 63.4967 How do I establish the emission capture system and add­ on control device operating limits during the performance test? During the performance test required by § 63.4960 and described in §§ 63.4964, 63.4965, and 63.4966, you must establish the operating limits required by § 63.4892 according to this section, unless you have received approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits under § 63.8( f) as specified in § 63.4892. (a) Thermal oxidizers. If your add­ on control device is a thermal oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (a)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. (2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test. This average combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal oxidizer, unless you are determining operating limits for multiple operating conditions as specified in § 63.4964( b)( 1) and paragraph (f) of this section. (b) Catalytic oxidizers. If your add­ on control device is a catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to either paragraphs (b)( 1) and (2) or paragraphs (b)( 3) and (4) of this section. (1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. (2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. These are the minimum operating limits for your catalytic oxidizer, unless you are determining operating limits for multiple operating conditions as specified in § 63.4964( b)( 1) and paragraph (f) of this section. (3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and implement a site­ specific inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph (b)( 4) of this section. During the performance test, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer, unless you are determining operating limits for multiple operating conditions as specified in § 63.4964( b)( 1) and paragraph (f) of this section. (4) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer( s) for which you elect to monitor according to paragraph (b)( 3) of this section. The plan must address, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs (b)( 4)( i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity (i. e., conversion efficiency) following the manufacturer's or catalyst supplier's recommended procedures. (ii) Monthly inspection of the oxidizer system, including the burner assembly and fuel supply lines for problems and, as necessary, adjust the equipment to assure proper air­ to­ fuel mixtures. (iii) Annual internal and monthly external visual inspection of the catalyst bed to check for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If problems are found, you must replace the catalyst bed and conduct a new performance test to determine destruction efficiency according to § 63.4966. (c) Carbon adsorbers. If your add­ on control device is a carbon adsorber, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (c)( 1) and (2) of this section. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20241 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules (1) You must monitor and record the total regeneration desorbing gas (e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle, and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon bed regeneration and cooling cycle, for the regeneration cycle either immediately preceding or immediately following the performance test. (2) The operating limits for your carbon adsorber are the minimum total desorbing gas mass flow recorded during the regeneration cycle, and the maximum carbon bed temperature recorded after the cooling cycle, unless you are determining operating limits for multiple operating conditions as specified in § 63.4964( b)( 1) and paragraph (f) of this section. (d) Condensers. If your add­ on control device is a condenser, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs (d)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. (2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating limit for your condenser, unless you are determining operating limits for multiple operating conditions as specified in § 63.4964( b)( 1) and paragraph (f) of this section. (e) Emission capture system. For each capture device that is not part of a PTE that meets the criteria of § 63.4965( a), establish an operating limit for either the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure, as specified in paragraphs (e)( 1) and (2) of this section. The operating limit for a PTE is specified in Table 1 of this subpart. (1) During the capture efficiency determination required by § 63.4960 and described in §§ 63.4964 and 63.4965, you must monitor and record either the gas volumetric flow rate or the duct static pressure for each separate capture device in your emission capture system at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs at a point in the duct between the capture device and the add­ on control device inlet. (2) Calculate and record the average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for the three test runs for each capture device. This average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure is the minimum operating limit for that specific capture device, unless you are determining operating limits for multiple operating conditions as specified in § 63.4964( b)( 1) and paragraph (f) of this section. (f) Multiple operating conditions. If you are determining operating limits for multiple operating conditions for the emission capture system or add­ on control device as specified in § 63.4964( b)( 1), you must conduct a performance test under each operating condition and establish the operating limits for the parameters under each operating condition according to paragraphs (f)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) You must monitor and record the value of the parameter that corresponds to the applicable operating limit during the performance test under each operating condition. (2) The average parameter value recorded during the performance test under each condition is the operating limit for that parameter when the coating operation is operating under that condition. (g) Concentrators. If your add­ on control device includes a concentrator, you must establish operating limits for the concentrator according to paragraphs (g)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. (2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This is the minimum operating limit for the desorption concentrate gas stream temperature. (3) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. (4) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average pressure drop. This is the maximum operating limit for the dilute stream across the concentrator. § 63.4968 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) installation, operation, and maintenance? (a) General. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraphs (c), (e), and (f) of this section according to paragraphs (a)( 1) through (6) of this section. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section according to paragraphs (a)( 3) through (5) of this section. (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15­ minute period. You must have a minimum of four equally spaced successive cycles of CPMS operation in 1 hour. (2) You must determine the average of all recorded readings for each successive 3­ hour period of the emission capture system and add­ on control device operation. (3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check of the CPMS. (4) You must maintain the CPMS at all times and have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. (5) You must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add­ on control device parameter data at all times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, if applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). (6) You must not use emission capture system or add­ on control device parameter data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out­ of­ control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities when calculating data averages. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in calculating the data averages for determining compliance with the emission capture system and add­ on control device operating limits. (7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS 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 is a deviation from the monitoring requirements. (b) Capture system bypass line. You must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)( 1) and (2) of this section for each emission capture system that contains bypass lines that could divert emissions away from the add­ on control device to the atmosphere. (1) You must monitor or secure the valve or closure mechanism controlling the bypass line in a nondiverting position in such a way that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be opened without creating a record that the valve was opened. The method used to monitor or secure the valve or closure mechanism must meet one of the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)( 1)( i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Flow control position indicator. Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20242 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules specifications a flow control position indicator that takes a reading at least once every 15 minutes and provides a record indicating whether the emissions are directed to the add­ on control device or diverted from the add­ on control device. The time of occurrence and flow control position must be recorded, as well as every time the flow direction is changed. The flow control position indicator must be installed at the entrance to any bypass line that could divert the emissions away from the addon control device to the atmosphere. (ii) Car­ seal or lock­ and­ key valve closures. Secure any bypass line valve in the closed position with a car­ seal or a lock­ and­ key type configuration. You must visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position, and the emissions are not diverted away from the add­ on control device to the atmosphere. (iii) Valve closure monitoring. Ensure that any bypass line valve is in the closed (non­ diverting) position through monitoring of valve position at least once every 15 minutes. You must inspect the monitoring system at least once every month to verify that the monitor will indicate valve position. (iv) Automatic shutdown system. Use an automatic shutdown system in which the coating operation is stopped when flow is diverted by the bypass line away from the add­ on control device to the atmosphere when the coating operation is running. You must inspect the automatic shutdown system at least once every month to verify that it will detect diversions of flow and shut down the coating operation. (2) If any bypass line is opened, you must include a description of why the bypass line was opened and the length of time it remained open in the semiannual compliance reports required in § 63.4920. (c) Thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers. If you are using a thermal oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer as an addon control device (including those used with concentrators or with carbon adsorbers to treat desorbed concentrate streams), you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (c)( 1) through (3) of this section: (1) For a thermal oxidizer, install a gas temperature monitor in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. (2) For a catalytic oxidizer, install gas temperature monitors both upstream and downstream of the catalyst bed. The temperature monitors must be in the gas stream immediately before and after the catalyst bed to measure the temperature difference across the bed. (3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)( 3)( i) through (vii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. (i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a representative temperature. (ii) Use a temperature sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 4 degrees Fahrenheit or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger. (iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic interference and chemical contaminants. (iv) If a gas temperature chart recorder is used, it must have a measurement sensitivity in the minor division of at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit. (v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading within 30 degrees Fahrenheit of the process temperature sensor's reading. (vi) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor. (vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity and electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion. (d) Carbon adsorbers. If you are using a carbon adsorber as an add­ on control device, you must monitor the total regeneration desorbing gas (e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle, the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and cooling cycle, and comply with paragraphs (a)( 3) through (5) and (d)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) The regeneration desorbing gas mass flow monitor must be an integrating device having a measurement sensitivity of plus or minus 10 percent, capable of recording the total regeneration desorbing gas mass flow for each regeneration cycle. (2) The carbon bed temperature monitor must have a measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater, and must be capable of recording the temperature within 15 minutes of completing any carbon bed cooling cycle. (e) Condensers. If you are using a condenser, you must monitor the condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature and comply with paragraphs (a) and (e)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) The gas temperature monitor must have a measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. (2) The temperature monitor must provide a gas temperature record at least once every 15 minutes. (f) Emission capture systems. The capture system monitoring system must comply with the applicable requirements in paragraphs (f)( 1) and (2) of this section. (1) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (f)( 1)( i) through (iv) of this section. (i) Locate a flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flow measurement in the duct from each capture device in the emission capture system to the add­ on control device. (ii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. (iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually. (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (2) For each pressure drop measurement device, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (f)( 2)( i) through (vi) of this section. (i) Locate the pressure sensor( s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure drop across each opening you are monitoring. (ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. (iii) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. (iv) Using an inclined manometer with a measurement sensitivity of 0.0002 inch water, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. (vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. (g) Concentrators. If you are using a concentrator, such as a zeolite wheel or rotary carbon bed concentrator, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (g)( 1) and (2) of this section. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20243 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules (1) You must install a temperature monitor in the desorption gas stream. The temperature monitor must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)( 3) of this section. (2) You must install a device to monitor pressure drop across the zeolite wheel or rotary carbon bed. The pressure monitoring device must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (g)( 2)( i) through (vii) of this section. (i) Locate the pressure sensor( s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure. (ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. (iii) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range. (iv) Check the pressure tap daily. (v) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. (vi) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. (vii) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. Other Requirements and Information § 63.4980 Who implements and enforces this subpart? (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as EPA) has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your 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 subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency. (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are as follows: (1) Approval of alternatives to the work practice standards in § 63.4893 under § 63.6( g). (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under § 63.7( e)( 2)( ii) and (f), and as defined in § 63.90. (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under § 63.8( f) and as defined in § 63.90. (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10( f) and as defined in § 63.90. § 63.4981 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in 40 CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this section as follows: Add­ on control means an air pollution control device, such as a thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorber, that reduces pollution in an air stream by destruction or removal before discharge to the atmosphere. Adhesive means any chemical substance that is applied for the purpose of bonding two surfaces together. Capture device means a hood, enclosure, room, floor sweep, or other means of containing or collecting emissions and directing those emissions into an add­ on air pollution control device. Capture efficiency or capture system efficiency means the portion (expressed as a percentage) of the pollutants from an emission source that is delivered to an add­ on control device. Capture system means one or more capture devices intended to collect emissions generated by a coating operation in the use of coatings or cleaning materials, both at the point of application and at subsequent points where emissions from the coatings or cleaning materials occur, such as flashoff, drying, or curing. As used in this subpart, multiple capture devices that collect emissions generated by a coating operation are considered a single capture system. Cleaning material means a solvent used to remove contaminants and other materials, such as dirt, grease, oil, and dried or wet coating (e. g., depainting), from a substrate before or after coating application or from equipment associated with a coating operation, such as spray booths, spray guns, racks, tanks, and hangers. Thus, it includes any cleaning material used on substrates or equipment or both. Coating means a material applied to a substrate for decorative, protective, or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist only of protective oils for metal, acids, bases, or any combination of these substances are not considered coatings for the purposes of this subpart. Coating operation means equipment used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it for coating application or to remove dried coating (surface preparation); to apply coating to a substrate (coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after application; or to clean coating operation equipment (equipment cleaning). A single coating operation may include any combination of these types of equipment, but always includes at least the point at which a coating or cleaning material is applied and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic HAP emissions from that coating or cleaning material occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating application with hand­ held nonrefillable aerosol containers, touchup markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of this subpart. Coating solids means the nonvolatile portion of the coating that makes up the dry film. Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) means the total equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and availability requirements of this subpart, used to sample, condition (if applicable), analyze, and provide a record of coating operation, or capture system, or add­ on control device parameters. Controlled coating operation means a coating operation from which some or all of the organic HAP emissions are routed through an emission capture system and add­ on control device. 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 limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard; (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 (3) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. Emission limitation means an emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard. Enclosure means a structure that surrounds a source of emissions and captures and directs the emissions to an add­ on control device. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 36 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 24APP2 20244 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules Exempt compound means a specific compound that is not considered a VOC due to negligible photochemical reactivity. The exempt compounds are listed in 40 CFR 51.100( s). Manufacturer's formulation data means data on a material (such as a coating) that are supplied by the material manufacturer based on knowledge of the ingredients used to manufacture that material, rather than based on testing of the material with the test methods specified in § 63.4941( a)( 1) through (3). Manufacturer's formulation data may include, but are not limited to, information on density, organic HAP content, volatile organic matter content, and coating solids content. Mass fraction of organic HAP means the ratio of the mass of organic HAP to the mass of a material in which it is contained; kg of organic HAP per kg of material. Month means a calendar month or a pre­ specified period of 28 days to 35 days to allow for flexibility in recordkeeping when data are based on a business accounting period. Organic HAP content means the mass of organic HAP per volume of coating solids for a coating, calculated using Equation 1 of § 63.4941. The organic HAP content is determined for the coating in the condition it is in when received from its manufacturer or supplier and does not account for any alteration after receipt. Permanent total enclosure (PTE) means a permanently installed enclosure that meets the criteria of Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR part 51, for a PTE and that directs all the exhaust gases from the enclosure to an add­ on control device. Protective oil means an organic material that is applied to metal for the purpose of providing lubrication or protection from corrosion without forming a solid film. This definition of protective oil includes, but is not limited to, lubricating oils, evaporative oils (including those that evaporate completely), and extrusion oils. Research or laboratory facility means a facility whose primary purpose is for research and development of new processes and products, that is conducted under the close supervision of technically trained personnel, and is not engaged in the manufacture of final or intermediate products for commercial purposes, except in a de minimis manner. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Startup, initial means the first time equipment is brought online in a facility. Surface preparation means use of a cleaning material on a portion of or all of a substrate. This includes use of a cleaning material to remove dried coating, which is sometimes called `` depainting. '' Temporary total enclosure means an enclosure constructed for the purpose of measuring the capture efficiency of pollutants emitted from a given source as defined in Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR part 51. Thinner means an organic solvent that is added to a coating after the coating is received from the supplier. Total volatile hydrocarbon (TVH) means the total amount of nonaqueous volatile organic matter determined according to Methods 204 and 204A through 204F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 and substituting the term TVH each place in the methods where the term VOC is used. The TVH includes both VOC and non­ VOC. Uncontrolled coating operation means a coating operation from which none of the organic HAP emissions are routed through an emission capture system and add­ on control device. Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any compound defined as VOC in 40 CFR 51.100( s). Volume fraction of coating solids means the ratio of the volume of coating solids (also known as volume of nonvolatiles) to the volume of coating; liters of coating solids per liter of coating. Wastewater means water that is generated in a coating operation and is collected, stored, or treated prior to being discarded or discharged. Tables to Subpart RRRR of Part 63 If you are required to comply with operating limits by § 63.4892, you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following table: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART RRRR OF PART 63.— OPERATING LIMITS IF USING THE EMISSION RATE WITH ADD­ ON CONTROLS OPTION For the following device * * * You must meet the following operating limit * * * And you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit by * * * 1. thermal oxidizer ............................ the average combustion temperature in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the combustion temperature limit established according to § 63.4967( a). i. collecting the combustion temperature data according to § 63.4968( c); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average combustion at or above the temperature limit. 2. catalytic oxidizer ........................... a. the average temperature measured just before the catalyst bed in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the limit established according to § 63.4967( b). i. collecting the temperature data according to § 63.4968( c); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average temperature before the catalyst bed at or above the temperature limit. b. either ensure that the average temperature difference catalyst bed in any 3­ hour period does not fall below the temperature difference limit established according to § 63.4967( b) or develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan according to § 63.4967( b)( 3) and (4). i. either collecting the temperature data according to across the § 63.4968( c), reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages, and maintaining the 3­ hour average temperature difference at or above the temperature difference limit; or ii. complying with the inspection and maintenance plan developed according to § 63.4967( b)( 3) and (4). 3. carbon adsorber ........................... a. the total regeneration desorbing gas (e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each carbon bed regeneration cycle must not fall below the total regeneration desorbing gas mass flow limit established according to § 63.4967( c). i. measuring the total regeneration desorbing gas (e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle according to § 63.4968( d); and ii. maintaining the total regeneration desorbing gas mass flow at or above the mass flow limit. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20245 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO SUBPART RRRR OF PART 63.— OPERATING LIMITS IF USING THE EMISSION RATE WITH ADD­ ON CONTROLS OPTION— Continued For the following device * * * You must meet the following operating limit * * * And you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit by * * * b. the temperature of the carbon bed, after completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle, must not exceed the carbon bed temperature limit established according to § 63.4967( c). i. measuring the temperature of the carbon bed, after completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle, according to § 63.4968( d); and ii. operating the carbon beds such that each carbon bed is not returned to service until completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle until the recorded temperature of the carbon bed is at or below the temperature limit. 4. condenser ..................................... the average condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature in any 3­ hour period must not exceed the temperature limit established according to § 63.4967( d). i. collecting the condenser outlet (product side) gas temperature according to § 63.4968( e); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average gas temperature at the outlet at or below the temperature limit. 5. emission capture system that is a PTE according to § 63.4965( a). the direction of the air flow at all times must be into the enclosure; and either the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings in the enclosure must be at least 200 feet per minute; or the pressure drop across the enclosure must be at least 0.007 inch H2O, as established in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. i. collecting the direction of air flow, and either the facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings according to § 63.4968( f)( 1) or the pressure drop across the enclosure according to § 63.4968( f)( 2); and ii. maintaining the facial velocity of air flow through all natural draft openings or the pressure drop at or above the facial velocity limit or pressure drop limit, and maintaining the direction of air flow into the enclosure at all times. 6. emission capture system that is a PTE according to § 63.4965( a). the average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure in each duct between a capture device and add­ on control device inlet in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure limit established for that capture device according to § 63.4967( e). i. collecting the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each not capture device according to § 63.4968( f); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each capture device at or above the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure limit. 7. concentrators, including zeolite wheels and rotary carbon adsorbers. a. the average gas temperature of the desorption concentrate stream in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the limit established according to § 63.4967( g). i. collecting the temperature data according to 63.4968( g); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average temperature at or above the temperature limit. b. the average pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the limit established according to § 63.4967( g). i. collecting the pressure drop data according to § 63.4968( g); ii. reducing the pressure drop data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average pressure drop at or above the pressure drop limit. You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: TABLE 2 TO SUBPART RRRR OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART RRRR Citation Subject Applicable to subpart RRRR Explanation § 63.1( a)( 1)–( 14) .......... General Applicability ....................................... Yes. § 63.1( b)( 1)–( 3) ............ Initial Applicability Determination .................... Yes ............................. Applicability to subpart RRRR is also specified in § 63.4881. § 63.1( c)( 1) .................. Applicability After Standard Established ......... Yes. § 63.1( c)( 2)–( 3) ............ Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources. No ............................... Area sources are not subject to subpart RRRR. § 63.1( c)( 4)–( 5) ............ Extensions and Notifications ........................... Yes. § 63.1( e) ....................... Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant Standard is Set. Yes. § 63.2 ........................... Definitions ....................................................... Yes ............................. Additional definitions are specified in § 63.4981. § 63.3( a)–( c) ................ Units and Abbreviations .................................. Yes. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20246 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART RRRR OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART RRRR— Continued Citation Subject Applicable to subpart RRRR Explanation § 63.4( a)( 1)–( 5) ............ Prohibited Activities ......................................... Yes. § 63.4( b)–( c) ................ Circumvention/ Severability .............................. Yes. § 63.5( a) ....................... Construction/ Reconstruction ........................... Yes. § 63.5( b)( 1)–( 6) ............ Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed and Reconstructed Sources. Yes. § 63.5( d) ....................... Application for Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction Yes. § 63.5( e) ....................... Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction ....... Yes. § 63.5( f) ........................ Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction Based on Prior State Review. Yes. § 63.6( a) ....................... Compliance With Standards and Maintenance Requirements— Applicability. Yes. § 63.6( b)( 1)–( 7) ............ Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Yes ............................. Section 63.4883 specifies the compliance dates. § 63.6( c)( 1)–( 5) ............ Compliance Dates for Existing Sources ......... Yes ............................. Section 63.4883 specifies the compliance dates. § 63.6( e)( 1)–( 2) ............ Operation and Maintenance ........................... Yes. § 63.6( e)( 3) .................. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan ...... Yes ............................. Only sources using an add­ on control device to comply with the standard must complete startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans. § 63.6( f)( 1) ................... Compliance Except During Startup, Shutdown Malfunction. Yes ............................. Applies only to sources using an add­ on and control device to comply with the standard. § 63.6( f)( 2)–( 3) ............. Methods for Determining Compliance ............ Yes. § 63.6( g)( 1)–( 3) ............ Use of an Alternative Standard ...................... Yes. § 63.6( h) ....................... Compliance With Opacity/ Visible Emission Standards. No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not establish opacity standards and does not require continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). § 63.6( i)( 1)–( 16) ........... Extension of Compliance ................................ Yes. § 63.6( j) ........................ Presidential Compliance Exemption ............... Yes. § 63.7( a)( 1) .................. Performance Test Requirements— Applicability Yes ............................. Applies to all affected sources. Additional requirements for performance testing are specified in §§ 63.4964, 63.4965, and 63.4966. § 63.7( a)( 2) .................. Performance Test Requirements— Dates ....... Yes ............................. Applies only to performance tests for capture system and control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. Section 63.4960 specifies the schedule for performance test requirements that are earlier than those specified in 63.7( a)( 2). § 63.7( a)( 3) .................. Performance Tests Required by the Administrator Yes. § 63.7( b)–( e) ................ Performance Test Requirements— Notification Quality Assurance, Facilities Necessary for Safe Testing, Conditions During Test. Yes ............................. Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. § 63.7( f) ........................ Performance Test Requirements— Use of Alternative Test Method. Yes ............................. Applies to all test methods except those used to determine capture system efficiency. § 63.7( g)–( h) ................ Performance TestRequirements— Data Analysis Recordkeeping, Reporting, Waiver of Test. Yes ............................. Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. § 63.8( a)( 1)–( 3) ............ Monitoring Requirements— Applicability ......... Yes ............................. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in § 63.4968. § 63.8( a)( 4) .................. Additional Monitoring Requirements ............... No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not have monitoring requirements for flares. § 63.8( b) ....................... Conduct of Monitoring ..................................... Yes. § 63.8( c)( 1)–( 3) ............ Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) Operation and Maintenance. Yes ............................. Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. Additional requirements for CMS operations and maintenance are specified in § 63.4968. § 63.8( c)( 4) .................. CMSs .............................................................. No ............................... Section 63.4968 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add­ on control devices at sources using these to comply. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20247 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART RRRR OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART RRRR— Continued Citation Subject Applicable to subpart RRRR Explanation § 63.8( c)( 5) .................. COMS ............................................................. No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not have opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.8( c)( 6) .................. CMS Requirements ......................................... No ............................... Section 63.4968 specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems and add­ on control devices at sources using these to comply. § 63.8( c)( 7) .................. CMS Out­ of­ Control Periods ........................... Yes. § 63.8( c)( 8) .................. CMS Out­ of­ Control Periods reporting ........... No ............................... Section 63.4920 requires reporting of CMS out­ of­ control periods. § 63.8( d)–( e) ................ Quality Control Program and CMS Performance Evaluation. No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.8( f)( 1)–( 5) ............. Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method ....... Yes. § 63.8( f)( 6) ................... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test ............. No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.8( g)( 1)–( 5) ............ Data Reduction ............................................... No ............................... Sections 63.4967 and 63.4968 specify monitoring data reduction. § 63.9( a)–( d) ................ Notification Requirements ............................... Yes. § 63.9( e) ....................... Notification of Performance Test .................... Yes ............................. Applies only to capture system and add­ on control device performance tests at sources using these to comply with the standard. § 63.9( f) ........................ Notification of Visible Emissions/ Opacity Test No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not have opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.9( g)( 1)–( 3) ............ Additional Notifications When Using CMS ..... No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.9( h) ....................... Notification of Compliance Status ................... Yes ............................. Section 63.4910 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status § 63.9( i) ........................ Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines ................. Yes. § 63.9( j) ........................ Change in Previous Information ..................... Yes. § 63.10( a) ..................... Recordkeeping/ Reporting— Applicability and General Information. Yes. § 63.10( b)( 1) ................ General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... Yes ............................. Additional requirements are specified in §§ 63.4930 and 63.4931. § 63.10( b)( 2)( i)–( v) ....... Recordkeeping Relevant Startup, to Shutdown and Malfunction Periods and CMS. Yes ............................. Requirements for Startup, Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction records only apply to addon control devices used to comply with the standard. § 63.10( b)( 2)( vi)–( xi) .... ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xii) .......... Records ........................................................... Yes. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiii) .......... ......................................................................... No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv) ......... ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.10( b)( 3) ................ Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations. Yes. § 63.10( c)( 1)–( 6) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Yes. § 63.10( c)( 7)–( 8) .......... ......................................................................... No ............................... The same records are required in § 63.4920( a)( 7) § 63.10( c)( 9)–( 15) ........ ......................................................................... Yes. § 63.10( d)( 1) ................ General Reporting Requirements ................... Yes ............................. Additional requirements are specified in § 63.4920. § 63.10( d)( 2) ................ Report of Performance Test Results .............. Yes ............................. Additional requirements are specified in § 63.4920( b). § 63.10( d)( 3) ................ Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not require opacity or visible emissions observations. § 63.10( d)( 4) ................ Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance Extensions. Yes. § 63.10( d)( 5) ................ Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports Yes ............................. Applies only to add­ on control devices at sources using these to comply with the standard. § 63.10( e)( 1)–( 2) .......... Additional CMS Reports ................................. No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.10( e)( 3) ................ Excess Emissions/ CMS Performance Reports No ............................... Section 63.4920( b) specifies the contents of periodic compliance reports. § 63.10( e)( 4) ................ COMS Data Reports ....................................... No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not specify requirements for opacity or COMS. § 63.10( f) ...................... Recordkeeping/ Reporting Waiver ................... Yes. § 63.11 ......................... Control Device Requirements/ Flares .............. No ............................... Subpart RRRR does not specify use of flares for compliance. § 63.12 ......................... State Authority and Delegations ..................... Yes. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2 20248 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART RRRR OF PART 63.— APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART RRRR— Continued Citation Subject Applicable to subpart RRRR Explanation § 63.13 ......................... Addresses ....................................................... Yes. § 63.14 ......................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ Yes. § 63.15 ......................... Availability of Information/ Confidentiality ........ Yes. You may use the mass fraction values in the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test data or manufacturer's formulation data: TABLE 3 TO SUBPART RRRR OF PART 63.— DEFAULT ORGANIC HAP MASS FRACTION FOR SOLVENTS AND SOLVENT BLENDS Solvent/ Solvent blend CAS. No. Average organic HAP mass fraction Typical organic HAP, percent by mass 1. Toluene ........................................................................ 108– 88– 3 1. 0 Toluene. 2. Xylene( s) ...................................................................... 1330– 20– 7 1. 0 Xylenes, ethylbenzene. 3. Hexane ......................................................................... 110– 54– 3 0. 5 n­ hexane. 4. n­ Hexane ...................................................................... 110– 54– 3 1. 0 n­ hexane. 5. Ethylbenzene ............................................................... 100– 41– 4 1. 0 Ethylbenzene. 6. Aliphatic 140 ................................................................ .................... 0 None. 7. Aromatic 100 ................................................................ .................... 0.02 1% xylene, 1% cumene. 8. Aromatic 150 ................................................................ .................... 0.09 Naphthalene. 9. Aromatic naphtha ......................................................... 64742– 95– 6 0. 02 1% xylene, 1% cumene. 10. Aromatic solvent ........................................................ 64742– 94– 5 0. 1 Naphthalene. 11. Exempt mineral spirits ............................................... 8032– 32– 4 0 None. 12. Ligroines (VM & P) .................................................... 8032– 32– 4 0 None. 13. Lactol spirits ............................................................... 64742– 89– 6 0. 15 Toluene. 14. Low aromatic white spirit ........................................... 64742– 82– 1 0 None. 15. Mineral spirits ............................................................. 64742– 88– 7 0. 01 Xylenes. 16. Hydrotreated naphtha ................................................ 64742– 48– 9 0 None. 17. Hydrotreated light distillate ........................................ 64742– 47– 8 0. 001 Toluene. 18. Stoddard solvent ........................................................ 8052– 41– 3 0. 01 Xylenes. 19. Super high­ flash naphtha ........................................... 64742– 95– 6 0. 05 Xylenes. 20. Varsol solvent ......................................................... 8052– 49– 3 0. 01 0.5% xylenes, 0.5% ethyl benzene. 21. VM & P naphtha ........................................................ 64742– 89– 8 0. 06 3% toluene, 3% xylene. 22. Petroleum distillate mixture ........................................ 68477– 31– 6 0. 08 4% naphthalene, 4% biphenyl. You may use the mass fraction values in the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test data or manufacturer's formulation data: TABLE 4 TO SUBPART RRRR OF PART 63.— DEFAULT ORGANIC HAP MASS FRACTION FOR PETROLEUM SOLVENT GROUPS a Solvent type Average organic HAP mass fraction Typical organic HAP, percent by mass Aliphatic b .................................................... 0.03 1% Xylene, 1% Toluene, and 1% Ethylbenzene. Aromatic c ................................................... 0.06 4% Xylene, 1% Toluene, and 1% Ethylbenzene. a Use this table only if the solvent blend does not match any of the solvent blends in Table 3 to this subpart and you only know whether the blend is aliphatic or aromatic. b e. g., Mineral Spirits 135, Mineral Spirits 150 EC, Naphtha, Mixed Hydrocarbon, Aliphatic Hydrocarbon, Aliphatic Naphtha, Naphthol Spirits, Petroleum Spirits, Petroleum Oil, Petroleum Naphtha, Solvent Naphtha, Solvent Blend. c e. g., Medium­ flash Naphtha, High­ flash Naphtha, Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Aromatic Hydrocarbons Light Aromatic Solvent. [FR Doc. 02– 7224 Filed 4– 23– 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 07 Apr 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 24APP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.077119

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049-0001

Proposed Rule

Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and On or Before August 17, 1983; and Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After August 17, 1983

Wednesday, October 16, 2002 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 60 Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and On or Before August 17, 1983; and Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon­ Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After August 17, 1983; Proposed Rule VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 17: 28 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP3. SGM 16OCP3 64014 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [AD– FRL– 7394– 3] RIN 2060– AJ68 Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and On or Before August 17, 1983; and Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon­ Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After August 17, 1983 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to amend certain provisions in the new source performance standards (NSPS) for electric arc furnaces (EAF) constructed after October 21, 1974, and on or before August 17, 1983, and the NSPS for EAF constructed after August 17, 1983. The proposed changes add alternative requirements for monitoring emissions from EAF exhausts. In addition, minor editorial corrections are being made. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2002. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by November 5, 2002, a public hearing will be held on November 15, 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– 79– 33, 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– 79– 33, U. S. EPA, Room Number M1500, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Effective August 27, 2002, send comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number A– 79– 33, U. S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room Number B108, Washington, DC 20460. We request that a separate copy of each public comment 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 the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC. Docket. Docket No. A– 79– 33 contains supporting information used in developing the standards. The docket is located at the U. S. EPA, 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. Effective August 27, 2002, the docket will be located at: U. S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room Number B108, Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kevin Cavender, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division (C439– 02), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541– 2364, electronic mail address: cavender. kevin@ epa. gov. To request a public hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing, or to find out if a public hearing will be held, contact Ms. Cassie Posey, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division (C439– 02), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541– 0069, electronic mail address: posey. cassie@ epa. gov. For information concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact your State or local permitting authority or the appropriate EPA regional office representatives. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e­ mail) to: a­ and­ r­ docket@ epa. gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: Docket No. A– 79– 33. 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: OAQPS Document Control Office (C404– 02), Attention: Mr. Kevin Cavender, Emission Standards Division, U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The EPA 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 it is received by the EPA, 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 Ms. Cassie Posey, telephone number: (919) 541– 0069. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also contact Cassie Posey to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The address, telephone number, and e­ mail address for Ms. Posey are listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. A public hearing, if held, will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed emission standards. Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in rule development. 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 will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307( d)( 7)( A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).) The regulatory text and other materials related to the rulemaking 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 today's 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. Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action include steel manufacturing facilities who operate electric arc furnaces. Affected categories and entities include certain sources in VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 20: 27 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP3. SGM 16OCP3 64015 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules the North American Information Classification System code 331111. This description 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 facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in the 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 an EAF? B. What are the current NSPS requirements for an EAF? C. Why are the current NSPS requirements being amended? D. What is a bag leak detection system, and how is it used to monitor baghouse performance? II. Summary of Proposed Amendment A. What is the alternative monitoring option being proposed? B. What are the editorial corrections being made? III. 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. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. G. Paperwork Reduction Act H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. Background A. What Is an EAF? An EAF is a metallurgical furnace used to produce carbon and alloy steels. The input material to an EAF is typically 100 percent scrap steel. Cylindrical, refractory lined EAF are equipped with carbon electrodes to be raised or lowered through the furnace roof. With electrodes retracted, the furnace roof can be rotated to permit the charge of scrap steel by overhead crane. Alloying agents and fluxing materials usually are added through doors on the side of the furnace. Electric current is passed between the electrodes and through the scrap, generating arcing and the generation of enough heat to melt the scrap steel charge. After the melting and refining periods, impurities (in the form of a slag) and the refined steel are poured from the furnace. The production of steel in an EAF is a batch process. Cycles, or heats, range from about 1 1 Ú2 to 5 hours to produce carbon steel and from 5 to 10 hours to produce alloy steel. Scrap steel is charged to begin a cycle, and alloying agents and slag forming materials are added for refining. Stages of each cycle normally are charging, melting, refining (which usually includes oxygen blowing), and tapping. All of those operations generate particulate matter (PM) emissions. Emission control techniques involve an emission capture system and a gas cleaning system. Emission capture systems used in the industry include direct shell (fourth hole) evacuation, side draft hoods, combination hoods, canopy hoods, scavenger ducts, and furnace enclosures. Direct shell evacuation (DEC) consists of ductwork attached to a separate opening, or `` fourth hole'', in the furnace roof which draws emissions to a gas cleaner. The direct shell evacuation system works only when the furnace is up­ right and the roof is in place. The side draft hoods collect furnace offgases from around the electrode holes and the work doors after the gases leave the furnace. The combination hood incorporates elements from the side draft and direct shell evacuation systems. Canopy hoods and scavenger ducts are used to address charging and tapping emissions. Baghouses are typically used as the gas cleaning system. B. What Are the Current NSPS Requirements for an EAF? The NSPS for EAF constructed after October 21, 1974, and on or before August 17, 1983 (40 CFR part 60, subpart AA) were first promulgated in the Federal Register on September 23, 1975 (40 FR 43850). The NSPS for EAF constructed after August 17, 1983 (40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa) were first promulgated in the Federal Register on October 31, 1984 (49 FR 43845). Both subparts limit the allowable PM concentration in the exhaust of an EAF emission control device to 12 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/ dscm). In addition to the PM emission limit, both subparts limit visible emissions from the EAF control device to less than 3 percent opacity, as determined by EPA Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. In both subparts, if the control device is equipped with a single stack, the owner or operator is required to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). The owner and operator must report each 6­ minute average COM reading of 3 percent or greater as an excess emission. A COMS is not required on any modular or multiplestack fabric filter if opacity readings are taken at least once per day during a melting and refining period, in accordance with EPA Method 9. The subparts also contain requirements for the EAF capture systems. However, those requirements are not being amended by today's action. As such, we do not discuss the capture system requirements here. C. Why Are the Current NSPS Requirements Being Amended? Today's action is being taken in response to a petition to reopen the NSPS that we received from the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA), and the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA), who jointly will be referred to as `` the Petitioner. '' In their request to reopen the EAF NSPS, the Petitioner argues that COMS are not capable of accurately monitoring opacity emissions from an EAF shop at the 3 percent excess emissions threshold level and that the EAF NSPS should be amended to address the technological shortcomings associated with COMS. In making their argument, the Petitioner points to our recent revision to the performance specification for COMS (PSÐ 1, 65 FR 48914) in which we acknowledge that there is potential for measurement error associated with COM readings. A conservative approach to estimating the upper range of the potential measurement error resulted in an estimate of approximately 4 percent opacity. The Petitioner also points out that the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard for COMS (ASTM D 6216Ð 98), which is incorporated in PSÐ 1, expressly limits the scope of the ASTM Standard to COMS used to monitor opacity subject to an opacity limit of 10 percent or greater due to the potential error associated with opacity measurements. The Petitioner argues that COMS generate inaccurate data which can trigger Federal and State reporting requirements and expose a facility to potential liability even when the facility is meeting the opacity standard. As pointed out above, owners and operators are required by the NSPS to report all 6­ minute average COMS readings above 3 percent as periods of excess emissions. Since the potential COMS measurement error is high in comparison to the 3 percent opacity VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 17: 28 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP3. SGM 16OCP3 64016 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules standard, the Petitioner believes that the COMS can and do produce readings above the 3 percent excess emissions threshold when the actual opacity is below 3 percent. The Petitioner points out that the credible evidence revisions (62 FR 8313, February 24, 1997) clarify our intent to use COMS data as evidence of a potential emissions violation. Therefore, the Petitioner argues, COMS data falsely indicating emissions above 3 percent opacity could be used as evidence of violations of the opacity standard. Even if the erroneous COMS data are eventually determined not to be credible, the Petitioner argues, companies must bear the burden and cost of defending against such allegations. The revisions to PSÐ 1 explained that we did not believe it was appropriate to limit the applicability of PSÐ 1 based on the level of the emission limit that would be monitored. Instead of limiting the applicability of PSÐ 1, we determined that PSÐ 1 should acknowledge the measurement uncertainty associated with COMS measurements below 10 percent opacity, and allow for a consideration of the potential error (through statistical procedures or otherwise) when evaluating compliance with opacity standards below 10 percent. We agree that it is appropriate to provide an alternative monitoring option for EAF owners and operators who are concerned with the accuracy of COMS measurements at levels below 10 percent opacity. In addition, we believe that bag leak detection systems, the alternative monitoring option being proposed, are a viable alternative to COMS for the purpose of monitoring the performance of baghouses. D. What Is a Bag Leak Detection System, and How Is It Used To Monitor Baghouse Performance? A bag leak detection system is a device that is used to measure relative particulate loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse on a continuous basis in order to detect bag leaks and other conditions that result in increases in particulate loadings. Bag leak detection systems have been developed based on a number of principles including triboelectric effect, electrodynamic effect, and light scattering. A bag leak detection system does not need to provide an output in terms of particulate concentration, but must provide an output that is proportionate to the particulate concentration such that if particulate concentrations increase the output from the bag leak detection system increases. A bag leak detection system identifies leaks by the resulting increase in particulate loadings. A properly designed baghouse will control particulate emissions to very low levels when in good operating condition. However, if the baghouse develops a leak, due to a torn bag or seal, there will be a measurable increase in particulate emissions. A bag leak detection system is capable of quickly (within a few seconds) determining that an abnormal increase in particulate concentrations has occurred and can then trigger an alarm to alert the operator so that the leak can be stopped as soon as possible. Bag leak detection systems are capable of detecting small leaks while particulate emissions are well below the levels that would result in observable opacity. For that reason, we believe that bag leak detection systems are well suited for monitoring the performance of a baghouse. II. Summary of Proposed Amendment A. What Is the Alternative Monitoring Option Being Proposed? We are proposing bag leak detection coupled with a once per day opacity observation as an alternative monitoring option to COMS. Under the proposed alternative, a facility could elect to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a bag leak detection system. Owners or operators would be required to develop a site specific monitoring plan describing how the system would be selected, installed, and operated, including how the alarm levels would be established. Within 30 minutes of an alarm, the owner or operator would be required to initiate procedures to determine the cause of the alarm and alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours. In addition, the owner or operator would be required to maintain and operate their baghouse such that the alarm on the bag leak detector does not alarm for more than 3 percent of the operating hours in any 6­ month reporting period. The owner or operator would also be required to conduct an opacity observation at least once per day when the furnace is in the melting or refining operation day, in accordance with EPA Method 9. All opacity observations greater than 3 percent opacity would be reported as a violation of the opacity standard. In addition, if the alarm on the bag leak detection system was not alarming during the time the opacity was observed to be greater than 3 percent, the alarm on the bag leak detection system would have to be lowered to a point that an alarm would have occurred during the observation. B. What Are the Editorial Corrections Being Made? Two typographical errors are being corrected in the amendment. In 40 CFR 60.274( c) and in 40 CFR 60.274a( c), the references to paragraphs (b)( 1) and (2) are being corrected to refer to paragraph (b). The paragraphs (b)( 1) and (2) of 40 CFR 60.274( c) and 40 CFR 60.274a( c) were incorporated into paragraph (b) during the last revision to the NSPS (64 FR 10105, March 2, 1999). In 40 CFR 60.274a( b), the reference to paragraph (d) is being corrected to refer to paragraph (e). In addition, 40 CFR 60.274a( d) and 40 CFR 60.274a( e) are being revised to clarify that owners and operators may petition the Administrator to approve alternatives to the monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR 60.274a( b), as well as alternatives to the monthly operational status inspections specified in 40 CFR 60.274a( d). This revision does not change the rule requirements because owners and operators are currently allowed to petition for alternative monitoring requirements under 40 CFR 60.13( i) of the General Provisions. III. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether the 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, it has been determined that the proposed rule amendments are not a `` significant regulatory action'' because none of the listed criteria apply VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 17: 28 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP3. SGM 16OCP3 64017 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules to the action. Consequently, the action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866. B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. '' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. '' The proposed rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They 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. None of the affected facilities are owned or operated by State governments, and the requirements of the proposed rule amendments will not supercede State regulations that are more stringent. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule amendments. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with our policy to promote communications between us and State and local governments, we specifically solicit comments on the proposed rule amendments 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 us to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. '' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. '' The proposed rule amendments do not have tribal implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or operate an affected source. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule amendments. 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 rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives that we considered. 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 5Ð 501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the rule. The proposed rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because the action only provides affected EAF owners and operators with alternative monitoring options. Furthermore, the proposed rule amendments have been determined not to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104Ð 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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 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 significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 our regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. We have determined that the proposed rule amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of the proposed rule amendments for any year has been estimated to be less than $62,000. Thus, today's proposed rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, we have determined that the proposed rule amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 17: 28 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP3. SGM 16OCP3 64018 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The proposed amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the amendments only provide alternative compliance options designed to provide facilities with increased flexibility. Therefore, I certify that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. G. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the proposed rule amendments have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 1060.11), and you may obtain a copy from Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov; or by calling (202) 566Ð 1672. You may also download a copy off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to NSPS. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U. S. C. 7414). All information submitted to us pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to our policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The annual increase to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden for the proposed rule amendments are estimated at 1750 labor hours at a total cost of $61,267 nationwide, and the annual average increase in burden is 175 labor hours and $6,127 per source. We estimate that there will be no increase in the annualized capital costs due to the proposed rule amendments. We estimate that the annualized costs associated with purchasing and installing a bag leak detection system are equal to the offsetting annualized cost savings associated with the discontinued use and periodic replacement of a COMS. In making the estimates, it was assumed that ten existing facilities currently required to install and operate COMS would elect to use the proposed alternative monitoring option. The cost estimates reflect increased costs associated with the installation and operation of a bag leak detection system and with daily opacity observations partially offset by the cost savings from no longer having to operate and maintain a COMS. 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 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 existing 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 our need for the information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street 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 October 16, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by November 15, 2002. The final action will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) Public Law 104Ð 113 (15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The proposed rulemaking does not involve a technical standard. I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use The proposed rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 9, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 60—[ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401, et seq. 2. Section 60.271 is amended by adding new paragraphs (o) and (p) to read as follows: § 60.271 Definitions. * * * * * (o) Bag Leak detection system means a system that is capable of continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other conditions that result in increases in particulate loadings. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, electrodynamic, light scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter loadings. (p) Operating time means the period of time in hours that an affected source is in operation beginning at a startup and ending at the next shutdown. VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 20: 27 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP3. SGM 16OCP3 64019 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 3. Section 60.273 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding new paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows: § 60.273 Emission monitoring. * * * * * (c) A continuous monitoring system for the measurement of the opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the control device( s) is not required on any modular, multistack negative­ pressure or positivepressure fabric filter if observations of the opacity of the visible emissions from the control device are performed by a certified visible emission observer; or on any single­ stack fabric filter if visible emissions from the control device are performed by a certified visible emission observer and the owner installs and continuously operates a bag leak detection system according to paragraph (e) of this section. Visible emission observations shall be conducted at least once per day for at least three 6­ minute periods when the furnace is operating in the melting and refining period. All visible emissions observations shall be conducted in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A to this part. If visible emissions occur from more than one point, the opacity shall be recorded for any points where visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of visible emission sites relate to only one incident of the visible emission, only one set of three 6­ minute observations will be required. In that case, the Method 9 observations must be made for the site of highest opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions observed during a single incident. Records shall be maintained of any 6­ minute average that is in excess of the emission limit specified in § 60.272( a). * * * * * (e) A bag leak detection system must be installed and continuously operated on all single­ stack fabric filters if the owner or operator elects not to install and operate a continuous opacity monitoring system as provided for under paragraph (c) of this section. In addition, the owner or operator shall meet the visible emissions observation requirements in paragraph (c) of this section. The bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements of paragraphs (e)( 1) through (8) of this section. (1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. (2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of relative particulate matter loadings and the owner or operator shall continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other means (e. g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger.) (3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound when an increase in relative particulate loading is detected over the alarm set point established according to paragraph (e)( 4) of this section, and the alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel. (4) For each bag leak detection system required by paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall develop and submit, to the Administrator or delegated authority, for approval, a sitespecific monitoring plan that addresses the items identified in paragraphs (e)( 4)( i) through (v) of this section. For each bag leak detection system that operates based on the triboelectric effect, the monitoring plan shall be consistent with the recommendations contained in the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance document `` Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPAÐ 454/ RÐ 98Ð 015). The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the bag leak detection system according to the site­ specific monitoring plan at all times. The plan shall describe: (i) Installation of the bag leak detector system; (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detector system including how the alarm set­ point will be established; (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality assurance procedures; (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list; and (v) How the bag leak detection system output shall be recorded and stored. (5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum, consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time (if applicable). (6) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided for in paragraphs (e)( 6)( i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Once per quarter, the owner or operator may adjust the sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects including temperature and humidity according to the procedures identified in the sitespecific monitoring plan required under paragraph (e)( 4) of this section. (ii) If opacities greater than zero percent are observed over four consecutive 15­ second observations during the daily opacity observations required under paragraph (c) of this section and the alarm on the bag leak detection system does not sound, the owner or operator shall lower the alarm set point on the bag leak detection system to a point where the alarm would have sounded during the period when the opacity observations were made. (7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a stack, the bag leak detector sensor must be installed downstream of the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (f) For each bag leak detection system installed according to paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall initiate procedures to determine the cause of all alarms within 30 minutes of an alarm. The cause of the alarm must be alleviated within 3 hours of the time the alarm occurred by taking whatever corrective action( s) are necessary. If additional time is required to alleviate the cause of the alarm, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator or delegated authority. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in particulate emissions; (2) Sealing off defective bags or filter media; (3) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise repairing the control device; (4) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment; (5) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system; or (6) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions. (g) The owner or operator shall maintain each baghouse monitored by a bag leak detection system such that the alarm on the bag leak detection system does not sound for more than 3 percent VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 17: 28 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP3. SGM 16OCP3 64020 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules of the total operating time in a 6­ month reporting period. (h) The percentage of time the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds shall be determined according to paragraphs (h)( 1) through (5) of this section. (1) An alarm that occurs due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak detection system shall not be included in the calculation. (2) An alarm that occurs during startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall not be included in the calculation if the owner or operator follows all requirements contained in § 60.11( d). (3) For each alarm where the owner or operator initiates procedures to determine the cause of an alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time shall be counted. (4) For each alarm where the owner or operator does not initiate procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, alarm time will be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate procedures to determine the cause of the alarm. (5) The percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak detection system sounds shall be calculated as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the total operating time multiplied by 100. 4. Section 60.274 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 60.274 Monitoring of operations. * * * * * (c) When the owner or operator of an affected facility is required to demonstrate compliance with the standards under § 60.272( a)( 3) and at any other time the Administrator may require that (under section 114 of the CAA, as amended) either: the control system fan motor amperes and all damper positions; the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or the volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet and all damper positions shall be determined during all periods in which a hood is operated for the purpose of capturing emissions from the affected facility subject to paragraph (b) of this section. * * * * * * * * 5. Section 60.275 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows: § 60.275 Test methods and procedures. * * * * * (i) If visible emissions observations are made in lieu of using a continuous opacity monitoring system, as allowed for by § 60.273( c), visible emission observations shall be conducted at least once per day for at least three 6­ minute periods when the furnace is operating in the melting and refining period. All visible emissions observations shall be conducted in accordance with Method 9. If visible emissions occur from more than one point, the opacity shall be recorded for any points where visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of visible emission sites relate to only one incident of the visible emission, only one set of three 6­ minute observations will be required. In that case, the Method 9 observations must be made for the site of highest opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions observed during a single incident. Records shall be maintained of any 6­ minute average that is in excess of the emission limit specified in § 60.272( a). * * * * * 6. Section 60.276 is amended by adding new paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows: § 60.276 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. * * * * * (e) The owner or operator shall maintain the following records for each bag leak detection system required under § 60.273( e): (1) Records of the bag leak detection system output; (2) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detector settings, and the final bag leak detector settings; (3) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were initiated, if procedures were initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken, the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and if the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm; and (4) The calculation of the percent of time the alarm on the bag leak detection system sounded during each 6­ month reporting period. (f) In addition to the information required by § 60.7( c), the percent of time the alarm on the bag leak detection system sounded during each 6­ month reporting period shall be reported to the Administrator semi­ annually. 7. Section 60.271( a) is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for `` Bag leak detection system'' and `` Operating time'' as follows: § 60.271a Definitions. Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag leaks and other conditions that result in increases in particulate loadings. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, electrodynamic, light scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative particulate matter loadings. * * * * * Operating time means the period of time in hours that an affected source is in operation beginning at a startup and ending at the next shutdown. * * * * * 8. Section 60.273a is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding new paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows: § 60.273a Emission monitoring. * * * * * (c) A continuous monitoring system for the measurement of the opacity of emissions discharged into the atmosphere from the control device( s) is not required on any modular, multistack negative­ pressure or positivepressure fabric filter if observations of the opacity of the visible emissions from the control device are performed by a certified visible emission observer; or on any single­ stack fabric filter if visible emissions from the control device are performed by a certified visible emission observer and the owner installs and continuously operates a bag leak detection system according to paragraph (e) of this section. Visible emission observations shall be conducted at least once per day for at least three 6­ minute periods when the furnace is operating in the melting and refining period. All visible emissions observations shall be conducted in accordance with Method 9. If visible emissions occur from more than one point, the opacity shall be recorded for any points where visible emissions are observed. Where it is possible to determine that a number of visible emission sites relate to only one incident of the visible emission, only one set of three 6­ minute observations will be required. In that case, the Method 9 observations must be made for the site of highest opacity that directly relates to the cause (or location) of visible emissions observed during a single incident. Records shall be maintained of any 6­ minute average that VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 17: 28 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP3. SGM 16OCP3 64021 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules is in excess of the emission limit specified in § 60.272a( a). * * * * * (e) A bag leak detection system must be installed and continuously operated on all single­ stack fabric filters if the owner or operator elects not to install and operate a continuous opacity monitoring system as provided for under paragraph (c) of this section. In addition, the owner or operator shall meet the visible emissions observation requirements in paragraph (c) of this section. The bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and requirements of paragraphs (e)( 1) through (8) of this section. (1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. (2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of relative particulate matter loadings and the owner or operator shall continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other means (e. g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger.) (3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound when an increase in relative particulate loading is detected over the alarm set point established according to paragraph (e)( 4) of this section, and the alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel. (4) For each bag leak detection system required by paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall develop and submit, to the Administrator or delegated authority, for approval, a sitespecific monitoring plan that addresses the items identified in paragraphs (e)( 4)( i) through (v) of this section. For each bag leak detection system that operates based on the triboelectric effect, the monitoring plan shall be consistent with the recommendations contained in the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance document `` Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPAÐ 454/ RÐ 98Ð 015). The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the bag leak detection system according to the site­ specific monitoring plan at all times. The plan shall describe the following: (i) Installation of the bag leak detector system; (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detector system including how the alarm set­ point will be established; (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality assurance procedures; (iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list; and (v) How the bag leak detection system output shall be recorded and stored. (5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum, consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time (if applicable). (6) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except as provided for in paragraphs (e)( 6)( i) and (ii) of this section. (i) Once per quarter, the owner or operator may adjust the sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects including temperature and humidity according to the procedures identified in the sitespecific monitoring plan required under paragraph (e)( 4) of this section. (ii) If opacities greater than zero percent are observed over four consecutive 15­ second observations during the daily opacity observations required under paragraph (c) of this section and the alarm on the bag leak detection system does not sound, the owner or operator shall lower the alarm set point on the bag leak detection system to a point where the alarm would have sounded during the period when the opacity observations were made. (7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a stack, the bag leak detector sensor must be installed downstream of the baghouse and upstream of any wet scrubber. (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. (f) For each bag leak detection system installed according to paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall initiate procedures to determine the cause of all alarms within 30 minutes of an alarm. The cause of the alarm must be alleviated within 3 hours of the time the alarm occurred by taking whatever corrective action( s) are necessary. If additional time is required to alleviate the cause of the alarm, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator or delegated authority. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in particulate emissions; (2) Sealing off defective bags or filter media. (3) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise repairing the control device; (4) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment. (5) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system; and (6) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions. (g) The owner or operator shall maintain each baghouse monitored by a bag leak detection system such that the alarm on the bag leak detection system does not sound for more than 3 percent of the total operating time in a 6­ month reporting period. (h) The percentage of time the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds shall be determined according to paragraphs (h)( 1) through (5) of this section. (1) An alarm that occurs due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak detection system shall not be included in the calculation. (2) An alarm that occurs during startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall not be included in the calculation if the owner or operator follows all requirements contained in § 60.11( d). (3) For each alarm where the owner or operator initiates procedures to determine the cause of an alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time shall be counted. (4) For each alarm where the owner or operator does not initiate procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, alarm time will be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate procedures to determine the cause of the alarm. (5) The percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak detection system sounds shall be calculated as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the total operating time multiplied by 100. 9. Section 60.274a is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (b), revising the first sentence of paragraph (c), revising the first sentence of paragraph (d), and revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: § 60.274a Monitoring of operations. * * * * * (b) Except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section, the owner VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 17: 28 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP3. SGM 16OCP3 64022 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall check and record on a once­ per­ shift basis the furnace static pressure (if DEC system is in use, and a furnace static pressure gauge is installed according to paragraph (f) of this section) and either: check and record the control system fan motor amperes and damper position on a onceper shift basis; install calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet and check and record damper positions on a once­ per­ shift basis. * * * (c) When the owner or operator of an affected facility is required to demonstrate compliance with the standards under § 60.272a( a)( 3) and at any other time the Administrator may require that (under section 114 of the CAA, as amended) either: the control system fan motor amperes and all damper positions; the volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or the volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet and all damper positions shall be determined during all periods in which a hood is operated for the purpose of capturing emissions from the affected facility subject to paragraph (b) of this section. * * * (d) Except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or operator shall perform monthly operational status inspections of the equipment that is important to the performance of the total capture system (i. e., pressure sensors, dampers, and damper switches). * * * (e) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator to approve any alternative to either the monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section or the monthly operational status inspections specified in paragraph (d) of this section if the alternative will provide a continuous record of operation of each emission capture system. * * * * * 10. Section 60.276a is amended by adding new paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows: § 60.276a Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. * * * * * (h) The owner or operator shall maintain the following records for each bag leak detection system required under § 60.273a( e): (1) Records of the bag leak detection system output; (2) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detector settings, and the final bag leak detector settings; (3) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were initiated, if procedures were initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken, the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and if the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm; and (4) The calculation of the percent of time the alarm on the bag leak detection system sounded during each 6­ month reporting period. (i) In addition to the information required by § 60.7( c), the percent of time the alarm on the bag leak detection system sounded during each 6­ month reporting period shall be reported to the Administrator semi­ annually. [FR Doc. 02Ð 26303 Filed 10Ð 15Ð 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 17: 28 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16OCP3. SGM 16OCP3

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.112321

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0052-0528

Proposed Rule

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants; Proposed Rule

Friday, December 20, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants; Proposed Rule VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78046 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0052; FRL 7418 1] RIN 2060 AG72 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for the lime manufacturing source category. The lime manufacturing emission units regulated would include lime kilns, lime coolers, and various types of materials processing operations ( MPO). The EPA has identified the lime manufacturing industry as a major source of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions including, but not limited to, hydrogen chloride ( HCl), antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as cancer; irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus membranes; effects on the central nervous system; and kidney damage. The proposed standards would require all major sources subject to the rule to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). Implementation of the standards as proposed would reduce non­ volatile metal HAP emissions from the lime manufacturing industry source category by approximately 21 megagrams per year ( Mg/ yr) ( 23 tons per year ( tons/ yr)) and would reduce emissions of particulate matter ( PM) by 14,000 Mg/ yr ( 16,000 tons/ yr). DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 18, 2003. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 9, 2003, a public hearing will be held on January 21, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General and technical information. Joseph P. Wood, P. E., Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emissions Standards Division ( C504 05), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 5446, electronic mail ( e­ mail) address wood. joe@ epa. gov. Methods, sampling, and monitoring information. Michael Toney, Source Measurement Technology Group, Emission Monitoring and Analysis Division ( D205 02), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 5247, e­ mail address toney. mike@ epa. gov. Economic impacts analysis. Eric Crump, Innovative Strategies and Economics Group, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division ( C339 01), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 4719, e­ mail address crump. eric@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include: Category NAICS Examples of regulated entities 32741 ....... Commercial lime manufacturing plants. 33111 ....... Captive lime manufacturing plants at iron and steel mills. 3314 ......... Captive lime manufacturing plants at nonferrous metal production facilities. 327125 ..... Producers of dead­ burned dolomite ( Non­ clay refractory manufacturing). 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 facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.7081 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical contact person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0052. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( Air Docket) in the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or review public comments, access the index of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. Information claimed as confidential business information ( CBI) and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in this document. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78047 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. Comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. Comments Submitted Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0052. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e­ mail) to a­ and­ r­ docket@ epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0052. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your e­ mail address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in this document. These electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments Submitted By Mail. Send your comments ( in duplicate, if possible) to: Lime Manufacturing NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket), U. S. EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, Room B108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0052. Comments Submitted By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments ( in duplicate, if possible) to: EPA Docket Center, U. S. EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0052. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Center's normal hours of operation as identified in this document. Comments Submitted By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: ( 202) 566 1741, Attention Lime Manufacturing NESHAP Docket, Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0052. CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404 02), U. S. EPA, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention Joseph Wood, Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0052. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mr. Joseph Wood, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division ( C504 05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 5446, at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Mr. Joseph Wood 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. Worldwide Web ( WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed 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. Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Introduction A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed Rule? B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP? C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? D. How Was the Proposed Rule Developed? E. What Are the Health Effects of the HAP Emitted From the Lime Manufacturing Industry? F. What Are Some Lime Manufacturing Industry Characteristics? G. What Are the Processes and Their Emissions at a Lime Manufacturing Plant? II. Summary of Proposed Rule A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Proposed Rule? B. What Emission Units at a Lime Manufacturing Plant Are Included Under the Definition of Affected Source? C. What Pollutants Are Regulated By the Proposed Rule? D. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits? E. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule? F. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With the Proposed Rule? VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78048 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules G. How Do I Continuously or Periodically Demonstrate Compliance with the Proposed Rule? H. How Do I Determine if My Lime Manufacturing Plant Is a Major Source and Thus Subject to the Proposed Rule? III. Rationale for Proposed Rule A. How Did We Determine the Source Category to Regulate? B. How Did We Determine the Affected Source? C. How Did We Determine Which Pollutants to Regulate? D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Emission Units at Existing Lime Manufacturing Plants? E. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor For Emission Units at New Lime Manufacturing Plants? F. What Control Options Beyond the MACT Floor Did We Consider? G. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule? H. How Did We Select the Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements for Determining Compliance With This Proposed Rule? IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. How Many Facilities Are Subject To the Proposed Rule? B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? C. What Are the Water Impacts? D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts? E. What Are the Energy Impacts? F. What Are the Cost Impacts? G. What Are the Economic Impacts? V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 F. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. G. Paperwork Reduction Act H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. Introduction A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed Rule? The purpose of the proposed rule is to protect the public health by reducing emissions of HAP from lime manufacturing plants. B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The Lime Manufacturing category of major sources covered by today's proposed NESHAP was listed on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576). 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. C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing 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 maximum achievable control technology ( 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 subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled 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 bestperforming 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 health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. D. How Was the Proposed Rule Developed? We used several resources to develop the proposed rule, including questionnaire responses from industry, emissions test data, site surveys of lime manufacturing facilities, operating and new source review permits, and permit applications. We researched the relevant technical literature and existing State and Federal regulations and consulted and met with representatives of the lime manufacturing industry, State and local representatives of air pollution agencies, Federal agency representatives ( e. g., United States Geological Survey) and emission control and emissions measurement device vendors in developing the proposed rule. We also conducted an extensive emissions test program. Industry representatives provided emissions test data, arranged site surveys of lime manufacturing plants, participated in the emissions test program, reviewed draft questionnaires, provided information about their manufacturing processes and air pollution control technologies, and identified technical and regulatory issues. State representatives provided existing emissions test data, copies of permits and other information. E. What Are the Health Effects of the HAP Emitted From the Lime Manufacturing Industry? The HAP emitted by lime manufacturing facilities include, but are not limited to, HCl, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. Exposure to these compounds has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects when present in concentrations higher than those typically found in ambient air. We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities that would be covered by the proposed NESHAP, and the people living around the facilities, that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described below occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the proposed rule would reduce emissions and subsequent exposures. We also note one exception to this statement, namely that human exposures to ambient levels of HCl resulting from lime manufacturing facilities' emissions were estimated by industry as part of the risk assessment they conducted for purposes of demonstrating, pursuant to section 112( d)( 4) of the CAA, that HCl emissions from lime kilns are below the threshold level of adverse effects, with an ample margin of safety. The HAP that would be controlled with the proposed rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects, including chronic health disorders ( e. g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus membranes; effects on the central nervous system; cancer; and damage to the kidneys), and acute health disorders VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78049 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( e. g., lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting, and effects on the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified three of the HAP arsenic, chromium, and nickel as human carcinogens and three others beryllium, cadmium, and lead as probable human carcinogens. F. What Are Some Lime Manufacturing Industry Characteristics? There are approximately 70 commercial and 40 captive lime manufacturing plants in the U. S., not including captive lime manufacturing operations at pulp and paper production facilities. About 30 of the captive plants in the U. S. produce lime that is used in the beet sugar manufacturing process, but captive lime manufacturing plants are also found at steel, other metals, and magnesia production facilities. Lime is produced in about 35 States and Puerto Rico by about 47 companies, which include commercial and captive producers ( except for lime manufacturing plants at pulp and paper production facilities), and those plants which produce lime hydrate only. G. What Are the Processes and Their Emissions at a Lime Manufacturing Plant? There are many synonyms for lime, the main ones being quicklime and its chemical name, calcium oxide. High calcium lime consists primarily of calcium oxide, and dolomitic lime consists of both calcium and magnesium oxides. Lime is produced via the calcination of high calcium limestone ( calcium carbonate) or other highly calcareous materials such as aragonite, chalk, coral, marble, and shell; or the calcination of dolomitic limestone. Calcination occurs in a high temperature furnace called a kiln, where lime is produced by heating the limestone to about 2000 ° F, driving off carbon dioxide in the process. Deadburned dolomite is a type of dolomitic lime produced to obtain refractory characteristics in the lime. The kiln is the heart of the lime manufacturing plant, where various fossil fuels ( such as coal, petroleum coke, natural gas, and fuel oil) are combusted to produce the heat needed for calcination. There are five different types of kilns: rotary, vertical, doubleshaft vertical, rotary hearth, and fluidized bed. The most popular is the rotary kiln, but the double­ shaft vertical kiln is an emerging new kiln technology gaining in acceptance because of its energy efficiency. Rotary kilns may also have preheaters associated with them to improve energy efficiency. As discussed further in this preamble, additional energy efficiency is obtained by routing exhaust from the lime cooler to the kiln, a common practice. Emissions from lime kilns include, but are not limited to, metallic HAP, HCl, PM, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide. These emissions predominately originate from compounds in the limestone feed material and fuels ( e. g., metals, sulfur, chlorine) and are formed from the combustion of fuels and the heating of feed material in the kiln. All types of kilns use external equipment to cool the lime product, except vertical ( including double­ shaft) kilns, where the cooling zone is part of the kiln. Ambient air is most often used to cool the lime ( although a few use water as the heat transfer medium), and typically all of the heated air stream exiting the cooler goes to the kiln to be used as combustion air for the kiln. The exception to this is the grate cooler, where more airflow is generated than is needed for kiln combustion, and consequently a portion ( about 40 percent) of the grate cooler exhaust is vented to the atmosphere. We estimate that there are about five to ten kilns in the U. S. that use grate coolers. The emissions from grate coolers include the lime dust ( PM) and the trace metallic HAP found in the lime dust. Lime manufacturing plants may also produce hydrated lime ( also called calcium hydroxide) from some of the calcium oxide ( or dolomitic lime) produced. Hydrated lime is produced in a hydrator via the chemical reaction of calcium oxide ( or magnesium oxide) and water. The hydration process is exothermic, and part of the water in the reaction chamber is converted to steam. A wet scrubber is integrated with the hydrator to capture the lime ( calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide) particles carried in the gas steam, with the scrubber water recycled back to the hydration chamber. The emissions from the hydrator are the PM comprised of lime and hydrated lime. Operations that prepare the feed materials and fuels for the kiln and process the lime product for shipment or further on­ site use are found throughout a lime manufacturing plant. The equipment includes grinding mills, crushers, storage bins, conveying systems ( such as bucket elevator, belt conveyors), bagging systems, bulk loading or unloading systems, and screening operations. The emissions from these operations include limestone and lime dust ( PM) and the trace metallic HAP found in the dust. II. Summary of Proposed Rule A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Proposed Rule? The proposed rule would regulate HAP emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co­ located with major sources, or are part of major sources. However, lime manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar factories would not be subject to the proposed rule. Other captive lime manufacturing plants, such as ( but not limited to) those at steel mills and magnesia production facilities, would be subject to the proposed rule. We define a lime manufacturing plant as any plant which uses a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous material by calcination. Lime product means the product of the lime kiln calcination process including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and deadburned dolomite. B. What Emission Units at a Lime Manufacturing Plant Are Included Under the Definition of Affected Source? The proposed rule would include the following emission units under the definition of affected source: Lime kilns and coolers, and MPO associated with limestone feed preparation ( beginning with the raw material storage bin). The individual types of MPO that would be included under the definition of affected source are grinding mills, raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors if they follow the raw material storage bin in the sequence of MPO. The MPO associated with lime products ( such as quicklime and hydrated lime), lime kiln dust handling, quarry or mining operations, and fuels would not be subject to today's proposed rule. The MPO are further distinguished in the proposed rule as follows: ( 1) Whether their emissions are vented through a stack, ( 2) whether their emissions are fugitive emissions, ( 3) whether their emissions are vented through a stack with some fugitive emissions from the partial enclosure, and/ or ( 4) whether the source is enclosed in a building. Finally, lime hydrators would not be included under the definition of affected source under the proposed NESHAP. C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Proposed Rule? The proposed rule would establish PM emission limits for lime kilns, coolers, and MPO with stacks. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78050 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules Particulate matter would be measured solely as a surrogate for the non­ volatile and semi­ volatile metal HAP. ( Particulate matter of course is not itself a HAP, but is a typical and permissible surrogate for HAP metals. See National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 637 40 ( D. C. Cir., 2000).) The proposed rule also would regulate opacity or visible emissions from most of the MPO, with opacity also serving as a surrogate for non­ volatile and semi­ volatile HAP metals. D. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits? 1. Emission Limits The PM emission limit for all of the kilns and coolers at an existing lime manufacturing plant would be 0.12 pounds ( lb) PM per ton ( 0.06 kilogram ( kg) per Mg) of stone feed. The PM emission limit for all of the kilns and lime coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant would be 0.10 lb/ ton of stone feed. These emission limits would apply to the combined emissions of all the kilns and coolers ( assuming the cooler( s) has a separate exhaust vent to the atmosphere) at the lime manufacturing plant. In other words, the sum of the PM emission rates from all of the kilns and coolers at the existing lime manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the production rates of the kilns at the existing lime manufacturing plant, would be used to determine compliance with the emission limit for kilns and coolers at an existing lime manufacturing plant. Similarly, the sum of the PM emission rates from all of the kilns and coolers, divided by the sum of the production of the kilns at a new plant, would be used to determine compliance with the emission limit for kilns and coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant. Emissions from MPO that are vented through a stack would be subject to a standard of 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter ( g/ dscm) and 7 percent opacity. Stack emissions from MPO that are controlled by wet scrubbers would be subject to the 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter PM limit but not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive emissions from MPO would be subject to a 10 percent opacity limit. We are proposing that for each building enclosing any materials processing operation, each of the affected MPO in the building would have to comply individually with the applicable PM and opacity emission limitations discussed above. Otherwise, we propose that there must be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and the building's vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter and 7 percent opacity. We are proposing that for each fabric filter ( FF) that controls emissions from only an individual, enclosed storage bin, the opacity emissions must not exceed 7 percent. For each set of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions, emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter and 7 percent opacity. 2. Operating Limits For lime kilns that use a wet scrubber PM control device, you would be required to maintain the 3­ hour rolling average gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the 3­ hour rolling average scrubber liquid flow rate equal to or above the levels for the parameters that were established during the PM performance test. For lime kilns that use a FF PM control device, you would be required to maintain and operate the FF such that the bag leak detection system ( BLDS) alarm is not activated and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the operating time in each 6­ month period. The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter ( 0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. For lime kilns that use an electrostatic precipitator ( ESP) PM control device, you would be required to maintain the 3­ hour rolling average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP equal to or above the operating limits for these parameters that were established during the PM performance test. In lieu of complying with these ESP operating parameters, we are giving sources the option of monitoring PM levels with a PM detector in a manner similar to the procedures for monitoring PM from a FF using a BLDS. You would need to maintain and operate the ESP such that the PM detector alarm is not activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the operating time in each 6­ month period. In lieu of using a bag leak detector, PM detector, or monitoring ESP operating parameters for lime kilns with a FF or ESP control device, we are providing the option of monitoring opacity ( as an operating limit) with a continuous opacity monitoring system ( COMS). Sources that choose to use a COMS would be required to install and operate the COMS in accordance with Performance Specification 1 ( PS 1), 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, and maintain the opacity level of the lime kiln exhaust at or below 15 percent for each 6­ minute block period. For MPO subject to a PM emission limit and controlled by a wet scrubber, you would be required to collect and record the exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubber liquid flow rate during the PM performance test. You would be required to maintain the 3­ hour rolling average gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the 3­ hour rolling average scrubber liquid flow rate equal to or above the levels for the parameters that were established during the PM performance test. You would be required to prepare a written operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan to cover all affected emission units. The plan would include procedures for proper operation and maintenance of each emission unit and its air pollution control device( s); procedures for monitoring and proper operation of monitoring systems in order to meet the emission limits and operating limits; and standard procedures for the use of a BLDS and PM detector, and any corrective actions to be taken when operating limits are deviated from, or when required in using a PM detector or BLDS. E. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule? The compliance date for existing lime manufacturing plants would be [ Date 3 years from the date a final rule is published in the Federal Register]. ( Three years may be needed to install new, or retrofit existing, air pollution control equipment.) The date the final rule is published in the Federal Register is called the effective date of the rule. We are proposing that emission units at a new lime manufacturing plant ( i. e., emission units for which construction or reconstruction commences after today's date) must be in compliance upon initial startup or the effective date of the rule, whichever is later. F. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With the Proposed Rule? 1. Kiln and Coolers For the kiln and cooler PM emission limit, we are proposing that you must conduct a PM emissions test on the exhaust of each kiln at the lime manufacturing plant and measure the stone feed rate to each kiln during the test. The sum of the emissions from all the kilns at the existing lime manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the average stone feed rates to each kiln at the existing lime manufacturing plant, must not exceed the emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ ton VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78051 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules stone feed; similarly, the sum of the emissions from all the kilns at a new lime manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the average stone feed rates to each kiln at the new lime manufacturing plant, must not exceed the emission limit of 0.10 lb PM/ ton stone feed. If you have a lime cooler( s) that has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere, you would be required to conduct a PM test on the cooler's exhaust concurrently with the kiln PM test. Then the sum of the emissions from all the kilns and coolers at the existing lime manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the average stone feed rates to each kiln at the existing plant, must not exceed the emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ ton stone feed ( or 0.10 lb/ ton of stone feed for kilns/ coolers at new lime manufacturing plants). For kilns with an ESP or wet scrubber, you would be required to collect and record the applicable operating parameters during the PM performance test and then establish the operating limits based on those data. 2. Materials Processing Operations For the MPO with stacks and subject to PM emission limits, you would be required to conduct a PM emissions test on each stack exhaust, and the stack emissions must not exceed the emission limit of 0.05 g/ dscm. For the MPO with stack opacity limits, you would be required to conduct a 3­ hour Method 9 test on the exhaust, and each of the 30 consecutive, 6­ minute opacity averages must not exceed 7 percent. The MPO that are controlled by wet scrubbers would not have an opacity limit, but you would be required to collect and record the wet scrubber operating parameters during the PM performance test and then establish the applicable operating limits based on those data. For MPO with fugitive emissions, you would be required to conduct a Method 9 test, and each of the consecutive 6­ minute opacity averages must not exceed the applicable opacity limit. These Method 9 tests are for 3 hours, but the test duration may be reduced to 1 hour if certain criteria are met. Lastly, Method 9 tests or visible emissions checks may be performed on MPO inside of buildings, but additional lighting, improved access to equipment, and temporary installation of contrasting backgrounds may be needed. For additional guidance, see page 116 from the `` Regulatory and Inspection Manual for Nonmetallic Minerals Processing Plants,'' EPA report 305 B 97 008, November 1997. G. How Do I Continuously or Periodically Demonstrate Compliance With the Proposed Rule? 1. General You would be required to install, operate, and maintain each required continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) such that the CPMS completes a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15­ minute period. The CPMS would be required to have valid data from at least three of four equally spaced data values for that hour from a CPMS that is not out of control according to your operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. To calculate the average for each 3­ hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the hourly averages for that period using only hourly average values that are based on valid data ( i. e., not from out­ of­ control periods). The 3­ hour rolling average value for each operating parameter would be calculated as the average of each set of three successive 1­ hour average values. The 3­ hour rolling average would be updated each hour. Thus the 3­ hour average rolls at 1­ hour increments, i. e., once a 1­ hour average has been determined based on at least four successive available 15­ minute averages, a new 1­ hour average would be determined based on the next four successive available 15­ minute averages. You would be required to develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) according to the general provisions in 40 CFR 63.6( e)( 3). 2. Kilns and Coolers For kilns controlled by a wet scrubber, you would be required to maintain the 3­ hour rolling average of the exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the most recent PM performance test. You would be required to also maintain the 3­ hour rolling average of the scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the most recent performance test. For kilns controlled by an ESP, if you choose to monitor ESP operating parameters rather than use a PM detector or a COMS, you would be required to maintain the 3­ hour rolling average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP greater than or equal to the average current and voltage input to each field of the ESP established during the most recent performance test. Sources opting to monitor PM emissions from an ESP with a PM detector in lieu of monitoring ESP parameters or opacity would be required to maintain and operate the ESP such that the PM detector alarm is not activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the operating time in a 6­ month period. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions ( per the operations and maintenance plan) within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted. If inspection of the ESP demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time will be counted. The sensor on the PM detection system would provide an output of relative PM emissions. The PM detection system would have an alarm that would sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. The PM detection systems would be required to be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. For kilns and lime coolers ( if the cooler has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere) controlled by a FF and monitored with a BLDS, you would be required to maintain and operate the FF such that the BLDS alarm is not activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the operating time in a 6­ month period. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions ( per the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan) within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted. If inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time will be counted. The sensor on the BLDS would be required to provide an output of relative PM emissions. The BLDS would be required to have an alarm that will sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. The BLDS would be required to be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures for the BLDS and PM detection systems would need to be incorporated into the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. We recommend that for electrodynamic ( or other similar technology) BLDS, the standard operating procedures include concepts from EPA's `` Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' ( EPA 454/ R 98 015, September 1997). This VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78052 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules document may be found on the world wide web at www. epa. gov/ ttn/ emc. For kilns and lime coolers monitored with a COMS, you would be required to maintain each 6­ minute block average opacity level at or below 15 percent opacity. The COMS must be installed and operated in accordance with Performance Specification 1 ( PS 1), 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B. 3. Materials Processing Operations For stack emissions from MPO which are controlled by a wet scrubber, you would be required to maintain the 3­ hour rolling average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the most recent PM performance test. You would be required to also maintain the 3­ hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the most recent performance test. For MPO subject to opacity limitations and which do not use a wet scrubber control device, you would be required to periodically demonstrate compliance as follows. You would be required to conduct a monthly 1­ minute visible emissions check of each emissions unit under the affected source definition. If no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly tests for any emission unit, you may decrease the frequency of testing from monthly to semiannually for that emissions unit. If visible emissions are observed during any semiannual test, you would be required to resume testing of that emissions unit on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly tests. If no visible emissions are observed during the semiannual test for any emissions unit, you may decrease the frequency of testing from semiannually to annually for that emissions unit. If visible emissions are observed during any annual test, you would be required to resume visible emissions testing of that emissions unit on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly tests. If visible emissions are observed during any visible emissions check, you would be required to conduct a 6­ minute test of opacity in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 test would be required to begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible emissions, and the 6­ minute opacity reading would be required to not exceed the applicable opacity limit. We request comment on using more frequent visible emissions checks for MPO, such as going from monthly to quarterly, and then continuing with semiannual checks. H. How Do I Determine if My Lime Manufacturing Plant Is a Major Source and Thus Subject to the Proposed Rule? The proposed rule would apply to lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co­ located with major sources, or are part of major sources. Each lime facility owner/ operator would need to determine whether its plant is a major or area source, since this determines whether the lime manufacturing plant would be an affected source under the proposed rule. Section 112 of the CAA defines a major source as a `` 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/ yr or more of any HAP or 25 tons/ yr or more of any combination of HAP.'' This definition may be interpreted to imply that the CAA requires an estimate of the facility's potential to emit all HAP from all emission sources in making a determination of whether the source is major or area. However, based on our data analysis, HCl is most likely the HAP that would account for the largest quantity of HAP emissions from a lime manufacturing plant. Although lime manufacturing plants emit HAP metals from most of the emission units at the plant site and organic HAP from the kiln, our analysis indicates that most likely the metal and organic HAP emissions would each be below the 10/ 25 tons/ yr criteria. One potential approach to estimating HAP metals emissions from a lime manufacturing plant is to require measurement of the PM emissions from all of the emission units at the plant and then allow the use of a ratio ( which we would specify in the final rule) of HAP metals to PM to calculate the metals emissions. We request comment on this approach to estimating HAP metals emissions. And although we are not proposing to require sources to test for all HAP to make a determination of whether the lime manufacturing plant is a major or area source, we do request comment on whether emissions testing of metal and/ or organic HAP should be required for an owner or operator to claim that its lime manufacturing plant is an area source. We are proposing, however, to require that a source measure HCl emissions from the kiln( s) in order for it to claim it is an area source ( provided HCl is emitted at less than 10 tons/ yr). Due to the known problems with EPA Method 26 ( which may have positive biases attributable to chloride salts rather than to HCl, and negative biases due to condensation and removal of HCl on the filter and/ or in the sampling probe), we have decided that Methods 26 and 26A may not be used to measure HCl in the determination whether the source is an area source. We, in fact, adopted this same approach in the final NESHAP for the portland cement industry. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, and 64 FR 31907 and 31920 ( June 14, 1998). In addition, we worked with the American Society of Testing and Materials ( ASTM), in conjunction with the National Lime Association ( NLA), to develop an impinger­ based method for the measurement of HCl based on Method 26 but which includes changes to the method to overcome the aforementioned biases. This ASTM HCl impinger­ based method has been demonstrated on lime kilns and has been designated as ASTM Test Method D 6735 01. We approve of this method, and we propose to allow owners/ operators to use it to measure HCl from lime kilns to determine whether their lime manufacturing plant is a major or area source. But because it is very important to obtain an accurate measurement of HCl emissions, we are proposing to require the paired­ train option under section 11.2.6 of the method, and we are also proposing to require the post­ test analyte spike option under section 11.2.7 of the method. Although we believe these additional quality assurance procedures are critical to obtain an accurate measurement of HCl, we seek comment on the appropriateness of requiring them. We attempted to utilize proposed EPA Method 322 ( based on gas filter correlation infrared spectroscopy) to gather HCl data from lime kilns and encountered technical problems. These problems included inadequate data availability, spike recovery, and response time, which led to our decision in the promulgation of the NESHAP for the portland cement industry to not finalize EPA Method 322. Today, we are affirming that decision and propose that Method 322 may not be used to measure HCl in the determination whether a lime manufacturing plant is an area source. Based on the aforementioned difficulties with Method 26 and proposed Method 322, we propose that the test methods based on fourier transform infrared ( FTIR) spectroscopy, EPA Methods 320 and 321, will be acceptable for measuring HCl from lime kilns if the owner/ operator wishes to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78053 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules claim its lime manufacturing facility is not a major source. These FTIR methods were finalized along with the portland cement industry NESHAP, and this requirement would be consistent with those NESHAP. ( As mentioned above, we are also proposing to allow sources to use ASTM Test Method D 6735 01 for the measurement of HCl to determine whether their lime manufacturing plant is a major or area source.) However, we acknowledge the NLA's concerns about the use of FTIR during the lime kiln test program. In letters the NLA sent to us, they suggested that in light of the alleged problems experienced by our test contractors in using FTIR, we should allow the use of Method 26 for measurement of HCl emissions from lime kilns. However, we do not completely agree with their assessment of the asserted difficulties we experienced with FTIR. Our response to NLA's concerns about FTIR may be found in the docket to the proposed rule. And despite any alleged problems with FTIR, we do not consider them to justify the use of Method 26 until the aforementioned problems with Method 26 can be resolved. III. Rationale for Proposed Rule A. How Did We Determine the Source Category To Regulate? Section 112( c) of the CAA directs the Agency to list each category of major sources that emits one or more of the HAP listed in section 112( b) of the CAA. We published an initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576). `` Lime Manufacturing'' is one of the 174 categories of major sources on the initial list. As defined in our report, `` Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List'' ( EPA 450/ 3 91 030, July 1992), the lime manufacturing source category includes any facility engaged in the production of high calcium lime, dolomitic lime, and dead­ burned dolomite. These are the same applicable lime products as defined in the new source performance standard ( NSPS) for lime manufacturing plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart HH) and in the proposed rule. According to the background document for the initial source category listing, the listing of lime manufacturing as a major source category was based on the Administrator's determination that some lime manufacturing plants would be major sources of chlorine and metal HAP including, but not limited to, compounds of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. In addition, the results of emissions testing we conducted in the development of the proposed rule indicate that many lime manufacturing plants may be major sources of HCl. Hydrogen chloride emissions from these lime kiln tests using EPA Method 320 ranged from 0.007 to 2.0 lbs HCl per ton of lime produced. Assuming an average HCl emission factor of 0.4 lb/ ton, a lime manufacturing plant would only have to produce 50,000 tons of lime per year ( which is a small lime manufacturing plant) for it to be a major source ( for this reason alone). The proposed rule would regulate HAP emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co­ located with major sources, or are part of major sources ( e. g., steel production facilities). One exception to this is that lime manufacturing operations located at pulp and paper mills would not be subject to the proposed rule. Lime manufacturing operations at pulp and paper mills would be subject to the NESHAP for combustion sources at kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp and paper mills. See 66 FR 3180, January 12, 2001. Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar processing plants would also not be subject to the NESHAP. Both the lime product and carbon dioxide in the beet sugar lime kiln exhaust are used in the beet sugar manufacturing process. Beet sugar lime kiln exhaust is typically routed through a series of gas washers to clean the exhaust gas prior to process use. The clean, cooled gas is then added to one or more carbonation units ( which contain a mixture of beet juice, lime, and water) to provide the carbon dioxide necessary for carbonation and precipitation of lime, which purifies the beet sugar juice. Although the carbonation units are part of the sugar manufacturing process, they would provide additional cleaning of the lime kiln exhaust. Beet sugar plants typically operate only seasonally, and our analysis indicates that beet sugar plants are not major sources of HAP. B. How Did We Determine the Affected Source? The proposed rule would define the affected source as the lime manufacturing plant, and would include all of the limestone MPO at a lime manufacturing plant, beginning with the raw material storage bin, and all of the lime kilns and coolers at the lime manufacturing plant. This definition of affected source conforms with the General Provisions 40 CFR 63.2 definition, which essentially states that all emission units at a plant are to be considered as one affected source. A new lime manufacturing plant is defined as the collection of any limestone MPO, beginning with the raw material storage bin, and any lime kiln or cooler for which construction or reconstruction begins after December 20, 2002. Thus, it is possible for an existing lime manufacturing plant and a new lime manufacturing plant to be located at the same site. This definition of new affected source includes the same emission units as the existing affected source, except that the new affected source only includes those emission units for which construction or reconstruction begins after December 20, 2002. The definitions are different because the MACT PM emission limit for kilns and coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant is more stringent than for those at an existing lime manufacturing plant. In general, the emission units which are included in the definition of new or existing affected source were selected based on regulatory history ( e. g., the applicability of NSPS and the information included in the initial source category listing) and to be consistent with other MACT standards ( e. g., the MACT standards for the portland cement industry). Although lime coolers were not among the list of emission units in the background document for the initial source category listing for lime manufacturing, lime coolers would be an emission unit under the definition of affected source in the proposed rule. All lime coolers are integrated with their associated kiln such that most coolers vent all of their exhaust ( if there is an exhaust stream) to the kiln, although a few lime coolers ( e. g., grate coolers) also vent a portion of their exhaust separately to the atmosphere. The specific MPO which are included in the affected source definition include the following emission units: all of the grinding mills, raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors, beginning with the raw material storage bin and up to the kiln. We define MPO to include these emission units under the proposed subpart because these units are also subject to the NSPS for Nonmetallic Minerals Processing Plants ( referred to in this preamble as the NSPS subpart OOO). We specifically solicit comment on whether raw material storage piles should be included in the affected source definition. In today's proposed rule, the first emission unit in the sequence of MPO which is included in the definition of affected source would be the raw VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78054 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules material storage bin. Furthermore, the first conveyor transfer point included under the affected source definition would be the transfer point associated with the conveyor transferring material from the raw material storage bin. This demarcation in the sequence of MPO which defines the first emission unit under the affected source definition is consistent with the applicability requirements under the NESHAP for the portland cement industry, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL. The MPO emission units that would be excluded from the affected source definition are described as follows. Any MPO which precedes the raw material storage bin, such as those in quarry or mine operations, is not included in the definition of affected source. Any operations that process only lime product, lime kiln dust, or fuel would be excluded from the definition. Truck dumping into any screening operation, feed hopper, or crusher would not be included among the emission units considered under the affected source definition. ( These exclusions are consistent with the NSPS subpart OOO). Finally, lime hydrators would not be included as an emission unit under the affected source definition since all hydrators are controlled by integrated wet scrubbers, which capture the lime PM ( and associated trace metallic HAP) and recycle the scrubber water. Additionally, this is consistent with the NSPS subpart HH, which does not apply to lime hydrators. C. How Did We Determine Which Pollutants To Regulate? The proposed rule would reduce emissions of non­ volatile and semivolatile metal HAP by limiting emissions of PM from the kiln and cooler, and certain MPO emission units. Particulate matter is a surrogate for the non­ volatile and semi­ volatile metal HAP that are always a subset of PM. Controlling PM emissions will control the non­ volatile and semi­ volatile metal HAP, since these compounds are associated with the PM, i. e., they are by definition in the particulate phase ( as opposed to the gaseous form). The available air pollution controls for the particulate HAP metals at lime manufacturing plants are the PM controls used at lime manufacturing plants, i. e., FF, ESP, and wet scrubbers. These at­ the­ stack controls capture nonvolatile and semi­ volatile HAP metals non­ preferentially along with other PM, thus showing why PM is a permissible indicator for these HAP metals. See National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 639. Also, using PM as a surrogate for the HAP metals would reduce the cost of emissions testing and monitoring that would be required to demonstrate compliance with the otherwise numerous standards that would apply to individual HAP metals. In addition, several other NESHAP have been promulgated which use PM as a surrogate for non­ volatile and semivolatile HAP metals for the same reason it is a technically sound surrogate since HAP metals are necessarily contained in PM, are controlled by PM control devices to roughly the same efficiency, and there are significant associated cost savings due to monitoring for one parameter instead of many. The proposed rule would limit opacity or visible emissions from certain MPO emission units. Opacity serves as a surrogate for the non­ volatile and semi­ volatile HAP metals. Opacity is indicative of PM emission levels and, thus, for the same reasons that PM is a surrogate for the particulate HAP metals, opacity would also be a surrogate for the PM HAP metals. Further, opacity levels are reduced by reducing PM emissions, which would also reduce the metal HAP in the particulate phase, i. e., the non­ volatile and semi­ volatile HAP. We are proposing not to regulate HCl emissions from lime kilns. Under the authority of section 112( d)( 4) of the CAA, we have determined that no further control is necessary because HCl is a `` health threshold pollutant,'' and HCl levels emitted from lime kilns are below the threshold value within an ample margin of safety. The following explains the statutory basis for considering health thresholds when establishing standards, and the basis for today's proposed decision, including a discussion of the risk assessment conducted to support the ample margin of safety decision. Section 112 of the CAA includes exceptions to the general statutory requirement to establish emission standards based on MACT. Of relevance here, section 112( d)( 4) allows us to develop risk­ based standards for HAP `` for which a health threshold has been established'' provided that the standards achieve an `` ample margin of safety.'' Therefore, we believe we have the discretion under section 112( d)( 4) to develop standards which may be less stringent than the corresponding floorbased MACT standards for some categories emitting threshold pollutants. In deciding standards for this source category, we seek to assure that emissions from every source in the category result in exposures less than the threshold level even for an individual exposed at the upper end of the exposure distribution. The upper end of the exposure distribution is calculated using the `` high end exposure estimate,'' defined as a plausible estimate of individual exposure for those persons at the upper end of the exposure distribution, conceptually above the 90th percentile, but not higher than the individual in the population who has the highest exposure. We believe that assuring protection to persons at the upper end of the exposure distribution is consistent with the `` ample margin of safety'' requirement in section 112( d)( 4). We emphasize that the use of section 112( d)( 4) authority is wholly discretionary. As the legislative history indicates, cases may arise in which other considerations dictate that we should not invoke this authority to establish less stringent standards, despite the existence of a health effects threshold that is not jeopardized. For instance, we do not anticipate that we would set less stringent standards where evidence indicates a threat of significant or widespread environmental effects taking into consideration cost, energy safety and other relevant factors, although it may be shown that emissions from a particular source category do not approach or exceed a level requisite to protect public health with an ample margin of safety. We may also elect not to set less stringent standards where the estimated health threshold for a contaminant is subject to large uncertainty. Thus, in considering appropriate uses of our discretionary authority under section 112( d)( 4), we consider other factors in addition to health thresholds, including uncertainty and potential `` adverse environmental effects,'' as that phrase is defined in section 112( a)( 7) of the CAA. We are proposing in today's notice not to develop standards for HCl from lime kilns. This decision is based on the following. First, we consider HCl to be a threshold pollutant. Second, we have defined threshold values in the form of an Inhalation Reference Concentration ( RfC) and acute exposure guideline level ( AEGL). Third, HCl is emitted from lime kilns in quantities that result in human exposure in the ambient air at levels well below the threshold values with an ample margin of safety. Finally, there are no adverse environmental effects associated with HCl. The bases and supporting rationale for these conclusions are as follows. For the purposes of section 112( d)( 4), several factors are considered in our decision on whether a pollutant should be categorized as a health threshold pollutant. These factors include evidence and classification of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78055 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules carcinogenic risk and evidence of noncarcinogenic effects. For a detailed discussion of factors that we consider in deciding whether a pollutant should be categorized as a health threshold pollutant, please see the April 15, 1998 Federal Register document ( 63 FR 18766). In the April 15, 1998 action cited above, we determined that HCl, a Group D pollutant, is a health threshold pollutant for the purpose of section 112( d)( 4) of the CAA ( 63 FR 18753). The NLA conducted a risk assessment to determine whether the emissions of HCl from lime kilns at the current baseline levels resulted in exposures below the threshold values for HCl. We reviewed the risk assessment report prepared by the NLA and believe that it uses a reasonable and conservative methodology, is consistent with EPA methodology and practice, and reaches a reasonable conclusion that current levels of HCl emissions from lime kilns would be well under the threshold level of concern for human receptors. The summary of the NLA's assessment is organized as follows: ( 1) Hazard identification and dose­ response assessment, ( 2) emissions and release information, and ( 3) exposure assessment. It is important to note that the risk assessment methodology applied here by NLA should not be interpreted as a standardized approach that sets a precedent for how EPA will analyze application of section 112( d)( 4) in other cases. The approach presented here, including assumptions and models, was selected to meet the unique needs of this particular case, to provide the appropriate level of detail and margin of safety given the data availability, chemicals, and emissions particular to this category. The RfC is a `` long­ term'' threshold, defined as an estimate of a daily inhalation exposure that, over a lifetime, would not likely result in the occurrence of significant noncancer health effects in humans. We have determined that the RfC for HCl of 20 micrograms per cubic meter ( µ g/ m3) is an appropriate threshold value for assessing risk to humans associated with exposure to HCl through inhalation ( 63 FR 18766, April 15, 1998). Therefore, the NLA used this RfC as the threshold value in their exposure assessment for HCl emitted from lime kilns. In addition to the effects of long­ term inhalation of HCl, the NLA, at our request, also considered thresholds for short­ term exposure to HCl in this assessment. The AEGL toxicity values are estimates of adverse health effects due to a single exposure lasting 8 hours or less. The confidence in the AEGL ( a qualitative rating or either low, medium, or high) is based on the number of studies available and the quality of the data. Consensus toxicity values for effects of acute exposures have been developed by several different organizations, and we are beginning to develop such values. A national advisory committee organized by the EPA has developed AEGL for priority chemicals for 30­ minute, 1­ hour, 4­ hour, and 8­ hour airborne exposures. They have also determined the levels of these chemicals at each exposure duration that will protect against discomfort ( AEGL1), serious effects ( AEGL2), and life­ threatening effects or death ( AEGL3). The NLA used the AEGL1 value as the threshold value for assessing the inhalation health effects of short­ term exposures to HCl. The NLA conducted dispersion modeling for 71 lime plants and nearly 200 lime kilns, representing all operating captive and commercial lime plants in the U. S. that would potentially be subject to the proposed rule. The analyses performed assumed worst case operating scenarios, such as maximum production rate and 24 hours per day, 365 days per year operation. Hydrogen chloride emission rates were based on either measured data or default HCl stack concentrations. For plants having HCl measurement data, only HCl data collected using FTIR were used. For plants where no emissions data were available, the following HCl emission levels were assumed for the analyses: 10 parts per million by volume ( ppmv) for kilns with either scrubbers or preheaters, 18 ppmv for kilns at Riverton Corporation, 26 ppmv for gasfired kilns, and 85 ppmv for all other kilns. ( The Riverton emission level was derived by multiplying its stack test results obtained using EPA Method 26 by a sampling method bias factor of 25. Method 26 may understate actual HCl emissions by a factor of between 2 and 25.) The HCl emission levels were converted to stack emission rates using the stack gas volumetric flow rate. The release characteristics used for the dispersion model included stack height, stack diameter, exit temperature, and exit velocity. Using its own questionnaire, the NLA collected the necessary release information from all 71 plants. The exposure assessment was conducted for HCl emissions from all lime plants in the source category. As discussed above, the emissions data and release characteristics were used as inputs to the assessment. The approach taken by NLA was found to be consistent with the EPA's tiered methodology. ( See the U. S. EPA report `` Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources ( revised)'', report number EPA 454/ R 92 019 ( 1992).) The approach for each of the facilities involved four steps: Step 1 was the modeling of HCl concentrations at the point of maximum concentration, whether occurring onsite or off­ site, using SCREEN3, a screening­ level air dispersion model. Step 2 was the same as Step 1, but modeling was performed at or beyond the fence line. Step 3 was the same as Step 1, but modeling was performed at the nearest off­ site residence or business location. Step 4 was the modeling of HCl concentrations at the nearest residence or business location using the ISC PRIME model. ( ISC PRIME is a steady­ state Gaussian plume model based on the ISC3 dispersion model, with the Plume RIse Model Enhancements ( PRIME) algorithm added for improved treatment of building downwash. The model can account for settling and dry deposition; building downwash; area, line, and volume sources; plume rise as a function of downwind distance; building dimensions and stack placement relative to a building; separation of point sources; and limited terrain adjustment.) Note that each succeeding step involves more refined site­ specific data and less conservative assumptions. The analyses performed under each of the above steps assumed worst case operating scenarios, such as maximum production rate, and in Steps 1 through 3 worst case meteorology. Local terrain and building downwash effects were also considered, and meteorological data were taken from the nearest National Weather Service meteorological station. Maximum one hour averages were converted to annual averages using a conversion factor of 0.08, consistent with EPA recommendations. The NLA generated estimates of both chronic ( annual average) and acute ( onehour concentrations for comparison to the relevant health reference values or threshold levels. Acute and chronic exposures were compared to the AEGL1 of 2,700 µ g/ m3 for one­ hour exposures and the RfC of 20 µ g/ m3 for long­ term continuous exposure, respectively. Noncancer risk assessments typically use a metric called the Hazard Quotient ( HQ) to assess risks of exposures to noncarcinogens. The HQ is the ratio of exposure ( or modeled concentration) to the health reference value or threshold level ( i. e., RfC or AEGL). HQ values less than `` 1'' indicate that exposures are below the health reference value or threshold level and are likely to be VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78056 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules without appreciable risk of adverse effects in the exposed population. HQ values above `` 1'' do not necessarily imply that adverse effects will occur, but that the potential for risk of such effects increases as HQ values exceed `` 1.'' In addition, when information on background levels of pollutants is not available, EPA has in some cases considered a HQ of 0.2 or below to be acceptable. For the NLA assessment, if the HQ was found to be less than 0.5 for any of the first three steps using conservative defaults and modeling assumptions, the analysis concluded with that step. On the other hand, if the HQ exceeded 0.5, work proceeded to subsequent steps. There were no facilities where Step 4 ( i. e., the most refined step) yielded an HQ above 0.5. ( Steps 1, 2, and 3 are considered `` Tier 2'' analyses under EPA's tiered modeling approach, whereas Step 4 is considered a `` Tier 3'' analysis.) To help confirm that NLA's approach was reasonable, we decided to reproduce several of NLA's modeling analyses by performing our own analyses for selected facilities having the highest potential for health risk to the surrounding community. Generally, these were facilities having the highest emission rates or facilities where Tier 3 modeling was performed for actual offsite receptor locations. Fourteen kilns with emission rates greater than 5.0 grams/ second were evaluated using the SCREEN3 air dispersion model. For the analyses, plant­ specific parameters were used for source type, emission rate, stack height, stack inner diameter exit velocity, gas exit temperature, and location ( urban versus rural). Assumptions about flat terrain, meteorology, and building dimensions were made, as appropriate. For plants with multiple stacks, emissions were considered to emanate from one colocated emission point. Then, in order to maintain a conservative approach, the lowest effective stack height parameters were utilized for all emissions. The model was run, and maximum concentrations for distances ranging from 100 to 5,000 meters were obtained. To evaluate acute exposure, the HQ was determined by comparing the maximum concentrations to the HCl acute threshold level of 2,700 µ g/ m3. Maximum concentrations were then converted into annual concentrations, and the HQ was determined by comparing these concentrations to the HCl chronic health reference value of 20 µ g/ m3. We then used the Human Exposure Model ( HEM) to examine seven of the kilns that were modeled by the NLA using ISC PRIME. Concentrations were predicted at geographically­ weighted centers of census blocks. Emissions were assumed to originate from a single stack using the lowest effective stack height reported at each facility. Six of the kilns modeled showed values well below the RfC, the highest having an HQ = 0.11. The seventh indicated an HQ of 0.96. The seventh kiln was re­ simulated using site­ specific emissions and stack data, resulting in an HQ = 0.21. Overall, we believe that the NLA has taken a reasonably conservative approach in estimating risk due to HCl exposure. This approach is consistent with the methodology and assumptions EPA would have used if the study had been done in­ house, and in several instances NLA's approach is even more conservative. Furthermore, EPA conducted a parallel confirmatory analysis and found results consistent with those of the NLA assessment. At this point, it should be noted that the potential for effects depends on an individual's total exposure to that chemical. As a result, exposure from all sources, not just the one in question, must be evaluated. Where possible, other exposures must be accounted for, either explicitly through monitoring or modeling, or by apportioning a portion of the health threshold level available to any individual source. To estimate the potential exposure from other sources, the NLA reviewed the ambient HCl concentration estimates derived by the air component of EPA's Cumulative Exposure Project ( CEP). They found that the mean national HCl concentration corresponded to an HQ of 0.06 and the 95th percentile national HCl concentration corresponded to an HQ of 0.2, and they concluded that background HCl exposures were unlikely to exceed an HQ of 0.2. ( These HQ helped confirm that the total HQ for a facility, including contributions from other sources (`` background''), would not be expected to exceed `` 1.'' However, these background HQ were not actually added into a facility's final HQ estimate. Thus, we are comfortable with NLA's calculations and feel confident that exposures to HCl emissions from the facilities in question are unlikely to ever exceed an HQ of 0.2. Therefore, we believe that the predicted exposures from these facilities should provide an ample margin of safety to ensure that total exposures for nearby residents should not exceed the short­ term or long­ term health based threshold levels or health reference values, even when considering the possible contributions of other sources of HCl or similar respiratory irritants. The standards for emissions must also protect against significant and widespread adverse environmental effects to wildlife, aquatic life, and other natural resources. The NLA did not conduct a formal ecological risk assessment. However, we have reviewed publications in the literature to determine if there would be reasonable expectation for serious or widespread adverse effects to natural resources. We consider the following aspects of pollutant exposure and effects: Toxicity effects from acute and chronic exposures to expected concentrations around the source ( as measured or modeled), persistence in the environment, local and long­ range transport, and tendency for biomagnification with toxic effects manifest at higher trophic levels. No research has been identified for effects on terrestrial animal species beyond that cited in the development of the HCl RfC. Modeling calculations indicate that there is little likelihood of chronic or widespread exposure to HCl at concentrations above the threshold around lime manufacturing plants. Based on these considerations, we believe that the RfC can reasonably be expected to protect against widespread adverse effects in other animal species as well. Plants also respond to airborne HCl levels. Chronic exposure to about 600 µ g/ m3 can be expected to result in discernible effects, depending on the plant species. Plants respond differently to HCl as an anhydrous gas than to HCl aerosols. Relative humidity is important in plant response; there appears to be a threshold of relative humidity above which plants will incur twice as much damage at a given dose. Effects include leaf injury and decrease in chlorophyll levels in various species given acute, 20­ minute exposures of 6,500 to 27,000 µ g/ m3. A field study reports different sensitivity to damage of foliage in 50 species growing in the vicinity of an anhydrous aluminum chloride manufacturer. American elm, bur oak, eastern white pine, basswood, red ash and several bean species were observed to be most sensitive. Concentrations of HCl in the air were not reported. Chloride ion in whole leaves was 0.2 to 0.5 percent of dry weight; sensitive species showed damage at the lower value, but tolerant species displayed no injury at the higher value. Injury declined with distance from the source with no effects observed beyond 300 meters. Maximum modeled long­ term HCl concentrations ( less than 10 µ g/ m3) are well below the 600 µ g/ m3 chronic threshold, and the maximum short­ term HCl concentration ( 540 µ g/ m3) is far VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78057 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules below the 6,500 µ g/ m3 acute exposure threshold. Therefore, no adverse exposure effects are anticipated. Prevailing meteorology strongly determines the fate of HCl in the atmosphere. However, HCl is not considered a strongly persistent pollutant, or one where long range transport is important in predicting its ecological effects. In the atmosphere, HCl can be expected to be absorbed into aqueous aerosols, due to its great affinity for water, and removed from the troposphere by rainfall. In addition, HCl will react with hydroxy ions to yield water plus chloride ions. However, the concentration of hydroxy ions in the troposphere is low, so HCl may have a relatively long residence time in areas of low humidity. No studies are reported of HCl levels in ponds or other small water bodies or soils near major sources of HCl emissions. Toxic effects of HCl to aquatic organisms would likely be due to the hydronium ion, or acidity. Aquatic organisms in their natural environments often exhibit a broad range of pH tolerance. Effects of HCl deposition to small water bodies and to soils will primarily depend on the extent of neutralizing by carbonates or other buffering compounds. Chloride ions are essentially ubiquitous in natural waters and soils so minor increases due to deposition of dissolved HCl will have much less effect than the deposited hydronium ions. Deleterious effects of HCl on ponds and soils, where such effects might be found near a major source emitting to the atmosphere, likely will be local rather than widespread, as observed in plant foliage. Effects of HCl on tissues are generally restricted to those immediately affected and are essentially acidic effects. The rapid solubility of HCl in aqueous media releases hydronium ions, which can be corrosive to tissue when above a threshold concentration. The chloride ions may be concentrated in some plant tissues, but may be distributed throughout the organism, as most organisms have chloride ions in their fluids. Leaves or other tissues exposed to HCl may show some concentration above that of their immediate environment; that is, some degree of bioconcentration can occur. However, long­ term storage in specific organs and biomagnification of concentrations of HCl in trophic levels of a food chain would not be expected. Thus, the chemical nature of HCl results in deleterious effects, that when present, are local rather than widespread. In conclusion, acute and chronic exposures to expected HCl concentrations around the source are not expected to result in adverse toxicity effects. Hydrogen chloride is not persistent in the environment. Effects of HCl on ponds and soils are likely to be local rather than widespread. Finally, HCl is not believed to result in biomagnification or bioaccumulation in the environment. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse ecological effects from HCl. The results of the exposure assessment showed that exposure levels to baseline HCl emissions from lime production facilities are well below the health threshold value. Additionally, the threshold values, for which the RfC and AEGL values were determined to be appropriate values, were not exceeded when considering conservative estimates of exposure resulting from lime kiln emissions as well as considering background exposures to HCl and therefore, represent an ample margin of safety. Furthermore, no significant or widespread adverse environmental effects from HCl is anticipated. Therefore, under authority of section 112( d)( 4), we have determined that further control of HCl emissions from lime manufacturing plants is not necessary. We considered establishing a limit for mercury emissions from lime kilns, but there is no MACT floor for mercury that is, we know of no way to establish an achievable floor standard for mercury beyond selecting an arbitrarily high emission limit that any source could achieve under any circumstance since no source controls mercury emissions using a means of control that can be duplicated by other sources. We also have initially determined that an emission limit for mercury based on a beyond­ the­ MACT­ floor option is not considered cost effective at this time; nor is a beyond­ the­ floor standard justified for mercury after otherwise taking into account cost, non­ air quality environmental and health impacts, and energy considerations. D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Emission Units at Existing Lime Manufacturing Plants? 1. PM From the Kiln and Cooler In establishing the MACT floor, section 112( d)( 3)( A) of the CAA directs us to set standards for existing sources that are no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved in practice by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources ( for which there are emissions data) where there are more than 30 sources in the category or subcategory. Among the possible meanings for the word `` average'' as the term is used in the CAA, we considered two of the most common. First, `` average'' could be interpreted as the arithmetic mean. The arithmetic mean of a set of measurements is the sum of the measurements divided by the number of measurements in the set. The word `` average'' could also be interpreted as the median of the emission limitation values. The median is the value in a set of measurements below and above which there are an equal number of values ( when the measurements are arranged in order of magnitude). This approach identifies the emission limitation achieved by those sources within the top 12 percent, arranges those emissions limitations achieved in order of magnitude, and the control level achieved by, and achievable by, the median source is selected. Either of these two approaches could be used in developing MACT standards for different source categories. We obtained PM data for 47 lime kilns over the course of developing the proposed rule. The most comprehensive body of data, and we believe the one that most accurately approximates the performance achieved by, and achievable by, the average of the best 12 percent of existing sources for which the Agency has emission data, are PM limitations contained in State and local agency permits for these sources. We used the permit limitations for the kilns ( along with the supporting PM emissions data) in our MACT floor analysis because the permit limitations were indicative of the variability in the long­ term performance of the emission controls. We examined multiple sets of PM emissions data obtained from the individual kilns during compliance testing to assure that the permit limitations do not underestimate the pollution control capabilities of these sources ( i. e., that actual performance is not superior to the permit limits, in which case the MACT floor would need to be based on that superior performance; see Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 661 62 ( D. C. Cir. 1999)). Simply taking the average or mean of the lowest 12 percent of the emissions data ( without considering permit limitations, i. e., achievability of the technology over the long­ term) would not account for the inherent variability of performance of well­ designed and operated emission controls, since individual emissions tests are based on short durations of sampling, typically 3 hour tests ( because of the absence of PM continuous emissions monitors) and, thus, we would be required to extrapolate these `` snapshot'' data to ascertain long­ term achievable performance. Additionally, we obtained multiple compliance test data for the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78058 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules top performing kilns ( where available); some of the kilns' data vary over two orders of magnitude and vary up to their permit limit. Further, these multiple data sets indicate that some of these top performing kilns would not be able to meet an emission limit based on a strictly arithmetic average of the top performing kilns' emissions data ( the result being a standard not achieved by the average of the best performing sources, and hence impermissible). We arrayed the data by permit limitation, from lowest to highest, in units of lbs PM/ ton of limestone feed, along with the associated PM emissions test data. The best performing 12 percent of the 47 kilns are the best performing six kilns, with the third and fourth best performing kilns being the median. The six best performing kilns' permit limits for PM are 0.10, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.21, and 0.21 lb/ ton limestone feed and are equipped with either a FF or ESP. The emission test data associated with these kilns indicate that these kilns have indeed achieved the limits in their State permits. The test data for the kilns permitted at or below 0.12 lb PM/ ton limestone vary from 0.0091 to 0.0925 lb PM/ ton limestone. We do not believe that these kilns could consistently achieve standards which are lower than the permit limitation of 0.12 lb PM/ ton limestone level, due to the probable long­ term variability. Therefore, we are proposing a MACT floor PM emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ ton limestone for lime kilns at existing lime plants, using the median approach of the permit limits, which the associated emissions data show to be achievable and show as well to be a reasonable approximation of the achievable performance of the average of the best performing 12 percent of kilns for which we have emissions data, taking into consideration long­ term variability in performance. Most lime coolers ( approximately 96 percent) in the lime manufacturing industry use ambient air for cooling and are integrated with the kiln such that all the cooler exhaust goes directly to the kiln for use as combustion air, or else the cooling of the lime takes place within the kiln itself ( e. g., in vertical kilns). Thus, for 96 percent of the lime kilns, their emissions are actually the kiln and cooler emissions combined. The kiln PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/ ton limestone is based on kiln permit limits and associated emissions data where the kiln and cooler emissions are combined. That is, based on our review of the questionnaire responses, discussions with plant personnel, and State permit information, none of the best performing kilns has a lime cooler with a separate exhaust to the atmosphere. Thus, the kiln PM emission limit applies to the emissions from both the kiln and cooler. For the 96 percent of the kilns with no separate cooler exhaust, this would have no effect; that is, the coolers' emissions are already combined with the kiln prior to venting to the atmosphere. For the few kilns with grate coolers that separately vent a portion of the cooler exhaust to the atmosphere, the sum of the emissions from the kiln( s) and the grate cooler exhaust( s) at the existing lime manufacturing plant would be subject to the kiln and cooler emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ ton limestone feed. With this approach, the emissions from the kiln and cooler are subject to one emission limit, regardless of whether the kiln and cooler emissions are combined prior to release to the atmosphere. This reflects the performance achieved by, and achievable by ( taking operating variability into account), the median of the 12 percent best performing kilns for which the Agency has emissions data. Further, since we have defined the affected source to include all kilns and coolers at a lime manufacturing plant, the kiln and cooler PM emission limit applies to the combined emissions of PM from all of the kilns and coolers at the existing lime manufacturing plant. During the review of a draft of this proposal by the Small Business Advocacy Review ( SBAR) Panel, an issue was raised about the potential for increases in sulfur dioxide ( SO2) and HCl emissions that may occur if sources opt to remove existing PM wet scrubbers and replace them with dry PM control devices ( such as FF or ESP) in order to meet the proposed kiln PM standard. About 20 percent of the lime produced in the U. S. is from kilns equipped with wet scrubbers, and about 90 percent of the wet scrubbers on lime kilns at major source lime plants would not meet the proposed PM limit. And although the proposed rule would not dictate how the lime kiln PM standard would have to be met, and our limited information indicates that one or two lime kilns with wet scrubbers may already meet the proposed PM standard ( this may be because they burn natural gas as their primary fuel source), some sources may elect to upgrade their existing wet scrubber with a new venturi wet scrubber to meet the PM standard, while other existing sources that would not meet the proposed PM emission limit with a wet scrubber may opt to replace the wet scrubber with a FF. But because wet scrubbers are more effective than a FF or ESP at removing SO2 ( and HCl), the SBAR Panel was concerned that the latter approach would result in increases in SO2 emissions from these kilns. Therefore, we request comment on establishing a subcategory because of the potential increase in SO2 and HCl emissions and other negative environmental impacts ( discussed further below) that may result in complying with the proposed PM standard. We note, however, that the risk analysis showed that HCl levels emitted from lime kilns ( including the increased HCl levels from kilns with wet scrubbers that are replaced with FF) are below the threshold value within an ample margin of safety. Although subcategorization normally is based on differences in manufacturing process, emission characteristics, or technical feasibility, and is not justified by the sole fact that a different type of air pollution control equipment is utilized, EPA solicits comment on the possibility of establishing a subcategory for existing lime kilns using wet scrubbers in order to avoid potentially environmentally counterproductive effects due to increased emissions of acid gases and increased water and energy use. ( Such a subcategory would also significantly reduce the cost impact on industry.) In addition, we request comment on what the MACT floor PM limit would be for this possible subcategory. If we based the MACT floor for this possible subcategory on an inspection of the permit limit information available to us, we would initially conclude that a PM emission limit of 0.6 lb PM/ ton limestone feed may be appropriate. We note, however, that in order to use permit limits as a basis for a MACT floor determination, those permit limits must accurately reflect the actual performance of the sources used as the basis for the MACT floor determination ( considering both emission levels and operating variability when designed and operated properly). We, therefore, solicit information both on PM permit limits for wet scrubber equipped kilns and on the actual emissions from those kilns. Lastly, at the recommendation of the SBAR Panel, we specifically request comment on any operational, process, product, or other technical and/ or spatial constraints that would preclude installation of a FF or ESP at an existing lime manufacturing plant. We note, however, that following the SBAR panel, the NLA brought to our attention the fact that if sources replace their wet scrubbers with FF to comply with the kiln PM standard, they would most likely also need to take steps to cool the exhaust gas stream entering the FF, since the operating temperature of a FF may be 400 ° less than a wet scrubber. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78059 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules Cooling the gas stream as such may be done using various techniques, all with varying environmental and cost impacts. In light of this new information presented by NLA, we analyzed the costs of three PM control options available to sources with wet scrubbers that do not currently meet the proposed PM limit. Sources could elect to replace the existing wet scrubber with a new FF and cool the entering exhaust gas stream using either a water spray system or alternatively a kiln preheater. Or sources may elect to replace the existing wet scrubber with a new venturi wet scrubber and thereby avoid the need for gas stream cooling. Based on our review of the technical performance of venturi scrubbers, we believe that a new, high efficiency venturi wet scrubber with a gas stream pressure drop of 35 inches water guage or more could meet the proposed lime kiln PM emission limit. After reviewing the cost impacts of these control options, we chose the venturi wet scrubber as the basis for estimating the proposed rule's impacts ( for kilns with wet scrubbers not meeting the proposed PM limit) because, in general, this option was the least expensive in terms of capital cost and, in some cases, annual cost as well. We request comment on our cost analyses of these control options ( the details of which may be found in the docket) and on our determination to base the impacts estimates of the proposed rule on this venturi scrubber control option. We also acknowledge that the NLA's cost estimates lead them to conclude that it may be less expensive for sources to install a FF with gas stream cooling rather than install new venturi wet scrubbers. In addition, there would be different emission and environmental impacts depending on the control option selected by sources with existing wet scrubbers not meeting the proposed PM limit. For the control option of a wet scrubber being replaced with a new FF, we estimate that national HCl emissions would increase by about 1,000 tons/ yr, and national SO2 emissions would increase by about 15,000 tons/ yr. The NLA commented during the SBAR Panel that the resulting SO2 increases under this option could cause a lime plant to become subject to new source review ( NSR) rule requirements, and the source would, thus, incur additional costs associated with this review. Sources utilizing this control option may or may not be excluded from NSR if it is a pollution control project. Under the current NSR rules and guidance, a net emissions increase of 40 tons/ yr SO2 would trigger NSR even if this increase was due to a pollution control project, unless the control project qualified for a Pollution Control Project Exclusion. The EPA is currently revising the NSR rules. Finally, no change in SO2 or HCl emissions would be expected for sources that replace existing wet scrubbers with new venturi wet scrubbers. With no resultant SO2 emissions increases, it would be unlikely that sources would seek an NSR exclusion. We also acknowledge there would be additional negative environmental impacts if all kilns with wet scrubbers not meeting the proposed PM limit are replaced with new venturi wet scrubbers. These impacts would include an increase in national water consumption by about 4.2 billion gallons per year from current levels, and an increase in electricity consumption by about 7.2 million kilowatt­ hours/ yr. ( Industry estimates that along with this additional electricity consumption, an additional 8,000 tons/ yr of carbon dioxide would be emitted from fossil fuel fired electrical power generating stations.) These increases result from the new venturi wet scrubbers requiring a higher water flow rate and larger fans to handle the increased gas pressure drop. We note, however, that with a higher PM limit for a possible wet scrubber subcategory, national PM emissions from lime kilns would be approximately 1,000 tons/ yr greater than if there were no subcategory. 2. Mercury From the Kiln Mercury emitted from lime kilns originates from the raw materials and fuels fed to the kiln. In considering a potential floor for mercury from these emission units, we considered both atthe stack controls and substitution of feed and fuels as a potential basis for a standard. Since no sources are controlling the mercury emissions from their lime kilns using at­ the­ stack controls, such control cannot be the basis for a floor standard. Switching of raw material feed or fuel is also not a basis for establishing a floor standard because these means of control are not available, leading to unachievable standards. Nor is there any indication that feed or fuel substitution would control mercury emissions from these sources. The reasons for these conclusions are set out below. Substitution of raw materials, i. e., feedstock substitution, is not an available means of control. First, raw materials are proprietary. No kiln can use another's raw materials. Thus, a standard based on feed control is not achievable because it is not even available. No second kiln could duplicate a `` low mercury'' source's performance, even assuming there was a low mercury source of feed material. In addition, we are aware of no data or information indicating that a certain type of limestone or source of limestone has a lower concentration of mercury, and although such deposits may exist, we do not believe such deposits of limestone exist sufficiently throughout the U. S. to supply the industry. Further, assuming there was a widespread source of limestone with a lower level of mercury ( which is highly unlikely), it is unclear that this would lead to lower mercury emissions ( or what the reductions of mercury emissions would be), since mercury emissions from lime kilns also originate from the fuel. A floor standard based on substitution of so­ called clean mercury fossil fuels is likewise not achievable due to unavailability of this means of control. The floor for existing sources would have to be based on either coal or natural gas substitution since there are enough sources using coal or natural gas to constitute a MACT floor for existing kilns. However, there are simply inadequate amounts of `` low mercury'' coal and natural gas available to power this industry. Thus, we see no feasible way for the lime industry to function if it can only use the 6 percent `` cleanest'' fuels to make its product. See H. R. Rep. No. 101 490, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 328 (`` MACT is not intended * * * to drive sources to the brink of shutdown''). Nor do we see any evidence that `` low mercury'' coal exists. Our analysis shows that the average mercury levels for the various coal types bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite coals are nearly the same at around 0.1 part per million by weight. These data show that there is not a certain type of coal that has a lower mercury level. Also, based on the data in the EPA Utility Study and Report to Congress, emissions of other HAP metals would or could increase if coal or oil were to be substituted to try and achieve lower mercury emissions. These data indicate that levels of HAP metals in coal are so variable that decreases in emissions of one HAP metal are offset by increases in others when different coals are used as fuel. These data also show that if fuel oil is substituted for coal, nickel emissions will increase because fuel oil typically contains more nickel than coal. Thus, based on these data, we believe that fuel switching among coal and oil is not an effective means of controlling HAP metal emissions ( including mercury), even if this were an available means of control. For new as well as existing kilns, we considered basing the floor for mercury VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78060 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules on the use of natural gas, although the few mercury emissions data we have cannot allow us to definitively state what effect fuel type has on emissions. However, we do not regard natural gas fuel substitution as an available technology for new sources. Natural gas is not readily available throughout the U. S., i. e., the infrastructure for its delivery ( pipelines, pumping stations, etc.) is not available for all locations where lime manufacturing plants exist and is not expected to be economically available to build such infrastructure throughout the U. S. Although U. S. natural gas reserves may be considered plentiful, the gas still needs to be extracted through drilling and the construction of wells. Thus, for plants located far from a natural gas pipeline, natural gas is not a reasonable alternative. Additionally, although the infrastructure ( pipelines, wells, storage facilities) can be built, the delivery capacity will likely not be available to accommodate a fuel switch to natural gas within the time frame by which new kilns would have to comply. We note further that the amounts of mercury emitted by these kilns is small, roughly one pound per plant per year. Although the floor provisions of the CAA do not provide a de minimis exception to establishing floors, see National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 640, the small amounts of mercury emitted reinforce the Agency's technical determinations that control via substitutions of feed or fuel are neither feasible nor likely to be effective since random variability in these feed and fuels will likely result in equal amounts of mercury being emitted in any case. Indeed, it is the Agency's view that not even a single source could reliably duplicate its own performance for mercury due to the small amounts emitted and the random variability of fuels and feed. 3. PM and Opacity From MPO There are numerous types of MPO such as grinding mills, storage bins, conveying systems ( such as bucket elevators and belt conveyors), transfer points, and screening operations at each lime manufacturing plant. We investigated whether there were any MPO subject to standards more stringent than the NSPS subpart OOO, or otherwise performing with consistently lower emissions than required by the NSPS ( i. e., performing at a lower level without being subject to a regulatory limit), that would serve as a basis for a MACT floor. To this end, we reviewed the applicable requirements for lime manufacturing plants located in nonattainment areas for PM10 ( particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns), since presumably these areas of the U. S. would be the most likely to have more stringent PM emission limitations. We found seven lime manufacturing plants located in PM10 nonattainment areas. The information available to us on these plants indicated that no MPO were subject to standards more stringent than the NSPS subpart OOO or otherwise performing better. We believe that the NSPS subpart OOO standards reasonably reflect the level of performance achieved by, and achievable by, the average of the best performing 12 percent of sources. The basis for the MACT floor for these emission units is the NSPS subpart OOO as it has been applied to lime manufacturing plants, which serves as a reasonable measure of the performance of the average of the best performing sources. The NSPS subpart OOO sets PM, opacity, and visible emission limits for limestone MPO that were constructed, reconstructed, or modified after August 31, 1983. We investigated whether enough of these MPO are located at lime manufacturing plants subject to the NSPS subpart OOO to make a MACT floor determination. Using the median approach to determining MACT floors, at least 6 percent would need to be subject to the NSPS subpart OOO. In one approach to estimating the number of MPO at lime manufacturing plants that are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, we estimate that there are 104 lime manufacturing plants in the U. S., and that at least seven of these were built after August 31, 1983. All of the MPO associated with these new, greenfield lime manufacturing plants that were built after August 31, 1983, would be subject to the NSPS subpart OOO. Therefore, at least 6.7 percent ( 7/ 104) of the MPO are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, enough for the NSPS subpart OOO to serve as a basis for the MACT floor. In another approach to estimating the percentage of lime manufacturing plant MPO that are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, our information shows that at least 31 lime kilns were constructed after August 31, 1983, out of a total of about 257 lime kilns in the U. S. Assuming that the MPO associated with these new lime kilns are also new, we estimate that 12.1 percent ( 31/ 257) of the MPO are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO. Thus, with either approach to estimating the number of MPO at lime manufacturing plants that are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, there are enough to support a MACT floor determination. Therefore, the MACT floor for MPO is equivalent to the NSPS subpart OOO. E. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Emission Units at New Lime Manufacturing Plants? The CAA requires the MACT floor for new sources to be based on the degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best­ controlled similar source. For HAP metals emissions from MPO at new lime manufacturing plants, the floor is the NSPS subpart OOO ( the same as for MPO at existing lime manufacturing plants). As discussed previously, we investigated whether there were any MPO subject to standards more stringent than the NSPS subpart OOO, or were emitting at lower rates without being subject to some type of regulatory standards, that would serve as a basis for MACT for new sources. The information available to us indicates that no MPO are subject to standards more stringent than the NSPS subpart OOO or otherwise performing better. Therefore, the floor is the NSPS subpart OOO. For HAP metals emissions from kilns and coolers, the floor for those at new lime manufacturing plants is defined by the permit limits and emissions data for PM, where PM is a surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals. As previously described in this preamble, the MACT floor PM emission limit for lime kilns and coolers at existing lime manufacturing plants would be 0.12 lb PM/ ton limestone. This determination was based on the median approach, i. e., on the third best kiln permit limit of 0.12 lb PM/ ton limestone. For kilns at new lime manufacturing plants, MACT is based on the best controlled similar source, which is the kiln permitted at the lowest emission limit ( i. e., 0.10 lb PM/ ton limestone). Test data for this kiln indicated that the emission level was 0.0925 lb PM/ ton, demonstrating that this permit limit is indeed achievable, and that the permit level reasonably approximates the level of performance that is consistently achievable by this kiln ( so that a lower floor level would not be technically justified). Therefore, the emission limit for kilns and coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant is 0.10 lb/ ton stone feed. As with the existing sources, this emission limit applies to the combined emissions from all of the kilns and coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant. As previously described and for the same reasons that there is no MACT floor for mercury for kilns at existing lime manufacturing plants, and the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78061 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules beyond­ the­ MACT­ floor options considered for kilns at existing lime manufacturing plants are not justified, there is no MACT for mercury for kilns at new sources. F. What Control Options Beyond the MACT Floor Did We Consider? Raw material feed or fuel switching may be considered potential beyondthe floor options for mercury, but as previously stated, no data or information is available indicating that a certain type of limestone or source of limestone has a lower concentration of mercury or is generally available throughout the country. In addition, even if deposits of limestone with low levels of mercury were to be found, it is unlikely that the limestone would be in close proximity to the majority of lime manufacturing plants in the U. S. and, thus, the cost of transporting the limestone to lime manufacturing plants would be prohibitively expensive. ( There would also be increased energy use associated with this option in the form of increased fuel use to transport raw materials.) Most, if not all, lime manufacturing plants are sited and located adjacent to or in close proximity to their source of limestone ( usually a quarry or mine) to avoid the high cost of transporting the material. Regarding fuel switching as a possible mercury MACT floor or beyond­ the­ MACT­ floor option for existing or new kilns, using a fuel with a lower level of mercury, such as natural gas ( instead of coal), may result in lower lime kiln mercury emissions. However, there are no data available to quantify what the emissions reductions would be since our analysis indicates that most mercury emissions originate from the limestone feed material ( compared with coal), and so the emissions reductions that would be achieved via switching from coal to natural gas are uncertain. Further, as explained above, natural gas is not readily available throughout the U. S. ( i. e., the infrastructure for its delivery ( pipelines, pumping stations, etc.)), is not available for all locations where lime manufacturing plants exist, and is not expected to be economically available to build such infrastructure throughout the U. S. We considered another beyond­ the­ MACT­ floor option based on activated carbon injection a mercury control technology currently used on various types of waste combustors. However, based on the already relatively low levels of mercury emissions from lime kilns, we expect that relatively low emissions reductions would be achieved from this technology. ( Use of activated carbon injection also generates a mercury­ bearing waste stream to be disposed of.) The few mercury emissions data available ( four data points) range from 0.7 to 2.5 micrograms/ dry standard cubic meter ( referenced to 7 percent oxygen). These uncontrolled levels are 10 to 100 times lower than the mercury emission standards established for various types of waste combustors and translate to an average annual emission rate of approximately 1 lb/ year per lime kiln. Thus, this beyond­ the­ floor­ control option would not be cost­ effective because of the low emissions reductions expected and the high cost of control. Further, use of activated carbon generates an additional waste to be disposed of, and there are increases in energy use associated with the technology. After considering cost, energy, and non­ air human health and environmental impacts, our initial conclusion is that basing beyond­ thefloor standards for mercury on use of activated carbon is not warranted. For HAP metal ( PM) emissions from the kiln and MPO, no technologies were identified that would perform better than the technologies representative of the MACT floors that were determined. Raw material feed or fuel switching is not a beyond­ the­ MACT­ floor option for PM control from lime kilns, for reasons similar as to why it is not an option for mercury control. Regarding feed material switching, no data or information is available indicating that using a certain type or source of limestone would have a lower HAP metals content or would lead to reduced PM emissions. We do not believe that such deposits of limestone exist or that use of a certain type of limestone would consistently result in lower PM or metals emissions. Further, assuming there was a widespread source of limestone with a lower HAP metals content ( which is highly unlikely), it is unclear that this would lead to lower HAP metals emissions ( or what the reductions of the HAP metals emissions would be) since HAP metals emissions from lime kilns would also originate from the fuel. In addition, even if deposits of limestone with low levels of HAP metals or a lower PM­ producing limestone were to be found, the cost of transporting the limestone to lime manufacturing plants would be prohibitively expensive. In addition, as noted earlier, there would be increased energy usage associated with the transport of large amounts of raw materials. Regarding fuel switching as a possible beyond­ the­ MACT­ floor option for HAP metals, using a fuel with a lower level of metals, such a natural gas ( compared to coal), may result in lower lime kiln metals emissions. However, there are insufficient data available to quantify what the emissions reductions would be, since as we described above, lime kiln metals emissions also originate from the limestone feed material. Further, natural gas is not readily available throughout the U. S. ( i. e., the infrastructure for its delivery ( pipelines, pumping stations, etc.)) and may not be available for all locations where lime manufacturing plants exist. Further, the cost of using natural gas may be prohibitively expensive as the cost of natural gas continues to rise as the growing demand for it rises as well. We do not regard this as an available means of control for this source category. See also the discussion above as to why the use of natural gas is not a viable control option for mercury; this rationale also applies to the use of natural gas as a beyond­ the­ floor option for PM and non­ mercury HAP metals. Consequently, we are not proposing any beyond­ the­ floor standard for HAP metal control based on requiring the use of natural gas rather than other fossil fuels. Therefore, the Agency is proposing that the floor standard for mercury reflect no existing reduction and after considering the factors set out in CAA section 112 ( d)( 2), that no beyond­ thefloor alternatives are achievable. G. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule? The formats selected for the proposed emission limits vary according to the emission source, pollutant, and the MACT basis for the limits. The formats selected include a production­ based emission limit, pollutant concentration limits, and opacity limits. For the kiln PM standard, the `` lb PM/ ton limestone'' format was selected to be consistent with the NSPS for lime manufacturing plants, 40 CFR 60, subpart HH. This format also encourages kiln energy efficiency. A more energy efficient kiln emits less exhaust gas per ton of limestone processed, which results in a higher gas concentration of PM compared to a less energy efficient kiln for the same amount of lime produced and PM emitted. A concentration format ( e. g., grains PM/ dry standard cubic foot) would penalize more energy efficient kilns. For the PM and opacity standards for MPO, a concentration format for PM and the opacity limit requirements were selected to be consistent with the NSPS for nonmetallic minerals processing, 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78062 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules H. How Did We Select the Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements for Determining Compliance With the Proposed Rule? 1. PM From the Kiln and Cooler Today's proposed rule would require you to conduct a PM performance test and concurrently measure the stone feed rate to the kiln during the test. If you operate a lime cooler associated with the kiln being tested that has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere, you would be required to conduct a Method 5 ( 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 3) test on the cooler's exhaust concurrently with the kiln Method 5 test. Method 5 is the long­ standing EPA method for measuring PM emissions from stationary sources. For each kiln with an ESP, if you choose to monitor ESP operating parameters in lieu of using a PM detector or a COMS, you would be required to collect and record the input voltage and current to each electrical field of the ESP during the PM performance test, and then determine the 3­ hour operating limit for each parameter for each electrical field based on these data. We expect that most lime manufacturing plants with ESP already monitor the electrical current and voltage, which provides an indication of the ESP performance and consequently PM emissions as well. For continuous compliance demonstrations, you would be required to maintain the 3­ hour rolling average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP greater than or equal to the average current and voltage input to each field of the ESP as established during the performance test. You would be required to collect and reduce the data as previously described. A 3­ hour rolling average was selected to be consistent with the usual 3­ hour time required for the PM test ( three test runs of at least 1 hour). You would also have the option of monitoring PM emissions from an ESP with a PM detector, in lieu of monitoring ESP parameters. Sources may determine that this would allow them greater operational flexibility. These devices would be similar to the BLDS for FF, which are discussed below, but they are based on light scattering technology ( and not the triboelectric technology). For each kiln with a wet scrubber, you would be required to collect and record the exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubber liquid flow rate during the PM performance test, and then establish the 3­ hour operating limit for each of these parameters based on the data. Pressure drop and flow rate are the scrubber operating parameters most often monitored and provide an indication of the scrubber's performance and consequently PM emissions as well. For continuous compliance demonstrations, you would be required to maintain the 3­ hour rolling average pressure drop and flow rate greater than or equal to the operating limit established for these parameters during the performance test. You would be required to collect and reduce the data as previously described. For kilns and lime coolers ( if the cooler has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere) controlled by a FF, if you choose not to use a COMS, you would be required to install a BLDS. These systems are usually based on either triboelectric, electrodynamic, or light scattering technology and provide an indication of relative changes in particle mass loading. Leaks in filter bags or similar failures can be detected early enough to warn if additional inspection and preventative maintenance are needed to avoid major FF failures and excessive emissions. When the system detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level, an alarm sounds automatically. The FF would be required to then be inspected to determine if corrective action is necessary. We believe that the monitoring of PM via BLDS is more appropriate, i. e., a better technique, than monitoring FF operating parameters such as pressure drop. Some other MACT standards require the use of these types of monitors. It should be noted that BLDS would also be required on positive pressure FF, which typically have multiple stacks. We specifically seek comment on the feasibility, practicality, and cost of using BLDS for these types of FF; and on alternative monitoring options for positive pressure FF that will provide a continuous indication of a kiln or cooler's compliance status with regard to PM. We also seek comment on whether EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 4 ( manual observation of opacity) should be allowed in lieu of BLDS for positive pressure FF. We are soliciting comment on requiring the application of PM continuous emission monitoring systems ( CEMS) as a method to assure continuous compliance with the proposed PM emission limits for lime kilns and coolers. Specifically, we are soliciting comment on the cost of PM CEMS, and the relation of a PM CEMS requirement to the PM emission limits that are proposed today. This includes the level and averaging time of a CEMSbased PM emission limit, the methodology for deriving the limit from the available data for lime kilns, and any additional emissions reductions that could be expected as a result of using a PM CEMS. We have continued to learn about the capabilities and performance of PM CEMS through performing and witnessing field evaluations and through discussions with our European counterparts. We believe there is sound evidence that PM CEMS should work on lime kilns. See the revisions we made to the performance specification for PM CEMS ( Performance Specification 11 ( PS 11), 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and Procedure 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix F) at 66 FR 64176, December 12, 2001. During the review of a draft of the proposed rule by the SBAR Panel, small entity representatives and some Panel members requested that we consider allowing COMS in lieu of requiring BLDS and other monitoring requirements for PM. The proposed rule would allow the use of COMS as an alternative to BLDS, PM detectors, or the monitoring of ESP operating parameters. However, we request summary data on lime kiln opacity levels measured with a COMS, and we request information on the applicability, advantages, and disadvantages of using COMS and BLDS ( such as each method's sensitivity or lack of sensitivity, availability and quality of promulgated or approved specifications and procedures to verify initial performance, potential interferences or other quality assurance problems, inapplicability to certain APCD designs or configurations, cost, and precision and accuracy relative to the operating system to be monitored and the standards to be proposed). The proposed rule would allow sources with FF or ESP to comply with a 15 percent opacity operating limit, as an alternative to using a BLDS, a PM detector, or the use of ESP operating parameters. We request comment on using a COMS to monitor opacity as an emission limit ( which would act as a surrogate for HAP metals emissions), rather than as an operating limit, and what an appropriate MACT floor opacity limit would be. The range of opacity levels under consideration as the MACT floor opacity limit for lime kilns would be between 10 and 15 percent. Sensitivity for COMS is dependent on the path length that the light beam measures; the longer the path length, the more sensitive the measurement. Performance Specification 1 ( PS 1), 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, gives the performance criteria for COMS used to measure opacity for opacity limitation standards VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78063 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules but we recognize that there are potential measurement errors associated with monitoring opacity in stacks, especially for emission units subject to opacity limits less than 10 percent. The uncertainties in measurement accuracy result from the following: ( 1) The unavailability of calibration attenuators for opacity levels below 6 percent; ( 2) the error associated with the calibration error allowances, the zero and upscale drift specifications, the mandatory drift adjustment levels, and the imprecision associated with the allowed compensation for dirt accumulation; and ( 3) the minimum full scale range of 80 percent required of COMS in PS 1. Because of these aforementioned limitations, COMS are generally considered good `` catastrophic'' control equipment indicators using opacity generally above levels greater than 10 percent opacity. A 15 percent opacity level is the opacity limit under the NSPS for lime kilns ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart HH) and based on a preliminary analysis, may also be the median opacity permit limit for the six top performing lime kilns. In addition, the NLA provided information indicating that the opacity level of one of the top performing lime kilns ( in terms of PM emissions and permit limit) often varies between 10 and 15 percent. Finally, we acknowledge that other MACT standards, such as the Petroleum Refinery MACT ( 67 FR 17761) and the Secondary Aluminum MACT ( 65 FR 15690), have allowed the use of COMS. In the Petroleum Refinery MACT, the rule allows sources the option to comply with the NSPS ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart J) emission limitations ( which includes various opacity limits for certain emission units) in order to comply with the MACT standard. Another approach to using a COMS that was raised by some SBAR Panel members was to use it in a way similar to how a BLDS would be used to indicate the need for inspection and maintenance of the PM control device. Under this approach, we would specify a time period over which a significant increase in opacity level would trigger inspection of the PM control device for leaks or other malfunctions and maintenance ( if needed). We recognize that the COMS currently being used in the lime manufacturing industry have a potential for error at opacities below 10 percent, and that the relevant range of opacities for the aforementioned application would be below 10 percent. If COMS were allowed under the final rule, we would prefer to set an opacity limit because of the COMS' ability to directly measure opacity, instead of using the COMS in the aforementioned way ( i. e., similar to how a BLDS would be used). However, we solicit comment on this option, specifically including comments regarding the opacity levels expected from a kiln in compliance with the proposed PM limit and the sensitivity of COMS at those levels. In accordance with the SBAR Panel's recommendations, we request comment on whether the proposed rule should specify separate, longer averaging time periods ( or greater frequencies of occurrence) for demonstrating compliance with operating parameter limits, or other alternative approaches for demonstrating compliance with operating parameter limits. For example, the Panel recommended that we request comment on an approach for demonstrating compliance involving two tiers of standards for monitoring operating parameters whereby, if the conditions of the first monitoring tier are exceeded, the facility operator would be required to implement corrective actions specified in an established plan to bring the operating parameter levels back to established levels and, if the conditions of the second tier are exceeded, the exceedance would constitute a violation of the standard in question. The SBAR Panel recommended that we take comment about the suitability of other PM control device operating parameters that could be monitored to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits in lieu of or in addition to the parameters proposed in today's rule. For example, small entity representatives suggested that for scrubber­ equipped kilns, we should consider allowing the monitoring of parameters such as wet scrubber water pump amperage and wet scrubber exhaust gas outlet temperature in lieu of scrubber liquid flow rate. In addition, sources may request approval of alternative monitoring methods according to section 40 CFR 63.8( f). 2. PM From MPO Since the MACT basis for these emission units is the NSPS subpart OOO, the performance test requirements for PM, opacity, and visible emissions are based in part on those in the NSPS subpart OOO, with additional requirements as well. Further, as is required under the NSPS subpart OOO, the proposed rule would require the performance test measurement of opacity from certain MPO, including fugitive emission units, using EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. We request comment on the suitability of using Method 9 for fugitive emission units, and whether other visual opacity measurement methods or techniques may be more suitable, such as provisions from proposed EPA Methods 203A, 203B, and/ or 203C, 58 FR 61640, January 6, 1994. For MPO subject to a PM emission limit and controlled by a wet scrubber, you would be required to collect and record the exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubber liquid flow rate during the PM performance test and then establish the 3­ hour operating limit for each of these parameters based on the data. Pressure drop and flow rate provide an indication of the scrubber's performance and consequently PM emissions as well. For MPO subject to opacity limitations which do not use a wet scrubber control device, you would be required to conduct a 1­ minute visible emissions check of each emission unit similar to the requirements under Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A7. The frequency of these checks is monthly but diminishes for the emission unit if no visible emissions are observed. If visible emissions are observed during any visible emissions check, you would be required to conduct a 6­ minute test of opacity in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 test would be required to begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible emissions and the 6­ minute opacity reading would be required to not exceed the applicable opacity limit. Due to the many MPO at each lime manufacturing plant, this type of periodic monitoring for opacity was selected. This periodic approach to monitoring rewards sources that have no visible emissions by allowing the frequency of testing to be reduced. Finally, this monitoring approach ( visual observations of opacity instead of continuous opacity monitoring systems) is similar to the monitoring regime used in the NSPS subpart OOO, which is the basis for MACT. Although we are not compelled to use identical monitoring regimes, we believe it is appropriate to do so here because it will `` reasonably ensure compliance with the standard.'' See National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 635. 3. Other General Requirements The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan would be required to ensure effective performance of the air pollution control devices, monitoring equipment ( including bag leak and PM detection equipment), and to minimize malfunctions. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78064 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. How Many Facilities Are Subject to the Proposed Rule? There are approximately 110 lime manufacturing plants in the U. S., not including lime production facilities at pulp and paper mills. About 30 of these 110 plants are located at beet sugar manufacturing facilities which would not be subject to the proposed rule. We estimate that 70 percent of the remaining 80 lime manufacturing plants would be major sources, co­ located with major sources, or part of major sources, and, thus, 56 lime manufacturing plants would be subject to this proposed rule. B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? We estimate that all sources ( not including lime manufacturing plants at beet sugar factories) in the lime manufacturing source category collectively emit approximately 9,700 Mg/ yr ( 10,700 tons/ yr) of HAP. These HAP estimates include emissions of HCl and HAP metals from existing sources and projected new sources over the next 5 years. We estimate that the proposed standards would reduce HAP metals emissions from the lime manufacturing source category by about 21 Mg/ yr ( 23 tons/ yr), and would reduce HCl emissions by about 213 Mg/ yr ( 235 tons/ yr). In addition, we estimate that the proposed standards would reduce PM emissions by about 14,000 Mg/ yr ( 16,000 tons/ yr) from a baseline level of 29,000 Mg/ yr ( 32,000 tons/ yr), and the proposed standards would reduce SO2 emissions by about 3,400 Mg/ yr ( 3,700 tons/ yr) from a baseline of 128,000 Mg/ yr ( 141,000 tons/ yr). The roughly 2 percent decrease in HCl and SO2 emissions is the projected result of uncontrolled sources installing baghouses to comply with the proposed PM standards. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the baseline emissions and emissions reductions ( or increases, in parentheses) estimates, in English and Metric units, respectively. TABLE 1. TOTAL NATIONAL BASELINE EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR BOTH NEW AND EXISTING LIME MANUFACTURING PLANTS [ English Units] Emissions PM ( tons/ yr) HAP metals ( tons/ yr) HCl ( tons/ yr) SO2 ( tons/ yr) Baseline emissions existing sources .......................................................................... 24,352 31.5 8,541 112,198 Baseline emissions new sources ................................................................................ 7,508 10.1 2,161 28,779 Total baseline emissions ............................................................................................... 31,861 41.6 10,702 140,977 Emissions reductions existing sources ...................................................................... 12,407 17.7 235 3,700 Emissions reductions new sources ............................................................................. 3,154 5.4 0 0 Total emissions reductions ............................................................................................ 15,561 23 235 3,700 TABLE 2. TOTAL NATIONAL BASELINE EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR BOTH NEW AND EXISTING LIME MANUFACTURING PLANTS [ Metric Units] Emissions PM ( Mg/ yr) HAP metals ( Mg/ yr) HCl ( Mg/ yr) SO2 ( Mg/ yr) Baseline emissions existing sources .......................................................................... 22,093 28.6 7,748 101,787 Baseline emissions new sources ................................................................................ 6,811 9.2 1,961 26,108 Total baseline emissions ............................................................................................... 28,904 38 9,709 127,895 Emissions reductions existing sources ....................................................................... 11,256 16 213 3,356 Emissions reductions new sources ............................................................................. 2,861 4.9 0 0 Total emissions reductions ............................................................................................ 14,117 21 213 3,356 C. What Are the Water Impacts? We expect overall water consumption for existing sources to increase by about 4,200 million gallons per year from current levels as a result of the proposed rule. This estimate is based on the assumption that sources will replace existing wet scrubbers with new, more efficient venturi wet scrubbers ( that require more water flow rate) to comply with the PM standards. For new sources, we expect no additional water consumption as we do not expect new sources to install wet scrubbers for PM control. D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts? As a result of the proposed rule, solid waste would be generated as additional PM is collected in complying with the PM standards. We estimate that about 16,000 tons/ yr of additional solid waste would be generated as a result of today's proposed rule. This estimate does not include consideration that some of this would most likely be recycled directly to the lime kiln as feedstock or sold as byproduct material ( agricultural lime). E. What Are the Energy Impacts? We expect electricity demand from existing sources to increase by about 7.2 million kilowatt­ hours/ yr ( kWh/ yr) as a result of the proposed rule. This estimate is based on the assumption that sources will replace existing wet scrubbers with new, more efficient venturi wet scrubbers ( that require more electricity). For new sources, we expect an increase in electricity usage of about 0.1 million kWh/ yr as a result of the proposed rule. This electricity demand is associated with complying with the PM standards for new sources. F. What Are the Cost Impacts? The estimated total national capital cost of today's proposed rule is $ 24.2 million ( for large businesses) plus $ 11.9 million for small businesses for a total of $ 36.1 million. This capital cost applies to projected new and existing sources and includes the cost to purchase and install emissions control equipment ( e. g., existing PM control equipment upgrades), monitoring equipment ( the cost of the rule is estimated assuming bag leak and PM detectors would be installed on all lime kilns located at major sources, although other monitoring options are available, such as COMS), the costs of initial performance tests, and emissions tests VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 06 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78065 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules to measure HCl to determine whether a source is a major source and hence subject to the standards. The estimated annualized costs of the proposed standards are $ 22.4 million. The annualized costs account for the annualized capital costs of the control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance costs, periodic monitoring of materials handling operations, and annualized costs of the initial emissions testing. G. What Are the Economic Impacts? The results of our economic impact analysis indicate the average price per ton for lime would increase by 2.1 percent ( or $ 1.17 per metric ton) as a result of the proposed standard for lime manufacturers. Overall lime production is projected to decrease by 1.8 percent as a result of the proposed standard. Because of the uncertainty of control cost information for large firms, we accounted for these firms as a single aggregate firm in the economic model, so it is not plausible to estimate closures for large firms. However, among the 19 small firms in this industry, we project that two firms are at risk for closure. Based on the market analysis, we project the annual social costs of the proposed rule to be $ 20.2 million. As a result of higher prices and lower consumption levels, we project the consumers of lime ( both domestic and foreign) would lose $ 19.7 million annually, while domestic producer surplus would decline by $ 0.8 million. Foreign producers would gain as a result of the proposed regulation with profit increasing by $ 0.2 million. For more information regarding the economic impacts, consult the economic impact analysis in the docket for this rule. V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we would be required to determine whether the 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, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a `` significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted the action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the docket ( see ADDRESSEES section of this preamble). B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. If we comply by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires us to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement ( FSIS). The FSIS would be required to include a description of the extent of our prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when we transmit a draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, we would be required to include a certification from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that we have met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner. The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule would not impose directly enforceable requirements on States, nor would it preempt them from adopting their own more stringent programs to control emissions from lime manufacturing facilities. Moreover, States are not required under the CAA to take delegation of federal NESHAP and bear their implementation costs, although States are encouraged and often choose to do so. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule. Although it does not apply to the proposed rule, we have coordinated with State and local officials in the development of the proposed rule and we are providing them an opportunity for comment. A summary of the concerns raised during the notice and comment process and our response to those concerns will be provided in the final rulemaking notice. 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 the 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 9, 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.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. There are no lime manufacturing plants located on tribal land. Thus Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. The EPA specifically solicits additional VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78066 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules comment on the proposed rule from tribal officials. 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 would be required to 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 considered by us. 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. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. Additionally, the proposed rule is not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866. E. 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 would be required to prepare a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA 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 leastcostly most cost­ effective, or leastburdensome 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 significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we would be required to have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan would be required to provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is approximately $ 22.4 million per year. The proposed rule contains no mandates affecting State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. We have determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. F. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996, 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 Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as ( 1) A small business as a lime manufacturing company with less than 500 employees; ( 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. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Despite the determination that the proposed rule would have no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA prepared a Small Business Flexibility Analysis that has all the components of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis ( IRFA). An IRFA examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact. The Small Business Flexibility Analysis ( which is included in the economic impact analysis) is available for review in the docket, and is summarized below. Based on SBA's size definitions for the affected industries and reported sales and employment data, EPA identified 19 of the 45 companies owning potentially affected facilities as small businesses. Eight of these 45 companies manufacture beet sugar ( which would not be subject to this proposed rule), three of which are small firms. Further, an additional 3 of the 19 small companies would not be subject to the proposed rule because they do not manufacture lime in a kiln ( e. g., they are only depot or hydration facilities), and/ or we do not expect them to be major sources. It is therefore expected that 13 small businesses would be subject to this proposed rule. Although small businesses represent 40 percent of the companies within the source category, they are expected to incur 30 percent of the total industry annual compliance costs of $ 22.4 million. The economic impact analysis we prepared for this proposed rule includes an estimate of the changes in product price and production quantities for the firms that this proposed rule would affect. The analysis shows that of the facilities owned by potentially affected small firms, two may shut down rather than incur the cost of compliance with the proposed rule. Because of the nature of their production processes and existing controls, we expect these two firms will incur significantly higher compliance costs than the other small firms. Although any facility closure is cause for concern, it should be noted that in general, the burden on most small firms is low when compared to that of large firms. The average annual compliance costs for all small firms is $ 358,000, compared to $ 592,000 per year for large firms. If the two small firms expected to incur significantly higher control costs are excluded, the average annual compliance cost for the remaining firms VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78067 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules would be $ 205,000, which is much less than the average control costs for large firms. The EPA's efforts to minimize small business impacts have materially improved today's proposal. Economic analysis of provisions under earlier consideration for inclusion in this proposed rule indicated greater impacts on small businesses than those proposed today. For the small companies expected to incur compliance costs, the average total annual compliance cost would have been roughly $ 567,000 per small company ( compared with $ 358,000 in today's proposal). About 85 percent ( 11 firms) of those small businesses expected to incur compliance costs would have experienced an impact greater than 1 percent of sales ( compared with 69 percent of those small businesses in today's proposal). And 77 percent ( 10 firms) of those small businesses expected to incur compliance costs would have experienced impacts greater than 3 percent of sales ( compared with 31 percent of those small businesses in today's proposal). Before concluding that the Agency could properly certify today's rule under the terms of the RFA, EPA conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Panel as required by section 609( b) of the RFA to obtain the advice and recommendations from representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the proposed rule requirements. The Panel convened on January 22, 2002, and was comprised of representatives from OMB, the SBA Office of Advocacy, the EPA Small Business Advocacy Chair, and the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of EPA. The Panel solicited advice from eight small entity representatives ( SER), including the NLA and member companies and nonmember companies of the NLA. On January 30, 2002, the Panel distributed a package of descriptive and technical materials explaining the rule­ in­ progress to the SER. On February 19, 2002, the Panel met with the SER to hear their comments on preliminary options for regulatory flexibility and related information. The Panel also received written comments from the SER in response to both the outreach materials and the discussions at the meeting. Consistent with RFA/ SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small­ entity comments on issues related to the elements of the initial RFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in the docket for the proposed rule. The Panel considered numerous regulatory flexibility options in response to concerns raised by the SER. The major concerns included the affordability and technical feasibility of add­ on controls. These are the Panel recommendations and EPA's responses: Recommend that the proposed rule should not include the HCl work practice standard, invoking section 112( d)( 4) of CAA. Response: The proposal does not include an emission standard for HCl. Recommend that in the proposed rule, the MPO in the quarry should not be considered as emission units under the definition of affected source. Response: The MPO in the quarry are excluded from the definition of affected source. Recommend that the proposed rule allow for the `` bubbling'' of PM emissions from all of the lime kilns and coolers at a lime plant, such that the sum of all kilns' and coolers' PM emissions at a lime plant would be subject to the PM emission limit, rather than each individual kiln and cooler. Response: The proposed rule defines the affected source as including all kilns and coolers ( among other listed emission units) at the lime manufacturing plant. This would allow the source to average emissions from the kilns and coolers for compliance determination. Recommend that we request comment on establishing a subcategory because of the potential increase in SO2 and HCl emissions that may result in complying with the PM standard. Response: We are requesting comment on this issue. Recommend that we undertake an analysis of the costs and emissions impacts of replacing scrubbers with dry APCD and present the results of that analysis in the preamble; and that we request comment on any operational, process, product, or other technical and/ or spatial constraints that would preclude installation of a dry APCD. Response: We are requesting comment on these issues and have presented said analysis. Recommend that the proposed rule allow a source to use the ASTM HCl manual method for the measurement of HCl for area source determinations. Response: Today's proposal includes this provision. Recommend that we clarify in the preamble to the proposed rule that we are not specifically requiring sources to test for all HAP to make a determination of whether the lime plant is a major or area source, and that we solicit public comment on related issues. Response: Today's preamble includes this language. Recommend that we solicit comment on providing the option of using COMS in place of BLDS; recommend that we solicit comment on various approaches to using COMS; and recommend soliciting comment on what an appropriate opacity limit would be. Response: The preamble solicits comment on these issues. Recommend that EPA take comment on other monitoring options or approaches, including the following: using longer averaging time periods ( or greater frequencies of occurrence) for demonstrating compliance with parameter limits; demonstrating compliance with operating parameter limits using a two­ tier approach; and the suitability of other PM control device operating parameters that can be monitored to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits, in lieu of or in addition to the parameters currently required in the draft rule. Response: Today's preamble solicits comment on these issues. Recommend that the incorporation by reference of Chapters 3 and 5 of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ( ACGIH) Industrial Ventilation manual be removed from the proposed rule. Response: Today's proposed rule does not include this requirement. Recommend that EPA reevaluate the assumptions used in modeling the economic impacts of the standards and conduct a sensitivity analysis using different price and supply elasticities reflective of the industry's claims that there is little ability to pass on control costs to their customers, and there is considerable opportunity for product substitution in a number of the lime industry's markets. Response: The EIA does include the aforementioned considerations and analyses. In summary, to better understand the implications of the proposed rule from the industries' perspective, we engaged with the lime manufacturing companies in an exchange of information, including small entities, during the overall rule development. Prior to convening the Panel, we had worked aggressively to minimize the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under the CAA, and these pre­ Panel efforts have been discussed previously in this preamble. These are summarized below. 1. Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar plants, of which three are small businesses, would not be affected sources. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78068 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2. Lime manufacturing plants that produce hydrated lime only would not be affected sources as well. 3. We are proposing PM emission limits which allow the affected source, including small entities, flexibility in choosing how they will meet the emission limit. And in general, the emission limitations selected are all based on the MACT floor, as opposed to more costly beyond­ the­ MACT­ floor options that we considered. An emission limit for mercury was rejected since it would have been based on a beyond­ the­ MACT­ floor control option. 4. We are proposing that compliance demonstrations for MPO be conducted monthly rather than on a daily basis. We believe this will reduce the amount of records needed to demonstrate compliance with the rule when implemented. 5. Furthermore, we are proposing the minimum performance testing frequency ( every 5 years), monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements specified in the general provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 6. Finally, many lime manufacturing plants owned by small businesses would not be subject to the proposed standards because they are area sources. 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. G. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the 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. We have prepared an Information Collection Request ( ICR) document ( 2072.01), and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U. S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, by email at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 566 1672. You may also download a copy off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA ( 42 U. S. C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule would require development and implementation of an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan, which would include inspections of the control devices but would not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule) is estimated to be 7,766 labor hours per year, at a total annual cost of $ 621,673. This estimate includes notifications that facilities are subject to the rule; notifications of performance tests; notifications of compliance status, including the results of performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations that do not include performance tests; startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports; semiannual compliance reports; and recordkeeping. Total capital/ startup costs associated with the testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements over the 3­ year period of the ICR are estimated to be $ 1,000,000, with annualized costs of $ 377,933. 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: ( 1) Review instructions; ( 2) develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; ( 3) adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; ( 4) train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; ( 5) search data sources; ( 6) complete and review the collection of information; and ( 7) 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. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501, et seq., the EPA must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information collection request in a proposed or final rule. 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. By U. S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460; or by courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6143, Washington DC 20460 (( 202) 566 1700); and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 20, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 21, 2003. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in the proposal. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995 ( Public Law No. 104 113; 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs the 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 the OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the following standards in the proposed rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 18, 22, 320, 321. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9, 22, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78069 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules and 321. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the docket ( A 95 41) for the proposed rule. The three voluntary consensus standards described below were identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rule. The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19 10 1981­ Part 10, `` Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in the proposed rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19 10 1981­ Part 10 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6420 99, `` Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography­ Mass Spectrometry ( GC/ MS),'' is appropriate in the cases described below for inclusion in the proposed rule in addition to EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for the measurement of organic HAP from lime kilns. The standard ASTM D6420 99 will be incorporated by reference in § 63.14. Similar to EPA's performance­ based Method 18, ASTM D6420 99 is also a performance­ based method for measurement of gaseous organic compounds. However, ASTM D6420 99 was written to support the specific use of highly portable and automated GC/ MS. While offering advantages over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less stringent criteria for accepting GC/ MS results than required by Method 18. Therefore, ASTM D6420 99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 only where the target compound( s) are those listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420 99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by volume ( ppbv) and 100 ppmv. For target compound( s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420 99, but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the proposed rule specifies that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water soluble. For target compound( s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420 99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420 99 does not apply. As a result, EPA will cite ASTM D6420 99 in the proposed rule. The EPA will also cite Method 18 as a GC option in addition to ASTM D6420 99. This will allow the continued use of GC configurations other than GC/ MS. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6735 01, `` Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 for the purposes of the proposed rule provided that the additional requirements described in Section 63.7142 of the proposed rule are also addressed in the methodology. In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA uses in the proposed rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified 15 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that 12 of these 15 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for this determination can be found in the docket for the proposed rule. Three of the 15 voluntary consensus standards identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of the proposed rule because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/ BSR MFC 13M, `` Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 ( and possibly 1); ASME/ BSR MFC 12M, `` Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and ASTM D6348 98, `` Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform ( FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' for EPA Method 320. The standard ASTM D6348 98, `` Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform ( FTIR) Spectroscopy'' has been reviewed by the EPA and comments were sent to ASTM. Currently, the ASTM Subcommittee D22 03 is now undertaking a revision of ASTM D6348 98. Upon successful ASTM balloting and demonstration of technical equivalency with the EPA FTIR methods, the revised ASTM standard could be incorporated by reference for EPA regulatory applicability. Section 63.7112 and Table 4 to proposed subpart AAAAA list the EPA testing methods included in the proposed rule. Under § § 63.7( f) and 63.8( f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures. I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use The proposed rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Although compliance with the proposed rule could possibly lead to increased electricity consumption as sources may replace existing wet scrubbers with venturi wet scrubbers that require more electricity, the proposed rule would not require that venturi scrubbers be installed, and in fact, there are some alternatives that may decrease electrical demand. Further, the proposed rule would have no effect on the supply or distribution of energy. Although we considered certain fuels as potential bases for MACT, none of our proposed MACT determinations are based on fuels. Finally, we acknowledge that an interpretation limiting fuel use to the top 6 percent of `` clean HAP'' fuels ( if they existed) could potentially have adverse implications on energy supply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lime manufacturing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 26, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 63 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401, et seq. Subpart A [ Amended] 2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraphs ( b)( 27) and ( b)( 28) to read as follows: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78070 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 63.14 Incorporation by reference. * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 27) ASTM D6420 99, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ( GC/ MS), IBR approved [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] for § 63.7142. ( 28) ASTM D6735 01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources Impinger Method, IBR approved [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] for § 63.7142. * * * * * 3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AAAAA to read as follows: Subpart AAAAA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants What This Subpart Covers Sec. 63.7080 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.7081 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.7082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emission Limitations 63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet? General Compliance Requirements 63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements 63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.7111 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other procedures must I use? 63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations standard? Continuous Compliance Requirements 63.7120 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations standard? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.7131 What reports must I submit and when? 63.7132 What records must I keep? 63.7133 In what form and how long must I keep my records? Other Requirements and Information 63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source status? 63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 Emission Limits Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 Operating Limits Table 3 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 Continuous Compliance with Operating Limits Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 Periodic Monitoring for Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emissions Limits Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 Requirements for Reports Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAA What This Subpart Covers § 63.7080 What is the purpose of this subpart? This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for lime manufacturing plants. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations. § 63.7081 Am I subject to this subpart? ( a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a lime manufacturing plant ( LMP) that is a major source, or that is located at, or is part of, a major source of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions, unless the LMP is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill or beet sugar manufacturing plant. ( 1) An LMP is an establishment engaged in the manufacture of lime product ( calcium oxide, calcium oxide with magnesium oxide, or dead burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone, dolomite, shells or other calcareous substances. ( 2) A major source of HAP is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams ( 10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams ( 25 tons) or more per year from all emission sources at the plant site. ( b) [ Reserved] § 63.7082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? ( a) This subpart applies to each existing, reconstructed, or new LMP that is located at a major source. ( b) The affected source is the collection of all of the emission units listed in paragraph ( c) of this section. ( c) Emission units are lime kilns, lime coolers and materials processing operations ( MPO) as defined in paragraph ( d) of this section. ( d) Materials processing operations are raw material grinding mills, raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators and belt conveyors, except as provided by paragraphs ( e) through ( g) of this section. ( e) Materials processing operations that process only lime product or fuel are not subject to this subpart. ( f) Truck dumping into any screening operation, feed hopper or crusher is not subject to this subpart. ( g) The first emission unit in the sequence of MPO that is subject to this subpart is the raw material storage bin. Any MPO which precedes the raw material storage bin is not subject to this subpart. Furthermore, the first conveyor transfer point subject to this subpart is the transfer point associated with the conveyor transferring material from the raw material storage bin to the next emission unit. ( h) Lime hydrators are not subject to this subpart. ( i) [ Reserved] ( j) A new affected source is the collection of all emission units listed in paragraph ( c) of this section for which construction begins after December 20, 2002, if you met the applicability criteria in § 63.7081 at the time you commenced construction. ( k) An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the criteria for reconstruction defined in § 63.2. ( l) [ Reserved] ( m) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed. § 63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart? ( a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) If you start up your affected source before the [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must comply with the emission limitations no later than [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. ( 2) If you start up your affected source after [ date of publication of the final VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78071 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules rule in the Federal Register], then you must comply with the emission limitations for new and reconstructed affected sources upon startup of your affected source. ( b) If you have an existing LMP, you must comply with the applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than [ 3 years from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. The compliance date is site­ specific for existing LMP and is the day following completion of all the performance tests required under § 63.7110( a). ( c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, the deadlines specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section apply. ( 1) Any portion of the LMP that is a new affected source or a reconstructed affected source must be in compliance with this subpart upon startup. ( 2) The emission units of the existing LMP subject to emission limitations under this subpart must be in compliance with this subpart within 3 years after the source becomes a major source of HAP. ( d) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.7130 according to the schedule in § 63.7130 and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart. Emission Limitations § 63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet? ( a) You must meet each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you. ( b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you. General Compliance Requirements § 63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? ( a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations ( including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( b) You must be in compliance with the opacity and visible emission limits in this subpart during the times specified in § 63.6( h)( 1). ( c) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 1)( i). ( d) You must prepare and implement for each LMP, a written operations, maintenance, and monitoring ( OM& M) plan. You must submit the plan to the applicable permitting authority for review and approval as part of the application for a 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 permit. Any subsequent changes to the plan must be submitted to the applicable permitting authority for review and approval. Pending approval by the applicable permitting authority of an initial or amended plan, you must comply with the provisions of the submitted plan. Each plan must contain the following information: ( 1) Process and control device parameters to be monitored to determine compliance, along with established operating limits or ranges, as applicable, for each emission unit. ( 2) A monitoring schedule for each emission unit. ( 3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each emission unit and each air pollution control device used to meet the applicable emission limitations and operating limits in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, respectively. ( 4) Procedures for the proper installation, operation, and maintenance of monitoring devices or systems used to determine compliance, including: ( i) Calibration and certification of accuracy of each monitoring device; ( ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction systems; ( iii) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8( c)( 1), ( 3), and ( 4)( ii); and ( iv) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8( d). ( 5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device parameters. ( 6) Corrective actions to be taken when process or operating parameters or add­ on control device parameters deviate from the operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, including: ( i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of a deviation or excursion, and the time the deviation or excursion began and ended; and ( ii) Procedures for recording the corrective action taken, the time corrective action was initiated, and the time and date the corrective action was completed. ( 7) A maintenance schedule for each emission unit and control device that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations for routine and long­ term maintenance. ( e) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3). Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements § 63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? ( a) If you have an existing affected source, you must complete all applicable performance tests within 3 years after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], according to the provisions in § § 63.7( a)( 2) and 63.7114. ( b) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of an LMP between December 20, 2002 and [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either the proposed emission limitation or the promulgated emission limitation no later than 180 calendar days after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] or within 180 calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to § § 63.7( a)( 2)( ix) and 63.7114. ( c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between December 20, 2002 and [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], and you chose to comply with the proposed emission limitation when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct a demonstration of compliance with the promulgated emission limitation within 3 years after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] or after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to § § 63.7( a)( 2)( ix) and 63.7114. ( d) For each emission limitation in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you where the monitoring averaging period is 3 hours, the 3­ hour period for demonstrating continuous compliance for emission units within existing affected sources at LMP begins at 12: 01 a. m. on the compliance date for existing affected sources, that is, the day following completion of the initial performance test( s), and ends at 3: 01 a. m. on the same day. ( e) For each emission limitation in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you where the monitoring averaging period is 3 hours, the 3­ hour period for demonstrating continuous compliance for emission units within new or reconstructed affected sources at LMP begins at 12: 01 a. m. on the day following completion of the initial compliance demonstration tests, as required in paragraphs ( b) and ( c) of this VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78072 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules section, and ends at 3: 01 a. m. on the same day. § 63.7111 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? You must conduct a performance test within 5 years following the initial performance test and within 5 years following each subsequent performance test thereafter. § 63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other procedures must I use? ( a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this subpart that applies to you. ( b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7( e)( 1) and under the specific conditions specified in Table 4 to this subpart. ( c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 1). ( d) Except for opacity and visible emission observations, you must conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. ( e) The emission rate of particulate matter ( PM) from the lime kiln ( and the lime cooler if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the lime cooler) must be computed for each run using Equation 1 of this section: E CQ CQ PK Eq k k c c = + ( )/ ( . 1) Where: E = Emission rate of PM, kg/ Mg ( lb/ ton) of stone feed. Ck = Concentration of PM in the kiln effluent, g/ dscm ( grain/ dscf). Qk = Volumetric flow rate of kiln effluent gas, dscm/ hr ( dscf/ hr). Cc = Concentration of PM in the cooler effluent, g/ dscm ( grain/ dscf). This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust to the atmosphere. Qc = Volumetric flow rate of cooler effluent gas, dscm/ hr ( dscf/ hr). This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust to the atmosphere. P = Stone feed rate, Mg/ hr ( ton/ hr). K = Conversion factor, 1000 g/ kg ( 7000 grains/ lb). ( f) The combined particulate emission rate from all kilns and coolers within an existing affected source at an LMP must be calculated using Equation 2 of this section: E EP P Eq T ii i i n i n = = = / ( . 1 1 2) Where: ET = Emission rate of PM from all kilns and coolers at an existing LMP, kg/ Mg ( lb/ ton) of stone feed. Ei = Emission rate of PM from kiln i, or from kiln/ cooler combination i, kg/ Mg ( lb/ ton) of stone feed. Pi = Stone feed rate to kiln i, Mg/ hr ( ton/ hr). n = Number of existing kilns at the existing affected source. ( g) The combined particulate emission rate from all new or reconstructed kilns and coolers must be calculated using Equation 3 of this section: E EP P Eq TN j j j j m j m = = = / ( . 3) 1 1 Where: ETN = Emission rate of PM from all kilns and coolers at a new or reconstructed LMP, kg/ Mg ( lb/ ton) of stone feed. Ej = Emission rate of PM from kiln j, or from kiln/ cooler combination j, kg/ Mg ( lb/ ton) of stone feed. Pj = Stone feed rate to kiln j, Mg/ hr ( ton/ hr). m = Number of kilns and kiln/ cooler combinations within the new or reconstructed affected source. ( h) Performance test results must be documented in complete test reports that contain the information required by paragraphs ( h)( 1) through ( 10) of this section, as well as all other relevant information. The plan to be followed during testing must be made available to the Administrator at least 60 days prior to testing, if requested. ( 1) A brief description of the process and the air pollution control system; ( 2) Sampling location description( s); ( 3) A description of sampling and analytical procedures and any modifications to standard procedures; ( 4) Test results, including opacity; ( 5) Quality assurance procedures and results; ( 6) Records of operating conditions during the test, preparation of standards, and calibration procedures; ( 7) Raw data sheets for field sampling and field and laboratory analyses; ( 8) Documentation of calculations; ( 9) All data recorded and used to establish operating limits; and ( 10) Any other information required by the test method. ( i) [ Reserved] ( j) You must establish any applicable 3­ hour rolling average operating limit indicated in Table 2 to this subpart according to the applicable requirements in Table 3 to this subpart and paragraphs ( j)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) Continuously record the parameter during the PM performance test and include the parameter record( s) in the performance test report. ( 2) Determine the average parameter value for each 15­ minute period of each test run. ( 3) Calculate the test run average for the parameter by taking the average of all the 15­ minute parameter values for the run. ( 4) Calculate the 3­ hour operating limit by taking the average of the three test run averages. ( k) For each building enclosing any MPO that is subject to a visible emission ( VE) limit, you must conduct a VE check according to item 18 in Table 4 to this subpart, and in accordance with paragraphs ( k)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of the building over the test period to identify if there are VE, other than condensed water vapor. ( 2) Select a position at least 15 but not more than 1,320 feet from each side of the building with the sun or other light source generally at your back. ( 3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to conduct Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must meet the training requirements as described in Method 22 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. § 63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? ( a) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) according to your OM& M plan required by § 63.7100( d) and paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section, and you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous opacity monitoring system ( COMS) as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to PS 1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. ( 1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15 minute period. ( 2) To calculate a valid hourly value, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values for that hour from a CPMS that is not out of control according to your OM& M plan. ( 3) To calculate the average for each 3­ hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the hourly averages for that period using only hourly average values that are based on valid data ( i. e., not from out­ of­ control periods). The 3­ hour rolling average is updated each hour. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 EP20DE02.000</ MATH> EP20DE02.001</ MATH> EP20DE02.002</ MATH> 78073 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 4) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in accordance with your OM& M plan. ( 5) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation according to the OM& M plan. ( b) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) and ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the flow rate. ( 2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. ( 3) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually. ( 4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. ( c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) and ( c)( 1) through ( 7) of this section. ( 1) Locate the pressure sensor( s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure. ( 2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. ( 3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range. ( 4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. ( 5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. ( 6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. ( 7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. ( d) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet any applicable requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) and ( d)( 1) through ( 8) of this section. ( 1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter ( 0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. ( 2) The sensor on the bag leak detection system must provide output of relative PM emissions. ( 3) The bag leak detection system must have an alarm that will sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. ( 4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant personnel will be able to hear it. ( 5) For a positive­ pressure fabric filter, each compartment or cell must have a bag leak detector. For a negativepressure or induced­ air fabric filter, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. If multiple bag leak detectors are required ( for either type of fabric filter), detectors may share the system instrumentation and alarm. ( 6) Bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the OM& M plan. ( 7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways: ( i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device. ( ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time. ( 8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified in the OM& M plan required by § 63.7100( d). In no event may the range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless a responsible official, as defined in § 63.2, certifies in writing to the Administrator that the fabric filter has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition. ( e) For each PM detector, you must meet any applicable requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) and ( e)( 1) through ( 8) of this section. ( 1) The PM detector must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter ( 0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. ( 2) The sensor on the PM detector must provide output of relative PM emissions. ( 3) The PM detector must have an alarm that will sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. ( 4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant personnel will be able to hear it. ( 5) For a positive­ pressure electrostatic precipitator ( ESP), each compartment must have a PM detector. For a negative­ pressure or induced­ air ESP, the PM detector must be installed downstream of the ESP. If multiple PM detectors are required ( for either type of ESP), detectors may share the system instrumentation and alarm. ( 6) Particulate matter detectors must be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the OM& M plan. ( 7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways: ( i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device. ( ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time. ( 8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified in the OM& M plan required by § 63.7100( d). In no event may the range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365­ day period unless a responsible official as defined in § 63.2 certifies in writing to the Administrator that the ESP has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition. ( f) For each emission unit equipped with an add­ on air pollution control device, you must inspect each capture/ collection and closed vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system is operating in accordance with the operating requirements in item 6 of Table 2 to this subpart and record the results of each inspection. ( g) For each COMS used to monitor an add­ on air pollution control device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( g)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Install the COMS at the outlet of the control device. ( 2) Install, maintain, calibrate, and operate the COMS as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to PS 1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. § 63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations standard? ( a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you, according to Table 3 to this subpart. ( b) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in § 63.7112( j) and Table 4 to this subpart. ( c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.7130( e). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78074 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules Continuous Compliance Requirements § 63.7120 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? ( a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section. ( b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities ( including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero adjustments), you must monitor continuously ( or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the emission unit is operating. ( c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system. § 63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations standard? ( a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart. ( b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit in Tables 2 and 6 to this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.7131. ( c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with the SSMP. ( d) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e). ( e) For each MPO subject to an opacity limitation as specified in Table 1 to this subpart, and any vents from buildings subject to an opacity limitation, you must conduct a VE check according to item 1 in Table 6 to this subpart, and as follows: ( 1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of each stack or process emission point over the test period to identify if there are visible emissions, other than condensed water vapor. ( 2) Select a position at least 15 but not more 1,320 feet from the affected emission point with the sun or other light source generally at your back. ( 3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to conduct Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must meet the training requirements as described in Method 22 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Notification, Reports, and Records § 63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when? ( a) You must submit all of the notifications in § § 63.6( h)( 4) and ( 5), 63.7( b) and ( c), 63.8( e), ( f)( 4) and ( 6), and 63.9 ( a) through ( j) that apply to you by the dates specified. ( b) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 2), if you start up your affected source before [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. ( c) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 3), if you startup your new or reconstructed affected source on or after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you startup your affected source. ( d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as required in § 63.7( b)( 1). ( e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design evaluation, opacity observation, VE observation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to § 63.9( h)( 2)( ii). ( 1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 3 to this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the initial compliance demonstration. ( 2) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test according to § 63.10( d)( 2). § 63.7131 What reports must I submit and when? ( a) You must submit each report in Table 7 to this subpart that applies to you. ( b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10( a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 7 to this subpart and according to the requirements in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 5) of this section: ( 1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.7083 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the first half calendar year after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.7083. ( 2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the first half calendar year after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.7083. ( 3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. ( 4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period. ( 5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter, if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to § 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or § 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) of this chapter, you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( c) The compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. ( 1) Company name and address. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78075 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 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. ( 3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. ( 4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10( d)( 5)( i). ( 5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations ( emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. ( 6) If there were no periods during which the operating parameter monitoring systems was out­ of­ control as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), a statement that there were no periods during the which the continuous monitoring system ( CMS) was out­ of­ control during the reporting period. ( d) For each deviation from an emission limitation ( emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 4) and ( d)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( 1) The total operating time of each emission unit during the reporting period. ( 2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations ( including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. ( e) For each deviation from an emission limitation ( emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitation in this subpart, you must include the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 4) and ( e)( 1) through ( 12) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( 1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped. ( 2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero ( lowlevel and high­ level checks. ( 3) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out­ of­ control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). ( 4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. ( 5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. ( 6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( 7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total emission unit operating time during that reporting period. ( 8) An identification of each HAP that was monitored at the affected source. ( 9) A brief description of the process units. ( 10) A brief description of the CMS. ( 11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. ( 12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls since the last reporting period. ( f) Each facility that has obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by § 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or § 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report specified in Table 7 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by § 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or § 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) of this chapter, and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation ( including any operating limit), submission of the compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority. § 63.7132 What records must I keep? ( a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 3) 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, according to the requirements in § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv). ( 2) The records in § 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through ( v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( 3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and opacity and VE observations as required in § 63.10( b)( 2)( viii). ( b) You must keep the records in § 63.6( h)( 6) for VE observations. ( c) You must keep the records required by Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you. ( d) You must keep the records which document the basis for the initial applicability determination as required under § 63.7081. § 63.7133 In what form and how long must I keep my records? ( a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). ( b) As specified in § 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 keep each record on site for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. Other Requirements and Information § 63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? ( a) Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in § § 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. When there is overlap between subpart A and subpart AAAAA, as indicated in the `` Explanations'' column in Table 8, subpart AAAAA takes precedence. ( b) [ Reserved] § 63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart? ( a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U. S. EPA, or by 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 ( as well as 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 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 subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph ( c) of this VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78076 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules 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 will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. ( 1) Approval of alternatives to the non­ opacity emission limitations in § 63.7090( a). ( 2) Approval of alternative opacity emission limitations in § 63.7090( a). ( 3) Approval of alternatives to the operating limits in § 63.7090( b). ( 4) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under § 63.7( e)( 2)( ii) and ( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 5) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under § 63.8( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 6) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10( f) and as defined in § 63.90. § 63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source status? ( a) If you wish to claim that your LMP is an area source, you must measure the emissions of hydrogen chloride from all lime kilns at your plant using either: ( 1) EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part, ( 2) EPA Method 321 of appendix A to this part, or ( 3) ASTM Method D6735 01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources Impinger Method ( incorporated by reference see § 63.14), provided that the provisions in paragraphs ( a)( 3)( i) through ( vi) of this section are followed. ( i) A test must include three or more runs in which a pair of samples is obtained simultaneously for each run according to section 11.2.6 of ASTM Method D6735 01 ( incorporated by reference see § 63.14). ( ii) You must calculate the test run standard deviation of each set of paired samples to quantify data precision, according to Equation 1 of this section: RSD C C C Eq a a a a = + ( ) ( . 100 2 1 2 Absolute Value C1 1) a Where: RSDa = The test run relative standard deviation of sample pair a, percent. C1a and C2a = The HCl concentrations, mg/ dscm, from the paired samples. ( iii) You must calculate the test average relative standard deviation according to Equation 2 of this section: RSD RSD p Eq TA a a p = = 1 ( . 2) Where: RSDTA = The test average relative standard deviation, percent. RSDa = The test run relative standard deviation for sample pair a. p = The number of test runs, 3. ( iv) If RSDTA is greater than 20 percent, the data are invalid and the test must be repeated. ( v) The post­ test analyte spike procedure of section 11.2.7 of ASTM Method D6735 01 ( incorporated by reference see § 63.14) is conducted, and the percent recovery is calculated according to section 12.6 of ASTM Method D6735 01 ( incorporated by reference see § 63.14). ( vi) If the percent recovery is between 70 percent and 130 percent, inclusive, the test is valid. If the percent recovery is outside of this range, the data are considered invalid, and the test must be repeated. ( b) If you conduct tests to determine the rates of emission of specific organic HAP from lime kilns at LMP for use in applicability determinations under § 63.7081, you may use either: ( 1) Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or ( 2) Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or ( 3) ASTM D6420 99, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography­ Mass Spectrometry ( GC/ MS), ( incorporated by reference see § 63.14), provided that the provisions of paragraphs ( b)( 3)( i) through ( iv) of this section are followed: ( i) The target compound( s) are those listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420 99 ( incorporated by reference see § 63.14); ( ii) The target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by volume and 100 ppmv; ( iii) For target compound( s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420 99 ( incorporated by reference see § 63.14), but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed in section 10.5.3 of ASTM D6420 99 ( incorporated by reference see § 63.14), is conducted, met, documented, and submitted with the data report, even if there is no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water soluble; and ( iv) For target compound( s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420 99 ( incorporated by reference see § 63.14), and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420 99 ( incorporated by reference see § 63.14) may not be used. § 63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, and in this section as follows: Bag leak detector means the monitoring device and system for a fabric filter that identifies an increase in PM emissions resulting from a broken filter bag or other malfunction and sounds an alarm. Belt conveyor means a conveying device that transports material from one location to another by means of an endless belt that is carried on a series of idlers and routed around a pulley at each end. Bucket elevator means a material conveying device consisting of a head and foot assembly which supports and drives an endless single or double strand chain or belt to which buckets are attached. Building means any frame structure with a roof. Capture system means the equipment ( including enclosures, hoods, ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture and transport PM generated by one or more process operations to a control device. Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to reduce PM emissions released to the atmosphere from one or more process operations at an LMP. Conveying system means a device for transporting material from one piece of equipment or location to another location within a plant. Conveying systems include but are not limited to feeders, belt conveyors, bucket elevators and pneumatic systems. 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 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 EP20DE02.003</ MATH> EP20DE02.004</ MATH> 78077 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules emission limitation ( including any operating limit); ( 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 ( 3) Fails to meet any emission limitation ( including any operating limit) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, operating limit, or VE limit. Emission unit means a lime kiln, lime cooler, raw material grinding mill, raw material storage bin, conveying system transfer point, bulk loading or unloading operation, bucket elevator or belt conveyor at an LMP. Fugitive emission means PM that is not collected by a capture system. Grinding mill means a machine used for the wet or dry fine crushing of any feed material. Grinding mills include, but are not limited to, the hammer, roller, rod, pebble and ball, and fluid energy. The grinding mill includes the air conveying system, air separator, or air classifier, where such systems are used. Hydrator means the device used to produce hydrated lime or calcium hydroxide via the chemical reaction of the lime product and water. Lime cooler means the device external to the lime kiln ( or part of the lime kiln itself) used to reduce the temperature of the lime produced by the kiln. Lime kiln means the device, including any associated preheater, used to produce a lime product from stone feed by calcination. Kiln types include, but are not limited to, rotary kiln, vertical kiln, rotary hearth kiln, double­ shaft vertical kiln, and fluidized bed kiln. Lime manufacturing plant ( LMP) means any plant which uses a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous material by calcination. Lime product means the product of the lime kiln calcination process including, calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead­ burned dolomite. Limestone means the material comprised primarily of calcium carbonate ( referred to sometimes as calcitic or high calcium limestone), magnesium carbonate, and/ or the double carbonate of both calcium and magnesium ( referred to sometimes as dolomitic limestone or dolomite). Material means the raw limestone or stone feed used at an LMP. Materials processing operation ( MPO) means the equipment and transfer points between the equipment used to prepare, process, or transport limestone, or stone feed, and includes grinding mills, raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors. Particulate matter ( PM) detector means the monitoring device and system for an ESP that identifies relative levels in PM emissions and sounds an alarm at a preset level. Positive pressure fabric filter or ESP means a fabric filter or ESP with the fan( s) on the upstream side of the control device. Screening operation means a device for separating material according to size by passing undersize material through one or more mesh surfaces ( screens) in series and retaining oversize material on the mesh surfaces ( screens). Stack emission means the PM that is released to the atmosphere from a capture system. Stone feed means the limestone feedstock and mill scale or other iron oxide additives that are fed to the lime kiln. Stone feed does not include the fuels used in the lime kiln to produce the heat needed to calcine the limestone into the lime product. Storage bin means a facility for storage ( including surge bins) of material prior to further processing or loading. Transfer point means a point in a conveying operation where the material is transferred to or from a belt conveyor ( except where the material is being transferred to a stockpile). Truck dumping means the unloading of material from movable vehicles designed to transport material from one location to another. Movable vehicles include but are not limited to trucks, front end loaders, skip hoists, and railcars. Vent means an opening through which there is mechanically induced air flow for the purpose of exhausting from a building air carrying PM emissions from one or more emission units. Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. EMISSION LIMITS [ You must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7090( a)] For . . . You must meet the following emission limitation . . . 1. All lime kilns and their associated lime coolers at an existing LMP .... The sum of the PM emissions from all of the kilns and associated lime coolers must not exceed 0.06 kilograms per megagram ( kg/ Mg) ( 0.12 pounds per ton) of stone feed. 2. All lime kilns and their associated lime coolers at a new or reconstructed LMP. The sum of the PM emissions from all of the kilns and associated lime coolers must not exceed 0.05 kg/ Mg ( 0.10 pounds per ton) of stone feed. 3. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source. PM emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams per dry standard cubic meter ( g/ dscm). 4. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source, unless the stack emissions are discharged through a wet scrubber control device. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity. 5. Fugitive emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source, except as provided by item 6 of this Table 1. Emissions must not exceed 10 percent opacity. 6. All MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source enclosed in a building. All of the individually affected MPO must comply with the applicable PM and opacity emission limitations in items 3 through 5 of this Table 1, or the building must comply with the following: there must be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent; and vent emissions must not exceed the stack emissions limitations in items 3 and 4 of this Table 1. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78078 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. EMISSION LIMITS Continued [ You must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7090( a)] For . . . You must meet the following emission limitation . . . 7. Each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an individual, enclosed storage bin. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity. 8. Each set of multiple storage bins at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source, with combined stack emissions. You must comply with the emission limits in items 3 and 4 of this Table 1. TABLE 2 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. OPERATING LIMITS [ You must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7090( b)] For . . . You must . . . 1. Each lime kiln and each lime cooler ( if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with a fabric filter. Maintain and operate the fabric filter such that the bag leak detector alarm is not activated and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6­ month period; and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113( d) and ( f) and Table 5 to this subpart. In lieu of a bag leak detector, maintain the fabric filter such that the 6­ minute average opacity for any 6­ minute block period does not exceed 15 percent; and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113( f) and ( g) and Table 5 to this subpart. 2. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet scrubber ...................................... Maintain the 3­ hour rolling average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the most recent PM performance test; and maintain the 3­ hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than the flow rate operating limit established during the most recent performance test. 3. Each lime kiln equipped with an electrostatic precipitator ................... Maintain the 3­ hour rolling average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP greater than or equal to the average current and voltage input to each field of the ESP established during the most recent performance test; or, in lieu of complying with these ESP parameter operating limits, install a PM detector and maintain and operate the ESP such that the PM detector alarm is not activated and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6­ month period, and comply with § 63.7113( e); or, maintain the ESP such that the 6­ minute average opacity for any 6­ minute block period does not exceed 15 percent, and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113( g); and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113( f) and Table 5 to this subpart. 4. Each materials processing operation subject to a PM limit which uses a wet scrubber. Maintain the 3­ hour rolling average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the PM performance test; and maintain the 3­ hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test. 5. All affected sources .............................................................................. Prepare a written OM& M plan; the plan must include the items listed in § 63.7100( d) and the corrective actions to be taken when required in Table 5 to this subpart. 6. Each emission unit equipped with an add­ on air pollution control device ( 1) Vent captured emissions through a closed system, except that dilution air may be added to emission streams for the purpose of controlling temperature at the inlet to a fabric filter. ( 2) Operate each capture/ collection system according to the procedures and requirements in the OM& M plan. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78079 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS [ You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you, according to the following table, as required in § 63.7114] For . . . For the emission limitation . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance, if after following the requirements in § 63.7112 . . . 1. All lime kilns and their associated lime coolers at a new or reconstructed affected source and all lime kilns and their associated lime coolers at an existing affected source. If the lime cooler associated with the kiln has no separate exhaust to the atmosphere, PM emissions from all kilns and coolers at an existing LMP must not exceed 0.06 kg PM per Mg of stone feed ( 0.12 lb PM per ton of stone feed); PM emissions from all kilns and coolers at a new or reconstructed LMP must not exceed 0.05 kg PM per Mg of stone feed ( 0.10 lb PM per ton of stone feed); if a lime cooler associated with a kiln has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere the sum of all kiln and cooler PM emissions must not exceed 0.06 kg/ Mg ( 0.12 pounds per ton) of stone feed for existing LMP and 0.05 kg/ Mg ( 0.1 pounds per ton) of stone feed for kilns at new or reconstructed LMP. The kiln outlet PM emissions ( and if applicable, summed with the separate cooler PM emissions), based on the PM emissions measured using Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter and the stone feed rate measurement, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed the emission limit; if the lime kiln is controlled with an ESP ( and you are not opting to monitor PM emissions from the ESP with a PM detector or COMS) or wet scrubber, you have a record of the applicable operating parameters over the 3­ hour performance test during which emissions did not exceed the emissions limitation; if the lime kiln is controlled by a fabric filter or ESP and you are opting to monitor PM emissions from the ESP with a PM detector or you are opting to monitor PM emissions from the fabric filter with a bag leak detector, you have installed and are operating the monitoring device according to the requirements in § 63.7113( d) or ( e), respectively; and if the lime kiln is controlled by a fabric filter or ESP and you are opting to monitor PM emissions using a COMS, you have installed and are operating the monitoring device according to the requirements in § 63.7113( g). 2. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source. PM emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/ dscm ................. The outlet PM emissions, based on Method 5 or Method 17 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, over the period of the initial performance test do not exceed 0.05 g/ dscm; and if the emission unit is controlled with a wet scrubber, you have a record of the scrubber's pressure drop and liquid flow rate operating parameters over the 3­ hour performance test during which emissions did not exceed the emissions limitation. 3. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source, unless the stack emissions are discharged through a wet scrubber control device. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity ............... Each of the thirty 6­ minute opacity averages during the initial compliance period, using Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, does not exceed the 7 percent opacity limit. 4. Fugitive emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source. Emissions must not exceed 10 percent opacity ............. Each of the 6­ minute opacity averages during the initial compliance period, using Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, does not exceed the 10 percent opacity limit. 5. All MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source, enclosed in a building. All of the individually affected MPO must comply with the applicable PM and opacity emission limitations for items 2 through 4 of this Table 3, or the building must comply with the following: there must be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and vent emissions must not exceed the emission limitations in items 2 and 3 of this Table 3. All the MPO enclosed in the building have demonstrated initial compliance according to the applicable requirements for items 2 through 4 of this Table 3; or if you are complying with the building emission limitations, there are no visible emissions from the building according to item 18 of Table 4 to this subpart and § 63.7112( k), and you demonstrate initial compliance with applicable building vent emissions limitations according to the requirements in items 2 and 3 of this Table 3. 6. Each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an individual storage bin. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity ............... Each of the ten 6­ minute averages during the 1­ hour initial compliance period, using Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, does not exceed the 7 percent opacity limit. 7. Each set of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions. You must comply with the emission limitations in items 2 and 3 of this Table 3. You demonstrate initial compliance according to the requirements in items 2 and 3 of this Table 3. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78080 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS [ You must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7112] For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 1. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. Select the location of the sampling port and the number of traverse ports. Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter; and § 63.7( d)( 1)( i). Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device s) and prior to any releases to the atmosphere. 2. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Not applicable. 3. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Not applicable. 4. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated limit cooler. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Not applicable. 5. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler, and which uses a negative pressure PM control device. Measure PM emissions ................ Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Conduct the test( s) at the highest production level reasonably expected to occur; the minimum sampling volume must be 0.85 dscm ( 30 dscf); if there is a separate lime cooler exhaust to the atmosphere, you must conduct the Method 5 test of the cooler exhaust concurrently with the kiln exhaust test. 6. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler, and which uses a positive pressure fabric filter or ESP. Measure PM emissions ................ Method 5D in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Conduct the test( s) at the highest production level reasonably expected to occur; if there is a separate lime cooler exhaust to the atmosphere, you must conduct the Method 5 test of the separate cooler exhaust concurrently with the kiln exhaust test. 7. Each lime kiln ............................ Determine the mass rate of stone feed to the kiln during the kiln PM emissions test. Any suitable device ...................... Calibrate and maintain the device according to manufacturer's instructions the measuring device used must be accurate to within ± 5 percent of the mass rate over its operating range. 8. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet scrubber. Establish the operating limit for the average gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber Data for the gas stream pressure drop measurement device during the kiln PM performance test. The continuous pressure drop measurement device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the pressure drop data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to 63.7112( j). 9. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet scrubber. Establish the operating limit for the average liquid flow rate to the scrubber. Data from the liquid flow rate measurement device during the kiln PM performance test. The continuous scrubbing liquid flow rate measuring device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the flow rate data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to 63.7112( j). 10. Each lime kiln equipped with an ESP, except ESP monitored with a PM detector in lieu of monitoring ESP parameters. Establish the operating limits for the average current and the average voltage supplied to each field of the ESP. The ESP operating data during the kiln PM performance test. You must collect the current and voltage data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limits for both parameters according to 63.7112( j). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78081 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS Continued [ You must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7112] For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 11. ( a) Each lime kiln equipped with a fabric filter or ESP that is monitored with a PM detector. Have installed and have operating the bag leak detector or PM detector respectively prior to the performance test. Standard operating procedures incorporated into the OM& M plan. According to the requirements in § 63.7113( d) or ( e), respectively 11. ( b) Each lime kiln equipped with a fabric filter or ESP that is monitored with a COMS. Have installed and have operating the COMS prior to the performance test. Standard operating procedures incorporated into the OM& M plan and as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to PS 1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. According to the requirements in § 63.7113( g). 12. Each stack emission from an MPO, vent from a building enclosing an MPO, or set of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions, which is subject to a PM emission limit. Measure PM emissions ................ Method 5 or Method 17 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The sample volume must be at least 1.70 dscm ( 60 dscf); for Method 5, if the gas stream being sampled is at ambient temperature, the sampling probe and filter may be operated without heaters; and if the gas stream is above ambient temperature, the sampling probe and filter may be operated at a temperature high enough, but no higher than 121 ° C ( 250 ° F), to prevent water condensation on the filter ( Method 17 may be used only with exhaust gas temperatures of not more than 250 ° F). 13. Each stack emission from an MPO, vent from a building enclosing an MPO, or set of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions, which is subject to an opacity limit. Conduct opacity observations ...... Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The test duration must be for at least 3 hours and you must obtain at least thirty, 6­ minute averages. 14. Each stack emissions source from an MPO subject to a PM or opacity limit, which uses a wet scrubber. Establish the average gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber. Data for the gas stream pressure drop measurement device during the MPO stack PM performance test. The pressure drop measurement device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the pressure drop data during the period of the performance test and determine the average level. 15. Each stack emissions source from an MPO subject to a PM or opacity limit, which uses a wet scrubber. Establish the operating limit for the average liquid flow rate to the scrubber. Data from the liquid flow rate measurement device during the MPO stack PM performance test. The continuous scrubbing liquid flow rate measuring device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the flow rate data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112( c). 16. Each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an individual enclosed, new or existing storage bin. Conduct opacity observations ...... Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The test duration must be for at least 1 hour and you must obtain ten 6­ minute averages. 17. Fugitive emissions from any MPO subject to an opacity limit. Conduct opacity observations ...... Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The test duration must be for at least 3 hours, but the 3­ hour test may be reduced to 1 hour if there are no individual readings greater than 10 percent opacity and there are no more than three readings of 10 percent during the first 1­ hour period. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78082 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS Continued [ You must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7112] For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 18. Each building enclosing any MPO, that is subject to a VE limit. Conduct VE check ........................ The specifications in § 63.7112( k). The performance test must be conducted while all affected materials processing operations within the building are operating the performance test for each affected building must be at least 75 minutes, with each side of the building and roof being observed for at least 15 minutes. TABLE 5 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS [ You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit that applies to you, according to the following table, as required in § 63.7121] For . . . For the following operating limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. Each lime kiln controlled by a wet scrubber .. Maintain the 3­ hour rolling average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the PM performance test; and maintain the 3­ hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test. Collecting the wet scrubber operating according to all applicable requirements in § 63.7113 and reducing the data according to § 63.7113( a); maintaining the 3­ hour rolling average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the PM performance test; and maintaining the 3­ hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test ( the continuous scrubbing liquid flow rate measuring device must be accurate, within ± 1% and the continuous pressure drop measurement hour rolling device must be accurate within ± 1%). 2. Each lime kiln or lime cooler equipped with a fabric filter and using a bag leak detector, and each lime kiln equipped with an ESP using a PM detector in lieu of ESP parameter monitoring. a. Maintain and operate the fabric filter or ESP such that the bag leak or PM detector alarm, respectively, is not activated and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6­ month period. ( i) Operating the fabric filter or ESP so that the alarm on the bag leak or PM detection system, respectively, is not activated and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in each 6­ month reporting period; and continuously recording the output from the bag leak or PM detection system. ( ii) Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted ( if the owner or operator takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective actions, alarm time will be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate corrective actions); if inspection of the fabric filter or ESP system demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time will be counted. 3. Each lime kiln equipped with an ESP, except an ESP monitoring PM with a PM detector or COMS. Maintain the 3­ hour rolling average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP greater than or equal to the average current and voltage input to each field of the ESP established during the performance test. Collecting the ESP operating data according to all applicable requirements in § 63.7113 and reducing the data according to § 63.7113( a), and maintaining the 3­ hour rolling average voltage input and current input to each field greater than or equal to voltage input and current input operating limits for each field established during the performance test. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78083 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS Continued [ You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit that applies to you, according to the following table, as required in § 63.7121] For . . . For the following operating limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 4. Each stack emissions source form a MPO subject to an opacity limit, which is controlled by a wet scrubber. Maintain the 3­ hour rolling average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the PM performance test; and maintain the 3­ hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test. Collecting the wet scrubber operating data according to all applicable requirements in § 63.7113 and reducing the data according to § 63.7113( a); maintaining the 3­ hour rolling average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the PM performance test; and maintaining the 3­ hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test ( the continuous scrubbing liquid flow rate measuring device must be accurate within ± 1% and the continuous pressure drop measurement device must be accurate within ± 1%). 5. For each lime kiln or lime cooler equipped with a fabric filter or an ESP that uses a COMS as the monitoring device. a. Maintain and operate the fabric filter or ESP such that the average opacity for any 6­ minute block period does not exceed 15 percent. i. Installing, maintaining, calibrating and operating a COMS as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to PS 1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. ii. Collecting the COMS data at a frequency of at least once every 15 seconds, determining block averages for each 6­ minute period and demonstrating for each 6­ minute block period the average opacity does not exceed 15 percent. TABLE 6 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. PERIODIC MONITORING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH OPACITY AND VISIBLE EMISSIONS LIMITS [ You must periodically demonstrate compliance with each opacity and visible emission limit that applies to you, according to the following table, as required in § 63.7121] For . . . For the following emission limitation . . . You must demonstrate ongoing compliance . . . 1. Each MPO subject to an opacity limitation as required in Table 1 to this subpart, or any vents from buildings subject to an opacity limitation. a. 7 15 percent opacity, depending on the materials processing operation, as required in Table 1 to this subpart. ( i) Conducting a monthly 1­ minute VE check of each emission unit in accordance with § 63.7121( e); the check must be conducted while the affected source is in operation. ( ii) If no VE are observed in 6 consecutive monthly checks for any emission unit, you may decrease the frequency of VE checking from monthly to semi­ annually for that emission unit; if VE are observed during any semiannual check, you must resume VE checking of that emission unit on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 6 consecutive monthly checks. ( iii) If no VE are observed during the semiannual check for any emission unit, you may decrease the frequency of VE checking from semi­ annually to annually for that emission unit; if VE are observed during any annual check, you must resume VE checking of that emission unit on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 6 consecutive monthly checks. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78084 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 6 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. PERIODIC MONITORING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH OPACITY AND VISIBLE EMISSIONS LIMITS Continued [ You must periodically demonstrate compliance with each opacity and visible emission limit that applies to you, according to the following table, as required in § 63.7121] For . . . For the following emission limitation . . . You must demonstrate ongoing compliance . . . ( iv) If VE are observed during any VE check, you must conduct a 6­ minute test of opacity in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter; you must begin the Method 9 test within 1 hour of any observation of VE and the 6­ minute opacity reading must not exceed the applicable opacity limit. 2. Any building subject to a VE limit, according to item 6 of Table 1 to this subpart. a. No VE .......................................................... ( i) Conducting a monthly VE check of the building, in accordance with the specifications in § 63.7112( k); the check must be conducted while all the enclosed according MPO are in operation. ( ii) The check for each affected building must be at least 5 minutes, with each side of the building and roof being observed for at least 1 minute. ( iii) If no VE are observed in 6 consecutive monthly checks of the building, you may decrease the frequency of checking from monthly to semi­ annually for that affected source; if VE are observed during any semi­ annual check, you must resume checking on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 6 consecutive monthly checks. ( iv) If no VE are observed during the semi­ annual check, you may decrease the frequency of checking from semi­ annually to annually for that affected source; and if VE are observed during any annual check, you must resume checking of that emission unit on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed in 6 consecutive monthly checks ( the source is in compliance if no VE are observed during any of these checks). TABLE 7 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS [ You must submit each report in this table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7131] You must submit a . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 1. Compliance report .......................................... a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations ( emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that applies to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131( b). b. If there were no periods during which the CMS, including the operating parameter monitoring systems, was out­ of­ control as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out­ of­ control during the reporting period. c. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation ( emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE) during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in § 63.7131( c). d. If there were periods during which the CMS, including the operating parameter monitoring systems, was out­ of­ control, as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), the report must contain the information in § 63.7131( e). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78085 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS Continued [ You must submit each report in this table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7131] You must submit a . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . e. If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10( d)( 5)( i). 2. An immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your SSMP. Actions taken for the event .............................. By fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the SSMP. 3. An immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your SSMP. The information in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii) .................. By letter within 7 working days after the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authority See § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). TABLE 8 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA [ You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table] Citation Summary of requirement Am I subject to this requirement Explanations 63.1( a)( 1) ( 4) ....................... Applicability ...................................................... Yes. 63.1( a)( 5) ............................. .......................................................................... No. 63.1( a)( 6) ............................. Applicability ...................................................... Yes. 63.1( a)( 7) ( a)( 9) .................. .......................................................................... No. 63.1( a)( 10) ( a)( 14) .............. Applicability ...................................................... Yes. 63.1( b)( 1) ............................. Initial Applicability Determination ..................... Yes ................... § § 63.7081 and 63.7142 specify additional applicability determination requirements. 63.1( b)( 2) ............................. .......................................................................... No. 63.1( b)( 3) ............................. Initial Applicability Determination ..................... Yes. 63.1( c)( 1) ............................. Applicability After Standard Established .......... Yes. 63.1( c)( 2) ............................. Permit Requirements ....................................... No ..................... Area sources not subject to subpart AAAAA, except all sources must make initial applicability determination. 63.1( c)( 3) ............................. .......................................................................... No. 63.1( c)( 4) ( 5) ....................... Extensions, Notifications .................................. Yes. 63.1( d) ................................. .......................................................................... No. 63.1( e) ................................. Applicability of Permit Program ....................... Yes. 63.2 ...................................... Definitions ........................................................ ........................... Additional definition in § 63.7143. 63.3( a) ( c) ........................... Units and Abbreviations ................................... Yes. 63.4( a)( 1) ( a)( 2) .................. Prohibited Activities .......................................... Yes. 63.4( a)( 3) ( a)( 5) .................. .......................................................................... No. 63.4( b) ( c) ........................... Circumvention, Severability ............................. Yes. 63.5( a)( 1) ( 2) ....................... Construction/ Reconstruction ............................ Yes. 63.5( b)( 1) ............................. Compliance Dates ............................................ Yes. 63.5( b)( 2) ............................. .......................................................................... No. 63.5( b)( 3) ( 4) ....................... Construction Approval, Applicability ................ Yes. 63.5( b)( 5) ............................. .......................................................................... No. 63.5( b)( 6) ............................. Applicability ...................................................... Yes. 63.5( c) .................................. .......................................................................... No. 63.5( d)( 1) ( 4) ....................... Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction ........ Yes. 63.5( e) ................................. Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction ........ Yes. 63.5( f)( 1) ( 2) ........................ Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction ........ Yes. 63.6( a) ................................. Compliance for Standards and Maintenance .. Yes. 63.6( b)( 1) ( 5) ....................... Compliance Dates ............................................ Yes. 63.6( b)( 6) ............................. .......................................................................... No. 63.6( b)( 7) ............................. Compliance Dates ............................................ Yes. 63.6( c)( 1) ( 2) ....................... Compliance Dates ............................................ Yes. 63.6( c)( 3) ( c)( 4) ................... .......................................................................... No. 63.6( c)( 5) ............................. Compliance Dates ............................................ Yes. 63.6( d) ................................. .......................................................................... No. 63.6( e)( 1) ............................. Operation & Maintenance ................................ Yes ................... See also § 63.7100 for OM& M requirements. 63.6( e)( 2) ............................. .......................................................................... No. 63.6( e)( 3) ............................. Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plan ............... Yes. 63.6( f)( 1) ( 3) ........................ Compliance with Emission Standards ............. Yes. 63.6( g)( 1) ( g)( 3) .................. Alternative Standard ........................................ Yes. 63.6( h)( 1) ( 2) ....................... Opacity/ VE Standards ...................................... Yes.. 63.6( h)( 3) ............................. .......................................................................... No. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78086 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA Continued [ You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table] Citation Summary of requirement Am I subject to this requirement Explanations 63.6( h)( 4) ( h)( 5)( i) ............... Opacity/ VE Standards ...................................... Yes ................... This requirement only applies to opacity and VE performance checks required in Table 4 to subpart AAAAA. 63.6( h)( 5)( ii) ( iii) .................. Opacity/ VE Standards ...................................... No ..................... Test durations are specified in subpart AAAAA; subpart AAAAA takes precedence. 63.6( h)( 5)( iv) ........................ Opacity/ VE Standards ...................................... No. 63.6( h)( 5)( v) ......................... Opacity/ VE Standards ...................................... Yes. 63.6( h)( 6) ............................. Opacity/ VE Standards ...................................... Yes. 63.6( h)( 7) ............................. COM Use ......................................................... No ..................... No COM required under subpart AAAAA. 63.6( h)( 8) ............................. Compliance with Opacity and VE .................... Yes. 63.6( h)( 9) ............................. Adjustment of Opacity Limit ............................. Yes. 63.6( i)( 1) ( i)( 14) ................... Extension of Compliance ................................. Yes. 63.6( i)( 15) ............................ .......................................................................... No. 63.6( i)( 16) ............................ Extension of Compliance ................................. Yes. 63.6( j) ................................... Exemption from Compliance ............................ Yes. 63.7( a)( 1) ( a)( 3) .................. Performance Testing Requirements ................ Yes ................... § 63.7110 specifies deadlines; § 63.7112 has additional specific requirements. 63.7( b) ................................. Notification ....................................................... Yes. 63.7( c) .................................. Quality Assurance/ Test Plan ........................... Yes. 63.7( d) ................................. Testing Facilities .............................................. Yes. 63.7( e)( 1) ( 4) ....................... Conduct of Tests .............................................. Yes. 63.7( f) .................................. Alternative Test Method ................................... Yes. 63.7( g) ................................. Data Analysis ................................................... Yes. 63.7( h) ................................. Waiver of Tests ................................................ Yes. 63.8( a)( 1) ............................. Monitoring Requirements ................................. Yes ................... See also § 63.7113. 63.8( a)( 2) ............................. Monitoring ........................................................ Yes. 63.8( a)( 3) ............................. .......................................................................... No. 63.8( a)( 4) ............................. Monitoring ........................................................ No ..................... Flares not applicable. 63.8( b)( 1) ( 3) ....................... Conduct of Monitoring ...................................... Yes. 63.8( c)( 1) ( 3) ....................... CMS Operation/ Maintenance ........................... Yes. 63.8( c)( 4) ............................. CMS Requirements .......................................... No ..................... See § 63.7121. 63.8( c)( 4)( i) ( ii) .................... Cycle Time for COM and CEMS ..................... No ..................... No COM or CEMS are required under subpart AAAAA; see § 63.7113 for CPMS requirements 63.8( c)( 5) ............................. Minimum COM procedures .............................. No COM not required. 63.8( c)( 6) ............................. CMS Requirements .......................................... No See § 63.7113. 63.8( c)( 7) ( 8) ....................... CMS Requirements .......................................... Yes. 63.8( d) ................................. Quality Control ................................................. No ..................... See § 63.7113. 63.8( e) ................................. Performance Evaluation for CMS .................... No. 63.8( f)( 1) ( f)( 5) .................... Alternative Monitoring Method ......................... Yes. 63.8( f)( 6) .............................. Alternative to Relative Accuracy test ............... No. 63.8( g)( 1) ( g)( 5) .................. Data Reduction; Data That Cannot Be Used .. No ..................... See data reduction requirements in § § 63.7120 and 63.7121. 63.9( a) ................................. Notification Requirements ................................ Yes ................... See also § 63.7130 63.9( b) ................................. Initial Notifications ............................................ Yes. 63.9( c) .................................. Request for Compliance Extension ................. Yes. 63.9( d) ................................. New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements. Yes. 63.9( e) ................................. Notification of Performance Test ..................... Yes. 63.9( f) .................................. Notification of VE/ Opacity Test ........................ Yes ................... This requirement only applies to opacity and VE performance tests required in Table 4 to subpart AAAAA. Notification not required for VE/ opacity test under Table 6 to subpart AAAAA. 63.9( g) ................................. Additional CMS Notifications ........................... No ..................... Not required for operating parameter monitoring 63.9( h)( 1) ( h)( 3) .................. Notification of Compliance Status .................... Yes. 63.9( h)( 4) ............................. .......................................................................... No.. 63.9( h)( 5) ( h)( 6) .................. Notification of Compliance Status .................... Yes. 63.9( i) ................................... Adjustment of Deadlines .................................. Yes. 63.9( j) ................................... Change in Previous Information ...................... Yes. 63.10( a) ............................... Recordkeeping/ Reporting General Requirements Yes ................... See § § 63.7131 through 63.7133. 63.10( b)( 1) ( b)( 2)( xii) .......... Records ............................................................ Yes. 63.10( b)( 2)( xiii) .................... Records for Relative Accuracy Test ................ No. 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv) .................... Records for Notification ................................... Yes. 63.10( b)( 3) ........................... Applicability Determinations ............................. Yes. 63.10( c) ................................ Additional CMS Recordkeeping ....................... No ..................... See § 63.7132. 63.10( d)( 1) ........................... General Reporting Requirements .................... Yes. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78087 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA Continued [ You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table] Citation Summary of requirement Am I subject to this requirement Explanations 63.10( d)( 2) ........................... Performance Test Results ............................... Yes. 63.10( d)( 3) ........................... Opacity or VE Observations ............................ Yes ................... For the periodic monitoring requirements in Table 6 to subpart AAAAA, report according to § 63.10( d)( 3) only if VE observed and subsequent visual opacity test is required. 63.10( d)( 4) ........................... Progress Reports ............................................. Yes. 63.10( d)( 5) ........................... Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Reports ......... Yes. 63.10( e) ............................... Additional CMS Reports .................................. No ..................... See specific requirements in subpart AAAAA, see § 63.7131. 63.10( f) ................................ Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Reporting ............... Yes. 63.11( a) ( b) ......................... Control Device Requirements .......................... No ..................... Flares not applicable. 63.12( a) ( c) ......................... State Authority and Delegations ...................... Yes. 63.13( a) ( c) ......................... State/ Regional Addresses ............................... Yes. 63.14( a) ( b) ......................... Incorporation by Reference ............................. Yes. ASTM 6420 99 and 6735 01 ( see § 63.14). 63.15( a) ( b) ......................... Availability of Information ................................. Yes. * * * * * [ FR Doc. 02 31233 Filed 12 19 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.136236

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0052-0567

Supporting & Related Material

­~ ­­. ­~ c Docket No. O~~­ 2002­ 0052 * Item NO. 1143­ 127 I* $ n G UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 2771 1 4*\"" D %+.. ww 5 % .4i PRO& 8 OFFICE OF AIR QUALNY PLANNING AND STANDARDS MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Cost Inputs for Econ ime Industry NESHAP ' + James Crowder, Group Leader 8 bA Minerals and Inorganic Chemic s Group Ron Evans, Group Leader Innovative Strategies and Economics Group This memorandum provides the costs of air pollution controls ( that may be needed to comply with emission limits being considered) and testing and monitoring requirements being considered for the subject regulation. These costs are for the control of HAP w and existing lime kilns, lime coolers, and mat 1 costs have been estimatedxor kil for the kiln, cooler, and MHO are HAP metals, using PM flect updated thinking on rule requirements based on el's recommendations and a comment received fro Two EIAs need to be conducted, for the two regulatory options under consider assuming that PM continuous emission monitoring systems ( CEMS) will be required, other option that PM CEMS will not be required. Please find attached the following items: es applicable to the cost and economic analysis. grading existing kilns' baghouses ( replace bags) sts for each PM control option for model kilns and cooler: I I I Upgrading existing kilns' ESP ( new ESP field) Upgrading existing kilns' wet scrubbers ( replace with new venturi wet scrubber) Upgrading existing uncontrolled kilns with a new baghouse Ne& baghouse for a new kiln 0 I I 0 MHO conti­ oi costs ­ Table of testing and monitoring costs for kilns Testing and monitoring costs for materials handling sources Table matching each lime plant's kiln( s) to model kilns RqcledlRecyclable Prlnted with Vegetable Oil Based Ink on 100% Recycled Paper ( 40% Postconsumer) General Notes for Cost and Economic Analysis 0 Costs are in 1000' s of first quarter1 997 dollars. TCI = total capital investment DAC = direct annual cost IAC = indirect annual cost TAC = total annual cost = D Cost recovery based on 7 perc Costs for kilns are provided on a model basis, and only for those models Since the draft revised rule includes a provision for bubbling of PM emissions from the 0 0 0 0 C + cost recovery 0 0 corresponding actual kilns i kilns and coolers, this will allow some plants to avoid installation of new, or upgrading of existing, PM controls that may have been required without the bubbling provision. To account for this lesser impact, the cost of cooler PM controls ( which % without the bubbling provision) are zero. 0 0 MHO control costs are lump sum for the whole plant. We assume 70 percent of plants are major sources, but we do not know which plants are , except the costs to measure HC1 lete list of all plants in the U. S. 0 major. A random assignment of major vs. area status based on this 70% probability is recommended. 0 orne by every plant. 0 Extrapolation of costs and * In addition, if ofthe economic impacts to the entire industry needs to be consi plants listed in Table 7 are small businesses, please use the costs we provide you ( in a separate memo). sugar production; this is reflected in the list of plants. example, the percentage of existing kilns with a certain PM control device needing an upgrade ( i. e., not meeting the emission limit and thus having to incur the cost of upgrading their air pollution control) is indicated. We do not know which plants are meeting the emission limits, so these costs should be assigned randomly based on the percentages indicated. The exception to this is the small businesses, for which costs have already been assigned, based on the assumption that all are major except 1 company. However, the small businesses need to be included when determining how many kilns incur a cost based on the aforementioned percentages. We will provide you the costs to small businesses in a separate memo. ( 1) HCl testing for area source status determination ( incurred by every plant; depends on # of kilns ­ see Table 6) ;, and if the lime plant is a major source, the following costs also 0 The NESHAP will not affect lime plants associated with pulp/ paper production or beet Additional notes particular to a control option are also provided in the tables below. For 0 0 In summary, total cost to a lime plant equals cost of: apply: 3 ( 2) kiln PM control ( depends on control device, if meeting emission limit ­ see Tables 1 through 5) ( 3) MHO control ( costs are per plant ­ see top of page 7) ( 4) kiln testing and monitoring ( costs are per kiln; all kilns incur costs ­ see Table 6) ( 5) MHO testing and monitoring ( per plant ­ see page 8) Table 1 : Upgrading; Existing; Kilns FF with New Bags Notes: 29 % of kilns with baghouses are not expected to meet the PM emission limit, and thus would incur these costs. Reference: 11­ B­ 66 * * I 4 Table 2. New FF on Existing Uncontrolled Kiln These costs would apply also to kilns with just cyclones or gravel beds. All kilns that are uncontrolled ( or with cyclone or gravel bed) would incur these costs. Reference: 11­ B­ 70 ­ ( 1 0 a 9 . e c a 5 Table 3. Upgrading Wet Scrubbers on Existing. Kilns with New Venturi Scrubber cost DAC IAC . TAC recovery 28 75 11 113 32 88 11 13 1 57 220 16 293 73 312 19 403 33 102 12 146 55 207 15 278 75 326 19 42Q 39 129 13 180 19 36 9 64 6 Table 4. Additional Field for ESP Notes: e 33 % of kilns with ESPs are not expected to meet the PM emission limi and thus would incur these costs. e Reference: 11­ B­ 67 Table 5. New Baghouse on New Kiln Notes: e 1 kiln of model size N and 1 kiln of model size P are expected to be built after the first 5 2 kilns of model size Q and 2 kilns of model size R are expected to be built after the first For models N, P, and Q, the costs are incremental compared to the costs that would be years following the compliance date. 5 years following the compliance date. incurred in complying with the NSPS for lime kilns. Model R represents a double shaft vertical kiln and these costs are whole, since the NSPS applies only to vertical kilns. Negative DAC represents a savings due to reduced electricity consumption because of a larger baghouse with less pressure drop. e e e Reference: 11­ B­ 6 ­ L % I 1 1 ­ i ? . a . ­ t E 4 7 Materials Handling; Operations Control Costs A lump sum of $ 78,400 capital cost and $ 68,600 total annual cost per major source plant. Reference: Memo fiom Mike Laney, RTI. Estimated Costs of Controlling Materials e Handling Operations at Lime Manufacturing Facilities Table 6. Kiln Testing; and MonitorinP Costs PM control device5 OM and M plans, plus costs for misc. notifications Notes: testing and monitoring costs would only be incurred at major sources, except that the M. Costs above are per kiln, except as noted. Costs for testing additional kilns at same plant 320 tests would be incurred by every plant are noted below. Add $ 5000 ( one­ time cost) and $ 1250 ( annualized cost) for each additional kiln tested at same location. Add $ 3 100 ( one­ time cost) and $ 775 ( annualized cost) for each additional kiln tested at same location. One time costs are annualized over a 5­ year period, 7% interest rate. The rule applies only to kilns with baghouses, and BLD are an option for ESPs, but for the purposes of costing, assume all kilns will use BLD e 1. 2. 3. 4. ­ > ­ x . be c B 8 5. Assume 55 percent of currently existing kilns with baghouses or scrubbers will have a multi­ stack ( assume 10 compartment) contr the single stack BLD. Assume 34 percent of existing kilns with ESPs will have multi­ stack configuration and wil 6. For the start­ up, shutdown, ction plan, and the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan, and other evice and will incur these costs in lieu of costs in lieu of single stack BLD. ments. Costs are per plant. 7. Important Notes Reparding PM CEMS: A separate EIA will need to be conducted to model the impact of the costs of PM CEMS. The PM CEMS costs will be u required in the regulation, then BLDs will not be required. The exception to this is that kilns with multi­ stack PM control devices will not be required to use PM CEMS, so these kilns will always incur the co Note Total Capital cost ( Beta Gage type) PM CEMS = $ 170,000 Annual Cost ( Beta Gage type) PM CEMS = $ 15,000 Capital Cost feed rate monitor = $ 22,000 Annual Cost feed rate monitor = $ 6,000 Materials Handling Operations Testing, and Monitoring which is $ 3,750 annualized over 5 years. instead of the BLD costs, i. e., if PM CEMS are D for a multi­ stack PM control device. ( See d rate monitoring as well, i. e., I . Assume all major source plants incur $ 15,000 in one­ time costs for PM tests on MHOS, Costs are based on two PM tests. One time costs are thus 1 * 10,000 + ( 1 * 5000) . = $ 15,000; annualized costs are * 2500 + ( 1 * 1250) = $ 3,750. . assume 95 percent of major source plants i $ 5,600 in monitoring costs, randomly assigned. . Based on $ 5,300 * ( 138.8/ 131.3)) annual monitoring costs. See attached Appendix A for information on how these costs were derived. ( The factor 138.8/ 13 1.3 is used to convert ts from 1993 dollars to 1997 dollars.) assume 5 percent of major source plants incur $ 12,600 in annual monitoring costs ( randomly assigned, except assume all small businesses incur these costs).

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.181475

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0001

Proposed Rule

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Proposed Rule

Thursday, December 19, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Proposed Rule VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77830 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ OAR 2002 0059; FRL 7417 9] RIN 2060 AG 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICE) with manufacturer's nameplate rating above 500 brake horsepower located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP). We have identified stationary RICE as a major source category of HAP emissions such as formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde. The proposed rule would implement section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) for RICE. We estimate that 40 percent of stationary RICE will be located at major sources and thus subject to the proposed rule. As a result, the environmental, energy, and economic impacts presented in this preamble reflect these estimates. We estimate that the proposed rule would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from major stationary RICE by approximately 5,000 tons/ year in the 5th year after the standards are implemented. The emissions reductions achieved by these standards will provide protection to the public and achieve a primary goal of the CAA. DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 18, 2003, or by February 20, 2003 if a public hearing is held. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 8, 2003, a public hearing will be held on January 21, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail ( in duplicate, if possible) to EPA West ( Air Docket), U. S. EPA ( MD 6102T), Room B 108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0059. By hand delivery/ courier, comments may be submitted ( in duplicate, if possible) to EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket), U. S. EPA, ( MD 6102T), Room B 108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0059. Also, comments may be submitted electronically according to the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby. Docket. Docket No. OAR 2002 0059 contains supporting information used in developing the standards. The docket is located at the U. S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 in room B108, and may be inspected from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sims Roy, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division, ( MD C439 01), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number ( 919) 541 5263; facsimile number ( 919) 541 5450; electronic mail address: roy. sims@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include: Category SIC NAICS Examples of regulated entities Any industry using a stationary RICE as defined in the proposed rule. 4911 2211 Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution. 4922 48621 Natural gas transmission. 1311 211111 Crude petroleum and natural gas production. 1321 211112 Natural gas liquids producers. 9711 92811 National security. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.6585 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0059. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77831 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. The EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' The EPA is not required to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be considered if time permits. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources,'' `` Dockets,'' and `` EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0059. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e­ mail) to a­ and­ r­ docket@ epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0059. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your email address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. By Mail. Send your comments ( in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U. S. EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0059. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed above ( see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0059. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified above. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Sims Roy, c/ o OAQPS Document Control Officer ( Room C404 2), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 27711, Attention Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0059. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77832 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments. Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mrs. Kelly Hayes, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division ( MD C439 01), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, ( 919) 541 5578 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Mrs. Hayes to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule. If a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments. Written statements and supporting information will be considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information presented at a public hearing, if held. Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Background A. What is the regulatory development background of this source category? B. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP? C. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP? D. What are the health effects associated with HAP from stationary RICE? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. Am I subject to the proposed rule? B. What source categories and subcategories are affected by the proposed rule? C. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are the emissions? D. What are the emission limitations and operating limitations? E. What are the initial compliance requirements? F. What are the continuous compliance provisions? G. What monitoring and testing methods are available to measure these low concentrations of CO and formaldehyde? H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How did we select the source category and any subcategories? B. What is the affected source? C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed emission limitations and operating limitations? D. Why does the proposed rule not apply to stationary RICE of 500 brake horsepower or less? E. Why does the proposed rule not apply to stationary RICE located at area sources? F. How did we select the format of the standard? G. How did we select the initial compliance requirements? H. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements? I. What monitoring and testing methods are available to measure these low concentrations of CO and formaldehyde? J. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. What are the air quality impacts? B. What are the cost impacts? C. What are the economic impacts? D. What are the nonair health, environmental and energy impacts? V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation VI. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 G. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. H. Paperwork Reduction Act I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background A. What Is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source Category? In September 1996, we chartered the Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking ( ICCR) advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA). The committee's objective was to develop recommendations for regulations for several combustion source categories under sections 112 and 129 of the CAA. The ICCR advisory committee, also known as the Coordinating Committee, formed Source Work Groups for the various combustor types covered under the ICCR. One work group, the RICE Work Group, was formed to research issues related to stationary RICE units. The RICE Work Group submitted recommendations, information, and data analyses to the Coordinating Committee, which in turn considered them and submitted recommendations and information to EPA. The Committee's 2­ year charter expired in September 1998. We considered the Committee's recommendations in developing the proposed rule for stationary RICE. B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The stationary RICE source category was listed on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 ton/ yr of any one HAP or 25 ton/ yr of any combination of HAP. Most RICE engines or groups of RICE engines are not major HAP emission sources by themselves but are major because they are co­ located at major HAP sites. C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing sources in regulated source categories. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT. The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112( d)( 3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standards are set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory ( or the best performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77833 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP From Stationary RICE? Emission data collected during development of the proposed NESHAP show that several HAP are emitted from stationary RICE. These HAP emissions are formed during combustion or result from HAP compounds contained in the fuel burned. Hazardous air pollutants which have been measured in emission tests conducted on natural gas fired and distillate oil fired RICE include: 1,1,2,2­ tetrachloroethane, 1,3­ butadiene, 2,2,4­ trimethylpentane, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, methanol, methylene chloride, n­ hexane, naphthalene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic organic matter, styrene, tetrachloroethane, toluene, and xylene. Metallic HAP from distillate oil fired stationary RICE that have been measured are: Cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. Although numerous HAP may be emitted from RICE, only a few account for essentially all of the mass of HAP emissions from stationary RICE. These HAP are: Formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde. The hazardous air pollutant emitted in the largest quantities from stationary RICE is formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen and can cause irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract, coughing, dry throat, tightening of the chest, headache, and heart palpitations. Acute inhalation has caused bronchitis, pulmonary edema, pneumonitis, pneumonia, and death due to respiratory failure. Long­ term exposure can cause dermatitis and sensitization of the skin and respiratory tract. Acrolein is a cytotoxic agent, a powerful lacrimating agent, and a severe tissue irritant. Acute exposure to acrolein can cause severe irritation or corrosion of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, with tearing, pain in the chest, and delayed­ onset pulmonary injury with depressed pulmonary function. Chronic exposure to acrolein can cause skin sensitization and contact dermatitis. Acrolein is not considered carcinogenic to humans. Humans are very sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol including formic acidaemia, metabolic acidosis, ocular toxicity, nervous system depression, blindness, coma, and death. A majority of the available information on methanol toxicity in humans is based on acute rather than long­ term exposure. However, recent animal studies also indicate potential reproductive and developmental health consequences following exposure to methanol in both mice and primates. Methanol has not been classified with respect to carcinogenicity. The health effects for acetaldehyde are irritation of the eye mucous membranes, skin, and upper respiratory tract, and a central nervous system ( CNS) depressant in humans. Chronic exposure can cause conjunctivitis, coughing, difficult breathing, and dermatitis. Chronic exposure may cause heart and kidney damage, embryotoxicity, and teratogenic effects. Acetaldehyde is a probable carcinogen in humans. We recently reviewed health effects associated with emissions of particulates from diesel engines in the context of regulating heavy duty motor vehicles and engines ( 66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001). Diesel particulate matter is not currently listed as a hazardous air pollutant for stationary sources under section 112 of the CAA and was not specifically reviewed under the proposed rule, though constituent parts of diesel particulate matter are subject to the proposed rule. We are continuing to review this issue in the context of regulating stationary internal combustion engines. II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. Am I Subject to the Proposed Rule? The proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate stationary RICE which are located at a major source of HAP emissions, except if your stationary RICE are all rated at or under 500 brake horsepower. A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons ( 9.07 megagrams) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons ( 22.68 megagrams) or more per year. Section 112( n)( 4) of the CAA requires that the aggregation of HAP for purposes of determining whether an oil and gas production facility is major or nonmajor be done only with respect to particular sites within the source and not on a total aggregated site basis. We incorporated the requirements of section 112( n)( 4) of the CAA into our NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities in subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63. As in subpart HH, we plan to aggregate HAP emissions for the purposes of determining a major HAP source for RICE only with respect to particular sites within an oil and gas production facility. The sites are called surface sites and may include a combination of any of the following equipment: glycol dehydrators, tanks which have potential for flash emissions, RICE and combustion turbines. The standards proposed in the rule have specific requirements for all new or reconstructed stationary RICE and for existing spark ignition 4 stroke rich burn ( 4SRB) stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions, except that stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less are not addressed in the proposed rule. Stationary RICE which operate exclusively as emergency power/ limited use units or which combust landfill gas or digester gas as primary fuel are subject only to initial notification requirements. An emergency power/ limited use unit means any stationary RICE that operates as a mechanical or electrical power source during emergencies, when the primary power source for a facility has been rendered inoperable by an emergency situation. One example is when electric power from the local utility is interrupted. Another example is to pump water in the case of fire or flood. Emergency power/ limited use units include units that operate less than 50 hours per year in nonemergency situations, including certain peaking units at electric facilities or stationary RICE at industrial facilities. With the exception of existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE, other types of existing stationary RICE ( i. e., spark ignition 2 stroke lean burn ( 2SLB), spark ignition 4 stroke lean burn ( 4SLB), and compression ignition ( CI)) located at a major source of HAP emissions are not subject to any specific requirement under the proposed rule. Finally, the proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE test cells/ stands since these facilities will be covered by another NESHAP, subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63. B. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the Proposed Rule? The proposed rule covers new or reconstructed stationary RICE and existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE. A RICE is any spark ignition or compression ignition reciprocating internal combustion engine. A stationary RICE is any RICE which is not mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that stationary RICE are not self­ VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77834 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules propelled, are not intended to be propelled while performing their function, or are not portable or transportable as that term is identified in the definition of non­ road engine at 40 CFR 89.2. We divided the stationary RICE source category into four subcategories: ( 1) Emergency power/ limited use units, ( 2) stationary RICE that combust landfill gas or digester gas as their primary fuel, ( 3) stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, and ( 4) other stationary RICE. We further divided the last subcategory into four subcategories: ( 1) 2SLB stationary RICE, ( 2) 4SLB stationary RICE, ( 3) 4SRB stationary RICE, and ( 4) CI stationary RICE. We are specifically soliciting comments on creating a subcategory of limited use engines with a capacity utilization of 10 percent or less. This is further discussed in the `` Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation'' section of this preamble. The proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE test cells/ stands since these facilities will be covered by another NESHAP, subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63. The proposed rule also does not apply to existing, new, or reconstructed stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions. An area source of HAP emissions is a plant site that does not emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons ( 9.07 megagrams) or greater per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons ( 22.68 megagrams) or greater per year. In addition, the proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or below. These engines have been discussed previously in this preamble. C. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are the Emissions? The primary sources of HAP emissions are exhaust gases from combustion of gaseous fuels and liquid fuels in stationary RICE. Formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde are HAP that are present in significant quantities from stationary RICE. D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations? As the owner or operator of an affected source, you must do one of the following: ( 1) Each existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE must comply with each emission limitation in Table 1( a) of proposed subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, and each operating limitation in Table 1( b) of proposed subpart ZZZZ that apply, or ( 2) each new or reconstructed 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or CI stationary RICE must comply with each emission limitation in Table 2( a) of proposed subpart ZZZZ and operating limitation in Table 2( b) of proposed subpart ZZZZ that apply. Existing 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or existing CI stationary RICE, stationary RICE that operate exclusively as emergency power/ limited use units, or stationary RICE that combust digester gas or landfill gas as their primary fuel have an emission standard of no emission reduction, and will not be tested to meet any specific emission limitation or operating limitation. In addition, any stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, any stationary RICE that have a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, or stationary RICE that are being tested at stationary RICE test cells/ stands are not addressed in the proposed rule and, therefore, do not need to comply with any emission limitation or operating limitation. E. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements? If your stationary RICE must meet specific emission limitations and operating limitations, then you must meet the following initial compliance requirements. The testing and initial compliance requirements are different, depending on whether you demonstrate compliance with the carbon monoxide ( CO) emission reduction requirement, formaldehyde emission reduction requirement, or the requirement to limit the formaldehyde concentration in the stationary RICE exhaust. 1. If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using a oxidation catalyst, you must install a continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) to continuously monitor the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature. You must conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that you are achieving the required CO percent reduction, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis. During the initial performance test, you must record the initial pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature. 2. If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, you must install a continuous emissions monitoring system ( CEMS) to measure CO and either carbon dioxide or oxygen simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst. To demonstrate initial compliance, you must conduct an initial performance evaluation using Performance Specifications ( PS) 3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. You must demonstrate that the reduction of CO emissions meets the required percent reduction using the first 4­ hour average after a successful performance evaluation. Your measurements at the inlet and the outlet of the oxidation catalyst must be on a dry basis and corrected to 15 percent oxygen or equivalent carbon dioxide content. 3. If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using non­ selective catalytic reduction ( NSCR), you must install a CPMS to continuously monitor the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature, and the temperature rise across the catalyst. You must conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that you are achieving the required formaldehyde percent reduction, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis. During the initial performance test, you must record the initial values of the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature, and the temperature rise across the catalyst. 4. If you are complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, you must conduct an initial performance test using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, California Air Resources Board ( CARB) Method 430, or EPA Solid Waste ( SW) 846 Method 0011 to demonstrate that the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust is less than or equal to the emission limit, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis, that applies to you. To correct to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis, you must measure oxygen using Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and measure moisture using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The initial performance test must be conducted at the lowest load at which you will operate your stationary RICE and at the typical load at which you will operate your stationary RICE. This initial performance test establishes the lowest load or the minimum fuel flow rate at which you may operate your stationary RICE. To demonstrate initial compliance, you must also install a CPMS to continuously monitor stationary RICE load or fuel flow rate and other ( if any) VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77835 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules operating parameters approved by the Administrator. If you choose to comply with the emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde, you must also petition the Administrator for approval of additional operating limitations or approval of no additional operating limitations. If the Administrator approves your petition for additional operating limitations, the operating limitations must also be established during the initial performance test. If you petition the Administrator for approval of additional operating limitations, your petition must include the following: ( 1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as additional operating limitations; ( 2) a discussion of the relationship between the parameters and HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions change with changes in the parameters, and how limitations on the parameters will serve to limit HAP emissions; ( 3) a discussion of how you will establish the upper and/ or lower values for the parameters which will establish the limits on the parameters in the operating limitations; ( 4) a discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor the parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and instruments; and ( 5) a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring the parameters. If you petition the Administrator for approval of no additional operating limitations, your petition must include the following: ( 1) Identification of the parameters associated with operation of the stationary RICE and any emission control device which could change intentionally ( e. g., operator adjustment, automatic controller adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally ( e. g., wear and tear, error, etc.) on a routine basis or over time; ( 2) a discussion of the relationship, if any, between changes in the parameters and changes in HAP emissions; ( 3) for those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion of whether establishing limitations on the parameters would serve to limit HAP emissions; ( 4) for those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish upper and/ or lower values for the parameters which would establish limits on these parameters in operating limitations; ( 5) for the parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion identifying the methods you could use to measure the parameters and the instruments you could use to monitor them, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and instruments; ( 6) for the parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor them; and ( 7) a discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible or unreasonable to adopt the parameters as operating limitations. F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions? Several general continuous compliance requirements apply to all stationary RICE meeting various specified emission and operating limitations. If your stationary RICE is required to meet specific emission and operating limitations, then you are required to comply with the emission and operating limitations at all times, except during startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary RICE. You must also operate and maintain your stationary RICE, air pollution control equipment, and monitoring equipment according to good air pollution control practices at all times, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must conduct all monitoring at all times that the stationary RICE is operating, except during periods of malfunction of the monitoring equipment or necessary repairs or quality assurance or control activities, such as calibration checks. 1. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating less than 5000 brake horsepower, complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, you must conduct quarterly performance tests for CO and oxygen using a portable CO monitor to demonstrate that the required CO percent reduction is achieved. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the CO percent reduction requirement, you must continuously monitor and record the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature. The 4­ hour rolling average of the valid data must be within the operating limitations. If you change your oxidation catalyst ( i. e., replace catalyst elements), you must reestablish your pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature. 2. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower, complying with the CO percent reduction emission limitation using an oxidation catalyst, you must calibrate and operate your CEMS according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8. You must continuously monitor and record the CO concentration at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst and calculate the percent reduction of CO emissions hourly. The reduction of CO must be at least the required percent reduction, based on a rolling 4­ hour average, averaged every hour. You must also conduct an annual relative accuracy test audit ( RATA) of your CEMS using PS 3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as well as daily and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1. 3. For existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by continuously monitoring the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst. The 4­ hour rolling average of the valid data must be above and/ or below the lower bounds and/ or upper bounds of the operating parameters corresponding to compliance with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions. If you change your NSCR ( i. e., replace catalyst elements), you must reestablish the values of the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst. The 4SRB stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower must also conduct semiannual performance tests to demonstrate that the percent reduction for formaldehyde emissions is achieved. If you demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction requirement for two successive performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of performance testing to annually. However, if an annual performance test indicates a deviation from the percent reduction requirement, you must return to semiannual performance tests. 4. If you are complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, the following requirements must be met: a. Proper maintenance. At all times, the owner or operator shall maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. b. Continued operation. Except for, as applicable, monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities ( including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), the owner or operator VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77836 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules shall conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all times that the unit is operating. Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out­ of­ control periods, and required quality assurance or control activities shall not be used for purposes of calculating data averages. The owner or operator shall use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring equipment to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. Any period for which the monitoring system is out­ of­ control and data are not available for required calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limitations, you must continuously monitor and record the operating load or fuel flow rate of the stationary RICE, and the values of any other parameters which have been approved by the Administrator as operating limitations. The 4­ hour rolling average of the operating load or fuel flow rate must be no lower than 5 percent below the operating limitations established during the initial performance test. After completion of the initial performance test, you must demonstrate that formaldehyde emissions remain at or below the formaldehyde concentration limit by performing semiannual performance tests. If you demonstrate compliance with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust for two successive performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of performance testing to annually. However, if an annual performance test indicates a deviation of formaldehyde emissions from the formaldehyde concentration limit, you must return to semiannual performance tests. Also, if your stationary RICE will be operated at a load that is lower than the load at which you operated the stationary RICE during the initial performance test, you must conduct a performance test and reestablish the minimum values for the stationary RICE. G. What Monitoring and Testing Methods Are Available To Measure These Low Concentrations of CO and Formaldehyde? Continuous emissions monitoring systems are available which can accurately measure CO emissions at the low concentrations found in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst emission control device. Our PS 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS, however, has not been updated recently and does not reflect the performance capabilities of the systems. We are currently undertaking a review of PS 4 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS, and in conjunction with this effort, we solicit comments on the performance capabilities of CO CEMS to accurately measure the low concentrations of CO experienced in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst emission control device. Similarly, our Fourier Transform Infrared ( FTIR) test method, Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, CARB Method 430, as well as EPA SW 846 Method 0011 can be used to accurately measure formaldehyde concentrations in the exhaust of a stationary RICE as low as 350 parts per billion by volume, dry basis ( ppbvd). Similar to our current performance specifications for CO CEMS, as both of these test methods are currently written, they do not provide for this level of accuracy. The methods must be used with some revisions to achieve such accuracy. As a result, we are currently undertaking a review of our FTIR method, Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to incorporate revisions to ensure it can be used to accurately measure formaldehyde concentrations as low as 8 ppbvd in the exhaust from a stationary RICE. In conjunction with this effort, we solicit comments on revisions to Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to ensure accurate measurement of such low concentrations of formaldehyde. In addition, we are also proposing another EPA method for measuring formaldehyde from natural gas­ fired stationary RICE. This impinger­ based method, EPA Method 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, Measurement of Formaldehyde Emissions From Natural Gas­ fired Stationary Sources Acetyl Acetone Derivitization Method, may be an acceptable method for measuring low concentrations as required by the proposed rule. H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements? If you own or operate a stationary RICE which is located at a major source of HAP emissions, you must submit all of the applicable notifications as listed in the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including an initial notification, notification of performance test or evaluation, and a notification of compliance for each stationary RICE which must comply with the specified emission and operating limitations. In addition, you must submit an initial notification for each stationary RICE which operates exclusively as an emergency power/ limited use unit or a stationary RICE which combusts digester gas or landfill gas as primary fuel. You must record all of the data necessary to determine if you are in compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations ( if applicable) as required by the proposed rule. Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for review. You must also keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. Records must remain on site for at least 2 years and then can be maintained offsite for the remaining 3 years. You must submit a compliance report semiannually. This report should contain information including company name and address, a statement by a responsible official that the report is accurate, and a statement of compliance or documentation of any deviation from the requirements of the proposed rule during the reporting period. III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Any Subcategories? Stationary RICE are listed as a major source category for regulatory development under section 112 of the CAA. The CAA allows us discretion in defining the appropriate scope of the category and subcategories. We considered several criteria associated with stationary RICE which could lead to establishment of subcategories including differences in emission characteristics, fuel, mode of operation, size of source, and type of source. We identified four subcategories of stationary RICE located at major sources: ( 1) Emergency power/ limited use units, ( 2) stationary RICE which combust landfill gas or digester gas as their primary fuel, ( 3) stationary RICE with a manufacturer's rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, and ( 4) other stationary RICE. We identified emergency power/ limited use units as a subcategory. Emergency power/ limited use units operate only in emergencies, such as a loss of power provided by another source. These types of stationary RICE operate infrequently and, when called upon to operate, must respond without failure and without lengthy periods of startup. These conditions limit the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77837 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules applicability of HAP emission control technology to emergency power/ limited use units. Similarly, stationary RICE which combust landfill gas or digester gas as their primary fuel were identified as a subcategory. Landfill and digester gases contain a family of chemicals referred to as siloxanes, which limits the application of HAP emission control technology. Stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less were also identified as a subcategory. We know very little about these stationary RICE and without further knowledge have concerns about the applicability of HAP emission control technology to them. As discussed above, we have not addressed these stationary RICE in the proposed rule. Finally, in considering the fourth subcategory ( i. e., other stationary RICE located at major sources of HAP emissions), we identified four additional subcategories of stationary RICE within this fourth subcategory: ( 1) 2SLB stationary RICE, ( 2) 4SLB stationary RICE, ( 3) 4SRB stationary RICE, and ( 4) CI stationary RICE. The further subcategorization is necessary because engine design characteristics, HAP emissions, and the application of HAP emission control technology differ among the subcategories. For further information on our rationale for subcategorization, see the memorandum entitled `` Subcategorization of Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines for the Purpose of NESHAP'' in the docket. Stationary RICE being tested at stationary RICE test cells/ stands are not covered by the proposed rule since they will be covered by a separate NESHAP, subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63. B. What Is the Affected Source? The affected source for the proposed rule is any stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions with a manufacturer's nameplate rating above 500 brake horsepower and not being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/ stand. C. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations? 1. Overview As established in section 112( d) of the CAA, the emission standards must be no less stringent than the MACT floor, which for existing sources is the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. The MACT floor for new sources must be no less stringent than the level of emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. As outlined below, the MACT floors and MACT for existing and new stationary RICE were developed primarily through analyses of the population database and the emissions database. The population database provides population information on operating stationary RICE in the United States and was constructed to support the proposed rule. The population database contains information from available databases, such as the Aerometric Information Retrieval System, the Ozone Transport and Assessment Group, and State and local agencies' databases. The first version of the database was released in 1997. Subsequent versions have been released reflecting additional or updated data. The most recent release of the database is version 4, released in November 1998. The population database contains information on approximately 28,000 stationary RICE. We believe the current stationary RICE population is about 37,000, including those under 500 horsepower and those at area sources, therefore, we believe the population database represents about 75 percent of the stationary RICE in the United States. As a result, we believe the information in the population database is representative of the stationary RICE industry subject to the proposed rule. The emissions database is a compilation of available HAP emission test reports created to support the proposed rule. The majority of HAP emission test reports were conducted in the State of California as part of the Air Toxics `` Hot Spots'' Information Assessment Act of 1987 program. Complete copies of HAP emission test reports for stationary RICE were gathered from air districts in California and taken from a previous EPA effort referred to as the Source Test Information Retrieval System. Other States and trade associations such as Western States Petroleum Association and Gas Research Institute ( GRI) were contacted for available HAP emission test reports. Finally, the emissions database also includes preliminary results from a joint EPA­ industry HAP emission testing program on stationary RICE at the Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory at Colorado State University ( CSU). 2. General We considered several approaches to identify MACT floors for stationary RICE. One approach was to review State regulations and permits for stationary RICE. We found no State regulations or State permits which specifically limit HAP emissions from stationary RICE. Another approach we considered to identify MACT floors for stationary RICE was that of good combustion practices. We tried to identify specific practices which might be considered improved maintenance or operation, such as frequent checks or tune ups, which serve to maintain a stationary RICE in good operating condition. We thought the use of such practices might prevent increases in HAP emissions which could arise from poor operation or failure of a stationary RICE. Toward that end, we contacted State and local permitting authorities, as well as the manufacturers and the owners and operators of stationary RICE. A more detailed discussion is presented in `` Pollution Prevention for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines'' in the docket. We were unable to identify any specific good combustion practices from these efforts which we could relate directly to reduced HAP emissions. As mentioned above, the primary approach we ultimately used to identify MACT floors and MACT was to review information in the population and emissions databases. We reviewed the information in the databases to identify stationary RICE operating with emission control systems and then to identify the level of performance, in terms of HAP emissions reductions, associated with the use of the emission control systems. We reviewed MACT floors and MACT for the four subcategories separately. The MACT for emergency power/ limited use units and landfill/ digester gas units are discussed later in this preamble. As discussed above, we did not address engines with manufacturer's nameplate ratings at or below 500 brake horsepower in the proposed rule nor do we address stationary RICE that are tested at stationary RICE test cells/ stands. The MACT for other stationary RICE are discussed below. We found several stationary RICE operating with oxidation catalyst systems and several operating with NSCR systems. Oxidation catalyst systems have been installed primarily to reduce CO emissions and, to some extent, volatile organic compounds ( VOC) emissions, from 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE. Non­ selective catalytic reduction systems, on the other hand, have been installed primarily to reduce nitrogen oxides ( NOX) emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE. Examination of HAP emission data from the emissions database, as well as preliminary emission data from HAP emission testing at CSU leads us to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77838 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules conclude that oxidation catalyst systems will reduce HAP emissions from 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, as discussed further below. Similarly, examination of HAP emission data leads us to conclude that NSCR will reduce HAP emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE. 3. Existing Source MACT Floor for Other Stationary RICE Subcategory As mentioned in the previous section, MACT floors for existing RICE could not be established based on State and local permit information because there are no State or local regulations for RICE regarding HAP and the use of good operating practices because no operating practices could be specifically linked to HAP emissions reductions. Review of the population database indicates that few existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE or CI stationary RICE use oxidation catalyst systems. The number is less than 1 percent for 2SLB stationary RICE, about 3 percent for 4SLB stationary RICE, and less than 1 percent for CI stationary RICE. In addition, less than 1 percent of existing CI stationary RICE use a catalyzed diesel particulate filter ( C DPF), which is believed to reduce HAP emissions to some extent. However, all of these percentages are well below the criteria for a MACT floor that would require emissions reductions for existing sources ( average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources). We have interpreted average emission limitation of the best performing 12 percent to refer to either the numerical mean or the numerical median. In this case, EPA has used the median value, that is, the level of control at the 6th ( best performing) percentile to determine the average. Thus, we conclude the MACT floor for existing 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE is no emissions reductions. Unlike the situation outlined above, more than 6 percent of existing 4SRB stationary RICE use NSCR systems. Therefore, we conclude the MACT floor for 4SRB existing stationary RICE is the level of HAP emissions reductions achieved by the use of NSCR systems. We discuss this in more detail below. 4. Existing Source MACT To determine MACT for the subcategories of existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE, we evaluated two regulatory alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor. Specifically, we considered the use of oxidation catalyst systems as a beyond­ the­ floor regulatory alternative and fuel switching. With one exception noted below, these are the only options we know of which could serve as the basis for MACT to reduce HAP emissions from the subcategories of stationary RICE. In our review of oxidation catalyst systems, we concluded that this alternative would be inappropriate given the cost per ton of HAP removed. Non­ air quality health, environmental impacts, and energy effects were not significant factors. The second option considered was to switch fuels in existing RICE from fuels which result in higher HAP emissions to fuels that result in lower HAP emissions. When we compared the CAA section 112 HAP emissions factors of the various fuels from RICE, using the July 2000 revision of Chapter 3.2 ( Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines) and the October 1996 revision of Chapter 3.3 ( Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines) of `` Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources,'' we could not find a fuel that was clearly less HAP emitting. The summation of emission factors for various HAP when using natural gas ( usually considered the cleanest fuel) or diesel fuel were comparable based on the emission factor information that is available. Therefore, we could find no basis to consider fuel switching as a beyond­ the­ floor HAP emissions reductions option. For existing compression ignition stationary RICE, we also considered another beyond­ the­ floor regulatory alternative, the use of C DPF. Some believe the use of such filters will reduce HAP emissions; however, there are no data available to quantify what the level of the reduction might be. Most speculate that it is less than that achieved through the use of oxidation catalyst systems. The cost of C DPF, however, is greater than that of oxidation catalyst systems and, for that reason, we consider the alternative to also be inappropriate as well. Non­ air quality health, environmental impacts, and energy effects were not significant factors. We conclude, therefore, that MACT for existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE is the MACT floor ( i. e., no emissions reductions). As a result, we propose no requirements for emissions testing for existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE. For further information on the determination of MACT, refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed rule and memoranda entitled `` Regulatory Alternatives and MACT for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines'' and `` National Impacts Associated with Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines'' in the docket. For 4SRB stationary RICE, we know of no other HAP emission control technology other than the use of NSCR systems. The fuel switching analysis presented previously also applies to existing 4SRB RICE. Therefore, we are unable to identify any beyond­ the­ floor regulatory alternative for this subcategory of stationary RICE. Consequently, we conclude that MACT for existing 4SRB stationary RICE is also equivalent to the MACT floor ( i. e., the level of HAP emission control achieved through the use of NSCR systems). To determine the level of performance associated with the use of NSCR systems on 4SRB stationary RICE, we examined HAP emission data from the emissions database. We also examined a recent industry sponsored formaldehyde emission test conducted on two 4SRB stationary RICE equipped with NSCR. Emission testing to measure HAP emitted from stationary RICE is very expensive, and we know of no CEMS which could be used to continuously monitor all HAP emissions. As a result, we first examined the emission data mentioned above to determine if a single pollutant could serve as a surrogate for HAP emissions. We focused on CO emissions initially because CO is easy to measure. In addition, CEMS for CO emissions are readily available and, in most cases, the costs associated with their use are considered reasonable. Unfortunately, there is not a good relationship between CO emission concentration or CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions concentrations or HAP emissions reductions from 4SRB stationary RICE equipped with NSCR. Thus, CO emission concentration and CO emission reduction cannot serve as surrogates for HAP emissions for 4SRB stationary RICE. Next, we considered the use of formaldehyde concentration as a surrogate for all HAP emissions. Formaldehyde is the hazardous air pollutant present in the highest concentrations in emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE and, more importantly, the level of formaldehyde emissions are related to the level of other HAP emissions. When formaldehyde emissions are reduced through the use of NSCR systems, HAP emissions are reduced as well. Consequently, we conclude that reductions in formaldehyde emissions can serve as a surrogate for reductions in HAP emissions for 4SRB stationary RICE operating with NSCR systems. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77839 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules The emissions database contains several emission test reports that measured formaldehyde emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE equipped with NSCR, but no tests measure the emissions both before and after the control device, so the control efficiency of NSCR systems could not be determined from the emissions database. Moreover, the test reports in the emissions database provide single snapshot emission readings from stationary RICE, which does not account for variability of emissions that may occur as engines are operated in actual use. The data, for example, provided little or no information regarding variable parameters such as timing and load. As a result, we examined data from an industry sponsored formaldehyde emission test conducted on two 4SRB stationary RICE equipped with NSCR to determine the level of performance of NSCR systems. These test reports were reviewed, and we concluded that the engines and control devices were operated correctly during the tests and the tests were conducted properly. We considered several factors, such as load, which could have an effect on the efficiency of the control device, but could find no reason for the variability of the test results between the two engines. We selected the best performing engine based on the highest average formaldehyde percent reduction. The average reduction was 79 percent for that engine; however, to establish variability, we looked at each of the 12 individual test runs performed on that engine. The percent reduction varied from 75 percent to 81 percent. We selected 75 percent for the MACT floor, which takes into account the variability of the best performing engine. The HAP emission data outlined above show that the use of NSCR systems on 4SRB stationary RICE will reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more. As a result, we propose a 75 percent or more reduction in formaldehyde emissions as the emission limitation for existing 4SRB stationary RICE. For existing 4SRB engines that choose to use a control or reduction technology that is not an NSCR system, an alternative standard was developed based on a formaldehyde concentration limit. For existing 4SRB engines the alternative emission limitation is 350 ppbvd corrected to 15 percent oxygen. The alternative formaldehyde concentration limit standard is discussed in more detail below. 5. New Source MACT Floor Several existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE currently operate with oxidation catalyst systems. No technology achieving greater emissions reductions was found. Thus, we conclude the MACT floor for new 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and new CI stationary RICE is the level of HAP emission control achieved through the use of oxidation catalyst systems. The level of HAP reductions achieved through oxidation catalysts differs for each of the subcategories as discussed in more detail below. Again, for new compression ignition stationary RICE, we considered whether the use of C DPF might be the basis for the MACT floor. However, since oxidation catalyst systems achieve greater HAP emissions reductions, we concluded that oxidation catalyst systems, not C DPF, are the basis for the MACT floor for new compression ignition stationary RICE. As mentioned earlier, a number of existing 4SRB stationary RICE use NSCR systems. As a result, the use of NSCR systems is the best performing technology identified for use by 4SRB stationary RICE. Consequently, we conclude the MACT floor for new 4SRB stationary RICE is the level of HAP emissions reductions achieved through the use of NSCR systems. 6. New Source MACT For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, we know of no other HAP emission control technology than the use of oxidation catalyst systems ( other than possibly the use of C DPF on compression ignition stationary RICE, as discussed earlier). The fuel switching analysis presented previously also applies to new 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI RICE. Therefore, we were unable to identify any beyond­ the­ floor regulatory alternative for these subcategories of stationary RICE. Consequently, we conclude that MACT for new 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and new CI stationary RICE is equivalent to the MACT floor ( i. e., the level of HAP emission control achieved through the use of oxidation catalyst systems). Although the basis for MACT for each of these subcategories of stationary RICE is the same, as outlined below, HAP emission data from the emissions database and preliminary emission data from the HAP emission testing program at CSU indicate that the level of performance achieved by oxidation catalyst systems on each of these subcategories of stationary RICE differ. As a result, we propose different emission limitations for each of these subcategories of new stationary RICE. As mentioned above, emission testing to measure HAP emissions is expensive, and we know of no CEMS which could be used to continuously monitor all HAP emissions. As a result, we first examined the emission data to determine if a single pollutant could serve as a surrogate for HAP emissions. Again, we focused on CO emission concentration and CO emissions reductions initially. In this case, we found that there is a good relationship between CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions reductions from 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE equipped with oxidation catalyst systems. When CO emissions are reduced, HAP emissions are reduced in a relatively proportional manner. As a result, CO emissions reductions can serve as a surrogate for HAP emissions reductions for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE operating with oxidation catalyst systems. A joint EPA­ industry HAP emission testing program at CSU provided HAP and CO emissions data which form the basis for the MACT floor and MACT for 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE. A single engine of each type equipped with an oxidation catalyst control system was tested. The engines were all overhauled before the testing and were expected to operate as well as new engines. The oxidation catalyst control systems represented the best HAP emission control known for each type of engine. All catalyst systems were new but were operated for a number of hours until the CO percent reduction stabilized. This assured that the performance would be not overestimated by the use of a new catalyst. Prior to the testing, EPA and industry developed a list of engine operating parameters that were known to vary throughout the U. S. for each type of engine. The engines and control devices were tested at typical engine conditions in which these operating parameters were varied. The variations in the emission reduction results for each engine type are due to the variability of the engine and control system and include a representation of the performance of the best controlled source for new engines. The fluctuations in HAP emission control represent the variability inherent in operating the engine and control device combination under various conditions. Some parameters such as the exhaust temperature are an important determinate of the catalytic activity and resulting emissions reductions but VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77840 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules cannot be controlled by the operator because they are a result of factors such as engine design, ambient temperature, and designed air­ to­ fuel ratio. These result in a significant source of variability that cannot be controlled. The HAP emission data mentioned above show that the use of oxidation catalyst systems on 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE will reduce uncontrolled CO emissions by 60 percent or more, 93 percent or more, and 70 percent or more, respectively, taking into account the variability of results achieved when tested under various operating parameters. As a result, we propose: ( 1) A 60 percent or more reduction in CO uncontrolled emissions as the emission limitation for new 2SLB stationary RICE, ( 2) a 93 percent or more reduction in CO emissions as the emission limitation for new 4SLB stationary RICE, and ( 3) a 70 percent or more reduction in CO emissions as the emission limitation for new CI stationary RICE. The variation in percent reduction of CO achieved between 2SLB stationary RICE and 4SLB stationary RICE is a result of the higher exhaust temperatures for 4SLB stationary RICE. The 2SLB stationary RICE tested at CSU had an average exhaust temperature of 530 degrees Fahrenheit, while the 4SLB stationary RICE had an average exhaust temperature of 691 degrees Fahrenheit. In general, higher exhaust temperatures lead to better catalyst performance. This difference in temperatures is a function of the inherent design of these engine types and cannot be controlled by the operator. For 4SRB stationary RICE, we know of no other HAP emission control technology than the use of NSCR systems. The fuel switching analysis presented previously also applies to new 4SRB RICE. As a result, we were unable to identify any beyond­ the­ floor regulatory alternative. Consequently, we conclude that MACT for new 4SRB stationary RICE is equivalent to the MACT floor ( i. e., the level of HAP emission control achieved through the use of NSCR systems). The basis for MACT for new 4SRB stationary RICE, therefore, is the same as that for existing 4SRB stationary RICE. We believe NSCR systems will achieve the same level of performance on existing as well as new 4SRB stationary RICE. Consequently, we propose the same emission limitation for both existing and new 4SRB stationary RICE ( i. e., 75 percent or more reduction in formaldehyde emissions). For new 4SRB engines that choose to use a control or reduction technology that is not an NSCR system, and for new 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines that choose a control or reduction technology that is not an oxidation catalyst system, an alternative standard was developed based on formaldehyde concentration limits. The alternative emission limits for new RICE sources are: 17 parts per million by volume dry basis ( ppmvd) formaldehyde for 2SLB engines, 14 ppmvd formaldehyde for 4SLB engines, 350 ppbvd formaldehyde for 4SRB engines, and 580 ppbvd formaldehyde for CI engines, all corrected to 15 percent oxygen. The alternative formaldehyde concentration limit standard is discussed in more detail below. 7. MACT Floor and MACT for Other Subcategories Although the proposed rule applies to all stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating above 500 brake horsepower located at major sources excluding stationary RICE being tested at stationary RICE test cells/ stands, there are two subcategories of stationary RICE for which the appropriate emission standard is no emissions reductions; therefore, they would not be required to comply with any emissions limitations or operating limitations under the proposed rule. These subcategories are stationary RICE which combust digester or landfill gas as the primary fuel and emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE. a. Stationary RICE Combusting Digester or Landfill Gas Examination of the population database shows that there are no stationary RICE burning digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel operating with emission control technologies which reduce HAP emissions. Therefore, we conclude the MACT floor for the subcategory is no emissions reductions for both existing as well as new stationary RICE. We considered the applicability of HAP emission control technology, such as the use of an oxidation catalyst system for example, to this subcategory of stationary RICE for beyond­ the­ floor controls. However, digester gases and landfill gases contain a family of silicon based compounds called siloxanes. Combustion of siloxanes can foul post combustion catalysts, rendering them inoperable within a short period of time. We considered pretreatment systems to remove siloxanes from the gases prior to combustion; however, we found no pretreatment systems in use and the long­ term effectiveness is unknown. As a result, we know of no emission control technology which could be applied to the subcategory of stationary RICE to reduce HAP emissions. We also considered fuel switching for this subcategory of RICE. Switching to a different fuel such as natural gas or diesel would potentially allow the RICE to apply the MACT controls. However, fuel switching would defeat the purpose of these units, which are intended to use this type of fuel. Fuel switching would also cause the landfill/ digester gas either to escape uncontrolled or to be burned in a flare with no energy recovery. We believe that switching landfill or digester gas to another fuel is inappropriate and is an environmentally inferior option. For that reason, we were unable to identify a beyond­ the­ floor regulatory alternative for either existing or new stationary RICE combusting digester gases or landfill gases as the primary fuel. Consequently, we conclude that MACT for the subcategory of stationary RICE is the MACT floor ( i. e., no emissions reductions). Thus, we propose no requirements for emissions testing for stationary RICE which combust landfill gases or digester gases as the primary fuels. b. Emergency Power/ Limited Use Stationary RICE Emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE operate only in emergencies when the normal source of power at a facility fails. Based on our review of the population database, there are no emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE which operate with HAP emission control technology. Thus, we conclude the MACT floor for the subcategory is no emissions reductions for both existing as well as new stationary RICE. As with stationary RICE burning digester gases or landfill gases, we also have a number of concerns regarding the applicability of HAP emission control technology to emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE. Emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE operate infrequently but when called upon to operate, they must respond immediately without fail and without lengthy startup periods. Under such conditions, we have doubts whether HAP emission control technology, such as the use of oxidation catalyst systems, would effectively reduce HAP emissions. Despite the concerns, we examined the cost per ton of HAP removed for emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE as a beyond­ the­ floor regulatory alternative. Whether our concerns are warranted or not, we consider the cost per ton of HAP removed for the alternative unreasonable, primarily because of the very small reductions in VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77841 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules HAP emissions which might be achieved. Non­ air quality health, environmental impacts, nor energy effects were significant factors. For all of the reasons listed above, we conclude that MACT for both existing as well as new emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE is the MACT floor ( i. e., no emissions reductions). Consequently, we propose no requirements for emissions testing for emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE. D. Why Does the Proposed Rule Not Apply to Stationary RICE of 500 Brake Horsepower or Less? In reviewing the population database to identify stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, we found extremely little information. In discussions with State and local permitting officials, the manufacturers, and some of the owners and operators of stationary RICE, we found that such small stationary RICE have generally not been regarded as significant sources of air pollutant emissions. As a result, the small stationary RICE have not been subjected to the same level of scrutiny, examination, or review as larger stationary RICE. Little information has been gathered or compiled by anyone for this subcategory of stationary RICE. Thus, at this point, we know very little about stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less. For example, we do not know how many of the small stationary RICE exist. In addition, we know little about the operating characteristics and emissions, the current use of, as well as the applicability of, emission control technologies, the costs of emission control for the small stationary RICE, or the economic impacts and benefits associated with regulation. In the absence of such information, we have concerns with the applicability of HAP emission control technology to these stationary RICE. As a result, we believe it is appropriate to defer a decision on regulation of stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less until further information on the engines can be obtained and analyzed. We believe this subcategory of stationary RICE is likely to be more similar to stationary RICE located at area sources than to stationary RICE located at major sources. Thus, we plan to include this subcategory of stationary RICE in our considerations to develop regulations for stationary RICE located at area sources. E. Why Does the Proposed Rule Not Apply to Stationary RICE Located at Area Sources? The proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE located at area sources. In developing our Urban Air Toxics Strategy ( 64 FR 38706, July 19, 1999), we identified stationary RICE at area sources as a category which would be subject to standards to protect the environment and the public health and satisfy the statutory requirements in section 112 of the CAA pertaining to area sources. We are not setting standards at this time, because of insufficient information regarding the operating characteristics and the emissions, the current use of, as well as the applicability of, emission control technologies to stationary RICE at area sources, the costs of emission control for such stationary RICE, and the economic impacts and benefits associated with regulation of the stationary RICE. F. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards? 1. CO Percent Reduction Standard We are proposing a CO percent reduction standard if you use an oxidation catalyst to reduce HAP emissions from new or reconstructed 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE. A control efficiency for CO was chosen because CO control is a surrogate for HAP control for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, and because it is easier to monitor CO than several HAP. 2. Formaldehyde Percent Reduction Standard We are proposing a formaldehyde percent reduction standard if you use NSCR to reduce HAP emissions from existing, new, and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE. A control efficiency for formaldehyde was chosen because formaldehyde control is a surrogate for HAP control for 4SRB stationary RICE, and because a good relationship was not found between CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions reductions for 4SRB stationary RICE. 3. Formaldehyde Concentration Limit We are also proposing alternative emission limitations to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust for new 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines not using oxidation catalyst control systems and for existing and new 4SRB engines not using NSCR control systems. If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI stationary RICE using an oxidation catalyst, you must comply with the CO percentage emission limitation. If you use some means other than an oxidation catalyst, you must comply with the alternative emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust. If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE using NSCR, you must comply with the formaldehyde percentage emission limitation. If you use some means other than NSCR, you must comply with the alternative emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust. As mentioned earlier, we know of no other emission control technology other than oxidation catalyst and NSCR systems which can be used to reduce HAP emissions from stationary RICE. However, we would like to promote the development and eventual use of alternative emission control technologies to reduce HAP emissions, and we believe alternative emission limitations written as formaldehyde concentration limits will serve to do so. For the alternative emission limitation, we propose to use formaldehyde concentration as a surrogate for all HAP. Formaldehyde is the hazardous air pollutant emitted in the highest concentrations from stationary RICE. In addition, the emission data show that formaldehyde emission levels and other HAP emission levels are related, in the sense that when emissions of one are lowered, emissions of the other are lowered. That leads us to conclude that emission control technologies which lead to reductions in formaldehyde emissions will lead to reductions in other HAP emissions. The alternative emission limitation is in units of parts per billion by volume or parts per million by volume, and all measurements are corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis, to provide a common basis. A volume concentration was chosen for these emission limitations to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust because it can be measured directly. We utilized the same data used to establish the percent reduction requirements to determine the alternative emission limitation for each subcategory. As with the control efficiencies discussed previously, the concentrations for the formaldehyde emission limitations are based on the minimum level of control achieved by the best controlled source for each type of engine. This approach takes into account the variability of the best performing engine. For the 2SLB engine tested at CSU, the controlled VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77842 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules formaldehyde emissions ranged from 7.5 parts per million ( ppm) to 17 ppm; therefore, we selected 17 ppm for the emission limitation. The controlled formaldehyde emissions for the 4SLB engine tested at CSU ranged from 6.4 ppm to 14 ppm. We chose the highest controlled level of 14 ppm for the alternative standard for the 4SLB subcategory. Similarly, for the CI engine tested at CSU, the controlled formaldehyde emissions ranged from 130 to 580 parts per billion ( ppb), and we, therefore, set an emission limitation of 580 ppb for the CI subcategory. For 4SRB engines, we chose the best performing engine from the industry testing. The controlled formaldehyde emissions for this engine ranged from 330 to 350 ppb. In summary, the alternative emission limitations are: 17 ppmvd for 2SLB stationary RICE; 14 ppmvd for 4SLB stationary RICE; 350 ppbvd for 4SRB stationary RICE; and 580 ppbvd for CI stationary RICE, all corrected to 15 percent oxygen. G. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements? The tests which formed the basis of the proposed emission limitations were conducted following EPA or CARB test methods. The proposed rule requires the use of EPA or CARB test methods to determine compliance. This ensures that the same analytical methods that were followed to collect the emission data upon which the emission limitations are based will be followed for compliance testing. By using the same methods, we eliminate the possibility of measurement bias influencing determinations of compliance. In an effort to identify the most feasible testing and compliance requirements for stationary RICE, we considered the applicability of several compliance and monitoring options. The results of these considerations lead us to propose different compliance and monitoring requirements for stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower, and stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower. We selected less burdensome compliance requirements for smaller size stationary RICE considering the ratio of total control and monitoring costs to the equipment cost. For smaller size stationary RICE, we considered the ratio excessive. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, we decided to require an initial performance test for CO. The purpose of the initial performance test is to demonstrate initial compliance with the CO percent reduction emission limitation; to establish the initial pressure drop across the catalyst, which will serve as the reference point for continuous monitoring of the pressure drop across the catalyst; and also to demonstrate that the catalyst inlet temperature is within the specified operating limitations. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, an initial performance evaluation is required to validate the performance of the CEMS for continuous monitoring of CO emissions. Initial compliance with the CO emission limitation must then be demonstrated by using CO emission measurements from the first 4­ hour period following a successful performance evaluation of the CO CEMS. For all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent using NSCR, an initial performance test is required. The purpose of the initial performance test is to demonstrate compliance with the formaldehyde percent reduction emission limitation and to establish the initial values of the operating parameters that will be continuously monitored ( i. e., pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the initial temperature rise across the catalyst). For all stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, an initial performance test is required. The purpose of the initial performance test is to demonstrate initial compliance with the formaldehyde concentration limit and also to establish the values of the operating limitations ( i. e., either operating load or fuel flow rate and any other parameters which are approved by the Administrator as operating limitations), which will be continuously monitored. H. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements? Continuous compliance is required at all times except during startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary RICE. As mentioned above, we considered the applicability of several compliance and monitoring options for stationary RICE. The results of these considerations lead us to propose different compliance and monitoring requirements for stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower and stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, we considered several options: ( 1) A CEMS for CO; ( 2) semiannual stack testing for CO using Method 10A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and continuous parametric monitoring of the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature; ( 3) quarterly stack testing with a portable CO monitor using American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) D6522 00, and continuous parametric monitoring of the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature; and ( 4) initial stack testing for CO with a portable CO monitor using ASTM D6522 00 and continuous parametric monitoring of the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature. We consider the control and monitoring costs for the first two options excessive, but consider the control and monitoring costs associated with the third option reasonable. As a result, 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the CO percent reduction emission limitation must perform quarterly stack testing for CO using a portable CO monitor. The quarterly testing will ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the source is meeting the CO percent reduction requirement. In addition to quarterly stack testing for CO, the stationary RICE are required to continuously monitor pressure drop across the catalyst and catalyst inlet temperature. The parameters serve as surrogates of the oxidation catalyst performance. The pressure drop across the catalyst can indicate if the oxidation catalyst is damaged or fouled, in which case, catalyst performance would decrease. If the pressure drop across the catalyst deviates by more than two inches of water from the pressure drop across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test, the oxidation catalyst might be damaged or fouled. If you VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77843 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules change the oxidation catalyst ( i. e., replace catalyst elements), you must reestablish the pressure drop across the catalyst. The catalyst inlet temperature is a requirement for proper performance of the oxidation catalyst. In general, the oxidation catalyst performance will decrease as the catalyst inlet temperature decreases. In addition, if the catalyst inlet temperature is too high ( above 1,250 degrees Fahrenheit), it might be an indication of ignition misfiring, poisoning, or fouling, which would decrease oxidation catalyst performance. In addition, the oxidation catalyst requires inlet temperatures to be greater than or equal to 500 degrees Fahrenheit for the reduction of HAP emissions. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, we considered the same four monitoring options. For these larger size stationary RICE, however, we consider the control and monitoring costs for a CO CEMS reasonable. We consider the use of CEMS to be the best means of ensuring continuous compliance with emission limitations. Consequently, the large 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE are required to use a CO CEMS. An annual RATA and daily and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1, are also required to ensure that performance of the CEMS does not deteriorate over time. There are no operating limitations for the larger size stationary RICE in the subcategories since the CEMS continuously measures CO and will indicate any deviation from the emission limitations. For 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, we also considered three monitoring options: ( 1) A CEMS for formaldehyde; ( 2) stack testing for formaldehyde using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, CARB Method 430, or EPA SW 846 Method 0011 with an initial frequency of semiannually which, following two consecutive stack tests demonstrating compliance, could decrease to annual stack testing and continuous parametric monitoring; and ( 3) initial stack testing for formaldehyde using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, CARB Method 430, or EPA SW 846 Method 0011 and continuous parametric monitoring. We consider the control and monitoring costs associated with the first option excessive for all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR. For 4SRB stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of more than 5000 brake horsepower, we consider the control and monitoring costs of the second option reasonable. Consequently, we chose that option for the larger size 4SRB stationary RICE. For 4SRB stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower, we also consider the control and monitoring costs of the second option excessive. We consider the control and monitoring costs of the third option reasonable, and we chose that option for the smaller 4SRB stationary RICE. For all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, monitoring the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst with a CPMS is also required. The operating parameters serve as surrogates of the NSCR system performance. As with oxidation catalyst systems for lean burn and CI stationary RICE, the pressure drop across an NSCR system is an indication of catalyst performance on 4SRB stationary RICE. The operating limitations are also the same maintain the pressure drop across the catalyst within two inches of water from the pressure drop measured during the initial performance test. If you change your NSCR ( i. e., replace catalyst elements), you must reestablish your pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst. As for oxidation catalyst control devices, the performance of NSCR is also dependent on catalyst inlet temperature. Catalyst inlet temperature should be maintained between 750 degrees Fahrenheit and 1250 degrees Fahrenheit for proper activation of the catalyst. Temperatures lower than that fail to activate the catalyst to its full potential, while temperatures higher than that can sinter and damage the active sites of the catalyst. In addition, the temperature rise across the catalyst is also an indication of NSCR performance. If the temperature rise across the catalyst is more than 5 percent different from the temperature rise across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test, that might be an indication that the NSCR is being damaged or fouled. In that case, catalyst performance would decrease, lowering HAP reductions. For stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the exhaust of the stationary RICE, we also considered requiring a CEMS. However, we consider the costs of a formaldehyde CEMS to be excessive. A reasonable alternative to a formaldehyde CEMS, however, is a CPMS ( supplemented by periodic compliance tests). Hazardous air pollutant emissions from stationary RICE correlate with operating load; HAP emissions increase as load decreases. As a result, if a stationary RICE operates at loads greater than that at which compliance has been demonstrated through a performance test, there is a reasonable assurance that the stationary RICE remains in compliance. An alternative to monitoring operating load is monitoring the stationary RICE's fuel flow rate. Fuel flow rate is an indicator of operating load. As a result, we propose that stationary RICE which comply with the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust monitor continuously operating load or fuel flow rate as operating limitations. The intention is to measure formaldehyde at the lowest load at which the stationary RICE will be operated to establish compliance at that load level. By monitoring operating load or fuel flow rate, sources can ensure that they do not operate at load or fuel flow rate conditions ( within 5 percent) below which compliance has not been demonstrated. In addition, sources complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust are required to conduct semiannual performance tests. Semiannual performance testing will ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the source is meeting the formaldehyde concentration limit. To reduce the cost burden of performance testing, sources that show compliance for two successive performance tests may reduce performance testing frequency. We believe that a reduction to one performance test per year will provide sufficient assurance of stationary RICE performance while reducing the performance testing costs for the affected source. However, if a subsequent annual performance test indicates a deviation from the formaldehyde concentration limit, the source must resume semiannual performance testing. The source must include a notification to the Administrator in their semiannual compliance report stating that they will be reducing the frequency of performance testing. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77844 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules I. What Monitoring and Testing Methods are Available to Measure These Low Concentrations of CO and Formaldehyde? We believe CEMS are available which can measure CO emissions at the low concentrations found in the exhaust from a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst control system. Our PS 4 and 4A for CO CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, however, have not been updated recently and do not reflect the performance capabilities of such systems at these low CO concentration levels. As a result, we solicit comments on the performance capabilities of state­ ofthe art CO CEMS and their ability to accurately measure the low concentrations of CO experienced in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst control system. We also solicit comments with specific recommendations on the changes we should make to our PS 4 and 4A for CO CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, to ensure the installation and use of CEMS which can be used to determine compliance with the proposed emission limitation for CO emissions. In addition, we solicit comments on the availability of instruments capable of meeting the changes they recommend to our performance specifications for CO CEMS. The proposed rule specifies the use of Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as the reference method to certify the performance of the CO CEMS. We also believe Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is capable of measuring CO concentrations as low as those experienced in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst control system. However, the performance criteria in addenda A of Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, have not been revised recently and are not suitable for certifying the performance of a CO CEMS at the low CO concentrations. Specifically, we believe the range and minimum detectable sensitivity should be changed to reflect target concentrations as low as 5 ppm CO in some cases. We also expect that dual range instruments will be necessary to measure CO concentrations at the inlet and at the outlet of an oxidation catalyst emission control device. As a result, we solicit comments with specific recommendations on the changes we should make to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and the performance criteria in addenda A. We also solicit comments on the availability of instruments capable of meeting the changes they recommend to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and the performance criteria in addenda A, while also meeting the remaining addenda A performance criteria. With regard to formaldehyde, we believe systems meeting the requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, a self­ validating FTIR method, can be used to attain detection limits for formaldehyde concentrations below 350 ppbvd. Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, also includes formaldehyde spike recovery criteria which require spike recoveries of 70 to 130 percent. While we believe FTIR systems can meet Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and measure formaldehyde concentrations at the low levels, we have limited experience with their use. As a result, we solicit comments on the ability and use of FTIR systems to meet the validation and quality assurance requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, for the purpose of determining compliance with the emission limitation for formaldehyde emissions. We also believe EPA Method 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A and CARB Method 430 are capable of measuring formaldehyde concentrations at the low levels from 4SRB engines. Accordingly, we solicit comments on the use of EPA Method 323, CARB 430, and EPA SW 846 Method 0011 to determine compliance with the emission limitations for formaldehyde for 4SRB engines. Based on the comments we receive on CO CEMS, we anticipate revising Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and our PS 4 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS to ensure the installation and use of CEMS suitable for determining compliance with the emission limitation for CO emissions. Similarly, based on the comments we receive on FTIR systems and Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, we may develop additional or revised criteria for the use of FTIR systems and/ or Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to determine compliance with the emission limitation for formaldehyde. On the other hand, if the comments we receive lead us to conclude that CO CEMS are not capable of being used to determine compliance with the emission limitation for CO emissions, there are several alternatives we may consider. One alternative would be to delete the proposed percent reduction emission limitation for CO and require compliance with a comparable formaldehyde percent reduction limitation. That alternative would require periodic stack emission testing before and after the control device and would also require owners and operators to petition the Administrator for additional operating limitations as proposed for those choosing to comply with the emission limitation for formaldehyde. Another alternative would be to delete the proposed emission limitation for CO emissions and require compliance with the proposed emission limitation for formaldehyde. That alternative could also require more frequent emission testing and could also require owners and operators to petition the Administrator for additional operating limitations. Another alternative would be to require the use of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, ( i. e., FTIR systems) to determine compliance with the emission limitation for CO emissions. That alternative could also require more frequent emission testing and require owners and operators to petition the Administrator for additional operating limitations, as proposed for those choosing to comply with the emission limitation for formaldehyde. Yet another alternative would be to delete the emission limitations for both CO emissions and formaldehyde emissions and adopt an emission limitation consisting of an equipment and work practice requirement. That alternative would require the use of oxidation catalyst control systems for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, and NSCR systems for 4SRB stationary RICE which meet specific and narrow design and operating criteria. We believe the emission limitations we are proposing for CO emissions and formaldehyde emissions are superior to these alternatives for a number of reasons. However, we solicit comments on the alternatives should we conclude that the proposed emission limitations for CO emissions and formaldehyde emissions are inappropriate because of difficulties in monitoring or measuring CO emissions or formaldehyde emissions to determine compliance. We also solicit suggestions and recommendations for other alternatives should we conclude the proposed emission limitations are inappropriate because of monitoring or measurement difficulties. J. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements? The proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are based on the NESHAP General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77845 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? The proposed rule will reduce total HAP emissions from stationary RICE by an estimated 5,000 tons/ year in the 5th year after the standards are implemented. We believe approximately 1,800 existing 4SRB stationary RICE will be affected by the proposed rule. In addition, we believe that approximately 1,600 new 2SLB, 4SLB and 4SRB stationary RICE, and CI stationary RICE will be affected by the proposed rule each year for the next 5 years. At the end of the 5th year, it is estimated that 8,100 new stationary RICE will be subject to the proposed rule. To estimate air impacts, HAP emissions from stationary RICE were estimated using average emission factors from the emissions database. It was also assumed that each stationary RICE is operated for 6,500 hours annually. The total national HAP emissions reductions are the sum of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and methanol emissions reductions. In addition to HAP emissions reductions, the proposed rule will reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including CO, VOC, NOX, and particulate matter ( PM). The application of NSCR controls to 4SRB engines ( the technology on which MACT for 4SRB engines is based) will also reduce NOX emissions by 90 percent. It is possible that oxidation catalyst controls could be used to meet the 4SRB emission standards, but it is expected that the costs of controls will be similar for both systems. Assuming that 60 percent of the 4SRB ( new and existing) engines that are covered by the emission standards will use NSCR, the cumulative emissions reductions of NOX by the end of the 5th year after promulgation are calculated to be about 167,900 tons per year. We are specifically soliciting comments on the percentage of 4SRB engines that would choose to install NSCR HAP controls rather than other HAP controls. B. What Are the Cost Impacts? A list of 26 model stationary RICE was developed to represent the range of existing stationary RICE. Information was obtained from catalyst vendors on equipment costs for oxidation catalyst and NSCR. This information was then used to estimate the costs of the proposed rule for each model stationary RICE following methodologies from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) Control Cost Manual. These cost estimates for model stationary RICE were extrapolated to the national population of stationary RICE in the United States, and national impacts were determined. The total national capital cost for the proposed rule for existing stationary RICE is estimated to be approximately $ 68 million, with a total national annual cost of $ 38 million in the 5th year. The total national capital cost for the proposed rule for new stationary RICE by the 5th year is estimated to be approximately $ 372 million, with a total national annual cost of $ 216 million in the 5th year. C. What Are the Economic Impacts? We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the primary and secondary impacts the proposed rule would have on the producers and consumers of RICE, and society as a whole. The affected engines operate in over 30 different manufacturing markets, but a large portion are located in the oil and gas exploration industry, the oil and gas pipeline ( transmission) industry, the mining and quarrying of non­ metallic minerals industry, the chemicals and allied products industry, and the electricity and gas services industry. Taken together, these industries can have an influence on the price and demand for fuels used in the energy market ( i. e., petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and coal). Therefore, our analysis evaluates the impacts on each of the 30 different manufacturing markets affected by the proposed rule, as well as the combined effect on the market for energy. The total annualized social cost ( in 1998 dollars) of the proposed rule is $ 254 million but this cost is spread across all 30 markets and the fuel markets. Overall, our analysis indicates a minimal change in prices and quantity produced in most of the fuel markets. The distribution of impacts on the fuel markets and the specific manufacturing market segments evaluated are summarized in Table 1 of this preamble. TABLE 1. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED RICE RULE ON AFFECTED MARKET SECTORS Market sector Change in price (%) Change in market output (%) Total social cost ( millions of 1998$) Fuel Markets: a Petroleum ............................................................................................................................. 0.005 ¥ 0.001 ¥ 6.0 Natural Gas .......................................................................................................................... 0.101 ¥ 0.014 ¥ 35.2 Electricity .............................................................................................................................. 0.022 0.001 3.2 Coal ...................................................................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.3 Subtotal ......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥ 38.3 Sectors of Energy Consumption: b Commercial Sector ............................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥ 68.4 Residential Sector ................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ¥ 40.0 Transportation Sector ........................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥ 16.2 Mining and Quarrying .................................................................................................................. 0.020 ¥ 0.006 ¥ 21.0 Food Products ............................................................................................................................. 0.001 ¥ 0.001 ¥ 5.9 Paper Products ............................................................................................................................ 0.001 ¥ 0.001 ¥ 5.2 Chemical Products ....................................................................................................................... 0.001 ¥ 0.002 ¥ 17.8 Primary Metals ............................................................................................................................. 0.001 ¥ 0.001 ¥ 6.7 Fabricated Metal Products ........................................................................................................... 0.001 ¥ 0.000 ¥ 1.8 Nonmetallic Mineral Products ...................................................................................................... 0.002 ¥ 0.002 ¥ 3.5 Construction Sector ..................................................................................................................... 0.001 ¥ 0.001 ¥ 11.1 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77846 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED RICE RULE ON AFFECTED MARKET SECTORS Continued Market sector Change in price (%) Change in market output (%) Total social cost ( millions of 1998$) Other Manufacturing Markets ...................................................................................................... 0.000 0.0 0.001 ¥ 17.7 a Only changes in producer surplus ( i. e., producer's share of regulatory costs) are reported for the Fuel Markets which represent the producers of energy. Sectors of energy consumption commercial, residential, and transportation have reported changes in consumer surplus only, and thus do not have reported changes in price and output. A combination of these costs will represent total social costs for the energy market in the economy. Because the engines affected by the proposed rule are those that use natural gas as a fuel source, it is not surprising to see the natural gas fuel market with the largest portion of the social costs. Although the natural gas market has a greater share of the regulatory burden, the overall impact on prices is about one­ tenth of 1 percent, which is considered to be a minor economic impact on this industry. The change in the price of natural gas is not expected to influence the purchase decisions for new engines. Our analysis indicates that at most, less than 5 fewer engines out of over 20,000 engines will be purchased as a result of economic impacts associated with the proposed rule. The electricity and coal markets may experience a slight gain in revenues due to some fuel switching from natural gas to coal or electricity. The total social welfare loss for the manufacturing industries affected by the proposed rule is estimated to be approximately $ 39.9 million for consumers and $ 44.7 million for producers in the aggregate. In comparison to the energy expenditures of these industries ( estimated to be $ 101.2 billion), the cost of the proposed rule to producers as a percentage of their fuel expenditures is 0.04 percent. For consumers, the total value of shipments for the affected industries is $ 3.95 trillion in 1998, so the cost to consumers as a percentage of spending on the outputs from these industries is nearly zero, or 0.001 percent. The cost to residential consumers at $ 40.0 million is larger than for any individual manufacturing market, and about equivalent to the aggregate consumer surplus losses in the manufacturing industries. In comparison, the social cost burden to residential consumers of fuel is 0.03 percent of residential energy expenditures ($ 40.0 million/$ 131.06 billion). The commercial sector of energy users also experiences a moderate portion of total social costs at an estimated $ 29.3 million and represents an aggregate across all commercial North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes. As a percentage of fuel expenditures by this sector of fuel consumers, the regulatory burden is 0.03 percent ($ 29.3 million/ $ 96.86 billion). The cost to transportation consumers is estimated to be $ 16.2 million. This cost represents 0.008 percent ($ 16.2 million/$ 188.13 billion) of energy expenditures for the transportation sector. Therefore, giving consideration to the minimal changes in prices and output in nearly all markets, and the fact that the regulatory costs that are shared by commercial, residential, and transportation users of fuel energy are a small fraction of typical energy expenditures in these sectors each year, we conclude that the economic impacts of the proposed rule will not be significant to any one sector of the economy. D. What Are the Non­ Air Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts? We do not expect any significant wastewater, solid waste, or energy impacts resulting from the proposed rule. Energy impacts associated with the proposed rule would be due to additional energy consumption that the proposed rule would require by installing and operating control equipment. The only energy requirement for the operation of the control technologies is a very small increase in fuel consumption resulting from back pressure caused by the emission control system. V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation A. General We are requesting comments on all aspects of the proposed rule, such as the proposed emission limitations and operating limitations, recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, as well as aspects you may feel have not been addressed. Specifically, we request comments on the performance capabilities of state­ ofthe art CO CEMS and their ability to measure the low concentrations of CO in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst control system. We also request comments with recommendations on changes we should make to our PS 4 and 4A for CO CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and the performance criteria in addenda A to Method 10. In addition, we request comments on the availability of instruments capable of meeting the changes they recommend to our performance specifications for CO CEMS, Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and addenda A to Method 10. As also mentioned earlier, we request comments on the ability and use of FTIR systems to meet the validation and quality assurance requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, for the purpose of determining compliance with the emission limitations for formaldehyde emissions. In addition, we request comments on the use of CARB 430 to determine compliance with the emission limitations for formaldehyde. In addition, we request any HAP emissions test data available from stationary RICE; however, if you submit HAP emissions test data, please submit the full and complete emission test report with these data. Without a complete emission test report, which includes sections describing the stationary RICE and its operation during the test as well as identifying the stationary RICE for purposes of verification, discussion of the test methods employed and the quality assurance/ quality control procedures followed, the raw data sheets, all the calculations, etc., which such reports contain, submittal of HAP emission data by itself is of little use. B. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Rule in a Less Costly Manner? We have made every effort in developing the proposal to minimize the cost to the regulated community and allow maximum flexibility in compliance options consistent with our statutory obligations. We recognize, however, that the proposal may still require some facilities to take costly steps to further control emissions even though those emissions may not result VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77847 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 See 63 FR 18765 66 ( April 15, 1998) ( Pulp and Paper Combustion Sources Proposed NESHAP). in exposures which could pose an excess individual lifetime cancer risk greater than one in one million or which exceed thresholds determined to provide an ample margin of safety for protecting public health and the environment from the effects of hazardous air pollutants. We are, therefore, specifically soliciting comment on whether there are further ways to structure the proposed rule to focus on the facilities which pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health and the environment. Representatives of the plywood and composite wood products industry provided EPA with descriptions of three mechanisms that they believed could be used to implement more cost­ effective reductions in risk. The docket for the proposed rule contains white papers prepared by industry that outline their proposed approaches ( see docket number OAR 2002 0059). These approaches could be effective in focusing regulatory controls on facilities that pose significant risks and avoiding the imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health or the environment, and we are seeking public comment on the utility of each of these approaches with respect to the proposed rule. One of the approaches, an applicability cutoff for threshold pollutants, would be implemented under the authority of CAA section 112( d)( 4); the second approach, subcategorization and delisting, would be implemented under the authority of CAA sections 112( c)( 1) and 112( c)( 9); and, the third approach would involve the use of a concentration­ based applicability threshold. We are seeking comment on whether these approaches are legally justified and, if so, we ask for information that could be used to support such approaches. The MACT program outlined in CAA section 112( d) is intended to reduce emissions of HAP through the application of MACT to major sources of toxic air pollutants. Section 112( c)( 9) of the CAA is intended to allow EPA to avoid setting MACT standards for categories or subcategories of sources that pose less than a specified level of risk to public health and the environment. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposals described here appropriately rely on these provisions of CAA section 112. While both approaches focus on assessing the inhalation exposures of HAP emitted by a source, EPA specifically requests comment on the appropriateness and necessity of extending these approaches to account for non­ inhalation exposures or to account for adverse environmental impacts. In addition to the specific requests for comment noted in this section, we are also interested in any information or comment concerning technical limitations, environmental and cost impacts, compliance assurance, legal rationale, and implementation relevant to the identified approaches. We also request comment on appropriate practicable and verifiable methods to ensure that sources' emissions remain below levels that protect public health and the environment. We will evaluate all comments before determining whether either of the three approaches will be included in the final rule. 1. Industry Emissions and Potential Health Effects For the RICE source category, four HAP make up the majority of the total HAP. Those four HAP are methanol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein. In accordance with section 112( k) of the CAA, EPA developed a list of 33 HAP which represent the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. Three of the four HAP, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde, are included in the HAP listed for the EPA's Urban Air Toxics Program. In November 1998, EPA published `` A Multimedia Strategy for Priority, Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic ( PBT) Pollutants''. The HAP emitted by RICE facilities do not appear on the published list of PBT compounds referenced in the EPA strategy. Two of the HAP, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, are considered to be nonthreshold carcinogens, and cancer potency values are reported for them in Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS). Acrolein and methanol are not carcinogens, but are considered to be threshold pollutants, and inhalation reference concentrations are reported for them in IRIS and by the California Environmental Protection Agency ( CalEPA), respectively. To estimate the potential baseline risks posed by the RICE source category, EPA performed a crude risk analysis of the RICE source category that focused only on cancer risks. The results of the analysis are based on approaches for estimating cancer incidence that carry significant assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations. Based on the assessment, if the proposed rule is implemented at all affected RICE facilities, annual cancer incidence is estimated to be reduced on the order of ten cases/ year. Due to the uncertainties associated with the analysis, annual cancer incidence could be higher or lower than these estimates. ( Details of this assessment are available in the docket.) 2. Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold Pollutants Under Section 112( d)( 4) of the CAA The first approach is an applicability cutoff for threshold pollutants that is based on EPA's authority under CAA section 112( d)( 4) to establish standards for HAP which are threshold pollutants. A `` threshold pollutant'' is one for which there is a concentration or dose below which adverse effects are not expected to occur over a lifetime of exposure. For such pollutants, CAA section 112( d)( 4) allows EPA to consider the threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when establishing emission standards. Specifically, CAA section 112( d)( 4) allows EPA to establish emission standards that are not based upon the MACT specified under CAA section 112( d)( 2) for pollutants for which a health threshold has been established. Such standards may be less stringent than MACT. Historically, EPA has interpreted CAA section 112( d)( 4) to allow categories of sources that emit only threshold pollutants to avoid further regulation if those emissions result in ambient levels that do not exceed the threshold, with an ample margin of safety. 1 A different interpretation would allow us to exempt individual facilities within a source category that meet the CAA section 112( d)( 4) requirements. There are three potential scenarios under this interpretation of the CAA section 112( d)( 4) provision. One scenario would allow an exemption for individual facilities that emit only threshold pollutants and can demonstrate that their emissions of threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety, even if the category is otherwise subject to MACT. A second scenario would allow the CAA section 112( d)( 4) provision to be applied to both threshold and non­ threshold pollutants, using the one in a million cancer risk level for decision making for nonthreshold pollutants. A third scenario would allow a CAA section 112( d)( 4) exemption at a facility that emits both threshold and nonthreshold pollutants. For those emission points where only threshold pollutants are emitted and where emissions of the threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the threshold VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77848 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2 `` Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry.'' EPA 600/ 8 90 066F, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994. 3 `` Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical Panel,'' EPA/ 630/ R 00/ 002. USEPA, August 2000. http:// www. epa. gov/ nceaww1/ pdfs/ chem mix/ chem mix 08 2001. pdf. levels, with an ample margin of safety, those emission points could be exempt from the MACT standards. The MACT standards would still apply to nonthreshold emissions from other emission points at the source. For this third scenario, emission points that emit a combination of threshold and nonthreshold pollutants that are cocontrolled by MACT would still be subject to the MACT level of control. However, any threshold HAP eligible for exemption under CAA section 112( d)( 4) that are controlled by control devices different from those controlling nonthreshold HAP would be able to use the exemption, and the facility would still be subject to the parts of the standards that control nonthreshold pollutants or that control both threshold and non­ threshold pollutants. a. Estimation of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices Under the CAA section 112( d)( 4) approach, EPA would have to determine that emissions of each of the threshold pollutants emitted by RICE sources at the facility do not result in exposures which exceed the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety. The common approach for evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air pollutant is to calculate a hazard quotient by dividing the pollutant's inhalation exposure concentration ( often assumed to be equivalent to its estimated concentration in air at a location where people could be exposed) by the pollutant's inhalation Reference Concentration ( RfC). An RfC is defined as an estimate ( with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure that, over a lifetime, likely would not result in the occurrence of adverse health effects in humans, including sensitive individuals. The EPA typically establishes an RfC by applying uncertainty factors to the critical toxic effect derived from the lowest­ or no­ observed­ adverse­ effect level of a pollutant. 2 A hazard quotient less than one means that the exposure concentration of the pollutant is less than the RfC, and, therefore, presumed to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. A hazard quotient greater than one means that the exposure concentration of the pollutant is greater than the RfC. Further, EPA guidance for assessing exposures to mixtures of threshold pollutants recommends calculating a hazard index by summing the individual hazard quotients for those pollutants in the mixture that affect the same target organ or system by the same mechanism. 3 Hazard index ( HI) values would be interpreted similarly to hazard quotients; values below one would generally be considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects, and values above one would generally be cause for concern. For the determinations discussed herein, EPA would generally plan to use RfC values contained in EPA's toxicology database, the IRIS. When a pollutant does not have an approved RfC in IRIS, or when a pollutant is a carcinogen, EPA would have to determine whether a threshold exists based upon the availability of specific data on the pollutant's mode or mechanism of action, potentially using a health threshold value from an alternative source, such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) or the CalEPA. Table 2 of this preamble provides the RfC, as well as unit risk estimates, for the HAP emitted by facilities in the RICE source category. A unit risk estimate is defined as the upper­ bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 micrograms per cubic meter ( µ g/ m3) in air. TABLE 2. DOSE­ RESPONSE ASSESSMENT VALUES FOR HAP REPORTED EMITTED BY THE RICE SOURCE CATEGORY Chemical name CAS No. Reference concentration a ( mg/ m3) Unit risk estimate b ( 1/( µ g/ m3)) Acetaldehyde .............................................. 75 07 0 9.0E 03 ( IRIS) ........................................... 2.2E 06 ( IRIS) Acrolein ...................................................... 107 02 8 2.0E 05 ( IRIS) ........................................... Formaldehyde ............................................ 50 00 0 9.8E 03 ( ATSDR) ...................................... 1.3E 05 ( IRIS) Methanol ..................................................... 67 56 1 4.0E+ 00 ( CAL) ........................................... a Reference Concentration: An estimate ( with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population ( including sensitive subgroups which include children, asthmatics and the elderly) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used. b Unit Risk Estimate: The upper­ bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 µ g/ m3 in air. The interpretation of the Unit Risk Estimate would be as follows: if the Unit Risk Estimate = 1.5 x 10 ¥ 6 per µ g/ m3, 1.5 excess tumors are expected to develop per 1,000,000 people if exposed daily for a lifetime to 1 microgram ( µ g) of the chemical in 1 cubic meter of air. Unit Risk Estimates are considered upper bound estimates, meaning they represent a plausible upper limit to the true value. ( Note that this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit.) The true risk is likely to be less, but could be greater. Sources: IRIS = EPA Integrated Risk Information System ( http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ index. html) ATSDR = U. S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( http:// www. atsdr. cdc. gov/ mrls. html) CAL = California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( http:// www. oehha. ca. gov/ air/ hot_ spots/ index. html) HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (# PB (= 97 921199), July 1997) To establish an applicability cutoff under CAA section 112( d)( 4), EPA would need to define ambient air exposure concentration limits for any threshold pollutants involved. There are several factors to consider when establishing such concentrations. First, we would need to ensure that the concentrations that would be established would protect public health with an ample margin of safety. As discussed above, the approach EPA commonly uses when evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air pollutant is to calculate the pollutant's hazard quotient, which is the exposure concentration divided by the RfC. The EPA's `` Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures'' suggests that the noncancer health effects associated with a mixture of pollutants ideally are assessed by considering the pollutants' common mechanisms of toxicity 3. The guidance also suggests, however, that when exposures to mixtures of pollutants are being evaluated, the risk assessor may calculate a HI. The recommended method is to calculate multiple hazard indices for each VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77849 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 4 Senate Debate on Conference Report ( October 27, 1990), reprinted in `` A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' Comm. Print S. Prt. 103 38 ( 1993) (`` Legis. Hist.'') at 868. 5 See http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ nata. 6 See http:// www. atsdr. cdc. gov/ toxpro2. html. 7 `` A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA 450/ 4 92 001. David E. Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March 1992. exposure route of interest, and for a single specific toxic effect or toxicity to a single target organ. The default approach recommended by the guidance is to sum the hazard quotients for those pollutants that induce the same toxic effect or affect the same target organ. A mixture is then assessed by several HI, each representing one toxic effect or target organ. The guidance notes that the pollutants included in the HI calculation are any pollutants that show the effect being assessed, regardless of the critical effect upon which the RfC is based. The guidance cautions that if the target organ or toxic effect for which the HI is calculated is different from the RfC's critical effect, then the RfC for that chemical will be an overestimate, that is, the resultant HI potentially may be overprotective. Conversely, since the calculation of an HI does not account for the fact that the potency of a mixture of HAP can be more potent than the sum of the individual HAP potencies, an HI may potentially be underprotective. b. Options for Establishing a Hazard Index Limit One consideration in establishing a hazard index limit is whether the analysis considers the total ambient air concentrations of all the emitted HAP to which the public is exposed 4. There are at least several options for establishing a hazard index limit for the CAA section 112( d)( 4) analysis that reflect, to varying degrees, public exposure. One option is to allow the HI posed by all threshold HAP emitted from RICE sources at the facility to be no greater than one. This approach is protective if no additional threshold HAP exposures would be anticipated from other sources in the vicinity of the facility or through other routes of exposure ( e. g., through ingestion). A second option is to adopt a default percentage approach, whereby the hazard index limit of the HAP emitted by the facility is set at some percentage of one ( e. g., 20 percent or 0.2). This approach recognizes the fact that the facility in question is only one of many sources of threshold HAP to which people are typically exposed every day. Because noncancer risk assessment is predicated on total exposure or dose, and because risk assessments focus only on an individual source, establishing a hazard index limit of 0.2 would account for an assumption that 20 percent of an individual's total exposure is from that individual source. For the purposes of this discussion, we will call all sources of HAP, other than the facility in question, background sources. If the facility is allowed to emit HAP such that its own impacts could result in HI values of one, total exposures to threshold HAP in the vicinity of the facility could be substantially greater than one due to background sources, and this would not be protective of public health, since only HI values below one are considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. Thus, setting the hazard index limit for the facility at some default percentage of one will provide a buffer which would help to ensure that total exposures to threshold HAP near the facility ( i. e., in combination with exposures due to background sources) will generally not exceed one, and can generally be considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. The EPA requests comment on using the default percentage approach and on setting the default hazard index limit at 0.2. The EPA is also requesting comment on whether an alternative HI limit, in some multiple of 1 would be a more appropriate applicability cutoff. A third option is to use available data ( from scientific literature or EPA studies, for example) to determine background concentrations of HAP, possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used to estimate the exposures to HAP from non­ RICE sources in the vicinity of an individual facility. For example, the EPA's National­ Scale Air Toxics Assessment ( NATA) 5 and ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles 6 contain information about background concentrations of some HAP in the atmosphere and other media. The combined exposures from RICE sources and from other sources ( as determined from the literature or studies) would then not be allowed to exceed a hazard index limit of 1. The EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of setting the hazard index limit at 1 for such an analysis. A fourth option is to allow facilities to estimate or measure their own facility­ specific background HAP concentrations for use in their analysis. With regard to the third and fourth options, the EPA requests comment on how these analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA requests comment on how the analyses should take into account background exposure levels from air, water, food and soil encountered by the individuals exposed to RICE emissions. In addition, we request comment on how such analyses should account for potential increases in exposures due to the use of a new or the increased use of a previously emitted HAP, or the effect of other nearby sources that release HAP. The EPA requests comment on the feasibility and scientific validity of each of these or other approaches. Finally, EPA requests comment on how we should implement the CAA section 112( d)( 4) applicability cutoffs, including appropriate mechanisms for applying cutoffs to individual facilities. For example, would the title V permit process provide an appropriate mechanism? c. Tiered Analytical Approach for Predicting Exposure Establishing that a facility meets the cutoffs established under CAA section 112( d)( 4) will necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we would promote a tiered analytical approach for these determinations. A tiered analysis involves making successive refinements in modeling methodologies and input data to derive successively less conservative, more realistic estimates of pollutant concentrations in air and estimates of risk. As a first tier of analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple look­ up tables based on the results of air dispersion modeling conducted using conservative input assumptions. By specifying a limited number of input parameters, such as stack height, distance to property line, and emission rate, a facility could use these look­ up tables to determine easily whether the emissions from their sources might cause a hazard index limit to be exceeded. A facility that does not pass this initial conservative screening analysis could implement increasingly more sitespecific but more resource­ intensive tiers of analysis using EPA­ approved modeling procedures, in an attempt to demonstrate that exposure to emissions from the facility does not exceed the hazard index limit. The EPA's guidance could provide the basis for conducting such a tiered analysis. 7 The EPA requests comment on methods for constructing and implementing a tiered analytical approach for determining applicability of the CAA section 112( d)( 4) criterion to specific RICE sources. It is also possible VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 13 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77850 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 8`` Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.'' NCEA F 0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3 9ff. http:// www. epa. gov/ ncea/ raf/ pdfs/ cancer_ gls. pdf. that ambient monitoring data could be used to supplement or supplant the tiered modeling approach described above. It is envisioned that the appropriate monitoring to support such a determination could be extensive. The EPA requests comment on the appropriate use of monitoring in the determinations described above. d. Accounting for Dose­ Response Relationships In the past, EPA routinely treated carcinogens as nonthreshold pollutants. The EPA recognizes that advances in risk assessment science and policy may affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and nonthreshold HAP. The EPA's draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 8 suggest that carcinogens be assigned non­ linear dose­ response relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible that dose­ response curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a dose greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects. It is possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by this source category would determine that one or more of the carcinogens in the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a carcinogen that exhibits a non­ linear dose­ response relationship but does not have a threshold. The dose­ response assessments for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are currently undergoing revision by the EPA. As part of this revision effort, EPA is evaluating formaldehyde and acetaldehyde as potential non­ linear carcinogens. The revised dose­ response assessments will be subject to review by the EPA Science Advisory Board, followed by full consensus review, before adoption into the EPA Integrated Risk Information System. At this time, EPA estimates that the consensus review will be completed by the end of 2003. The revision of the dose­ response assessments could affect the potency factors of these HAP, as well as their status as threshold or nonthreshold pollutants. At this time, the outcome is not known. In addition to the current reassessment by EPA, there have been several reassessments of the toxicity and carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in recent years, including work by the World Health Organization and the Canadian Ministry of Health. The EPA requests comment on how we should consider the state of the science as it relates to the treatment of threshold pollutants when making determinations under section 112( d)( 4). In addition, EPA requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a nonthreshold carcinogenic HAP ( e. g., benzene, methylene chloride) at which it would be appropriate to allow a facility to use the approaches discussed in this section. If the CAA section 112( d)( 4) approach were adopted, the proposed rulemaking would likely indicate that the requirements of the rule do not apply to any source that demonstrates, based on a tiered approach that includes EPAapproved modeling of the affected source's emissions, that the anticipated HAP exposures do not exceed the specified hazard index limit. 3. Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112( c)( 9)( B) of the CAA The EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112( c)( 1), in order to facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section 112 of the CAA. Further, section 112( c)( 9)( B) allows EPA to delete a category ( or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated: ( 1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that `` no source in the category * * * emits ( carcinogenic) air pollutants in quantities which may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than 1 in 1 million to the individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of such pollutants from the source''; ( 2) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse noncancer health effects, that `` emissions from no source in the category or subcategory * * * exceed a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of safety''; and ( 3) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse environmental effects, that `` no adverse environmental effect will result from emissions from any source.'' Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white paper prepared by industry representatives ( see docket number OAR 2002 0059), EPA is considering whether it would be possible to establish a subcategory of facilities within the larger RICE category that would meet the risk­ based criteria for delisting. Such criteria would likely include the same requirements as described previously for the second scenario under the section 112( d)( 4) approach, whereby a facility would be in the low­ risk subcategory if its emissions of threshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed the HI limits and if its emissions of nonthreshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed a cancer risk level of 10 ¥ 6. The EPA requests comment on what an appropriate HI limit would be for a determination that a facility be included in the low­ risk subcategory. Since each facility in such a subcategory would be a low­ risk facility ( i. e., if each met these criteria), the subcategory could be delisted in accordance with CAA section 112( c)( 9), thereby limiting the costs and impacts of the proposed rule to only those facilities that do not qualify for subcategorization and delisting. The EPA estimates that the maximum potential effect of this approach would be the same as that of applying the CAA section 112( d)( 4) approach that allows exemption of facilities emitting threshold and non­ threshold pollutants if exemption criteria are met. Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted subcategory would be responsible for providing all data required to determine whether they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that could not demonstrate that they are eligible to be included in the low­ risk subcategory would be subject to MACT and possible future residual risk standards. The EPA solicits comment on implementing a risk­ based approach for establishing subcategories of RICE facilities. Establishing that a facility qualifies for the low­ risk subcategory under CAA section 112( c)( 9) will necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we would employ the same tiered analytical approach described earlier in the CAA section 112( d)( 4) discussion for these determinations. One concern that EPA has with respect to the CAA section 112( c)( 9) approach is the effect that it could have on the MACT floors. If many of the facilities in the low­ risk subcategory are well­ controlled, that could make the MACT floor less stringent for the remaining facilities. One approach that has been suggested to mitigate this effect would be to establish the MACT floor now based on controls in place for the entire category and to allow facilities to become part of the low­ risk subcategory in the future, after the MACT standards are established. This would allow low risk facilities to use the CAA section 112( c)( 9) exemption without affecting the MACT floor calculation. The EPA requests comment on this suggested approach. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77851 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules Another approach under CAA section 112( c)( 9) would be to define a subcategory of facilities within the RICE source category based upon technological differences, such as differences in production rate, emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability. The EPA requests comment on how we might establish RICE subcategories based on these, or other, source characteristics. If it could then be determined that each source in this technologically­ defined subcategory presents a low risk to the surrounding community, the subcategory could then be delisted in accordance with CAA section 112( c)( 9). The EPA requests comment on the concept of identifying technologically­ based subcategories that may include only low­ risk facilities within the RICE source category. If the CAA section 112( c)( 9) approach were adopted, the proposed rulemaking would likely indicate that the rule does not apply to any source that demonstrates that it belongs in a subcategory which has been delisted under CAA section 112( c)( 9). C. Limited Use Subcategory We are soliciting comments on creating a subcategory of limited use engines with capacity utilization of 10 percent or less ( 876 or fewer hours of annual operation). Units in this subcategory would include engines used for electric power peak shaving that are called upon to operate fewer than 876 hours per year. These units operate only during peak energy use periods, typically in the summer months. We believe that these infrequently operated units typically operate 10 percent of the year or less. While these are potential sources of emissions, and it is appropriate for EPA to address them in the proposed rule, the Agency believes that their use and operation are different compared to typical RICE. We believe that it may be appropriate for such limited use units to have their own subcategory. Therefore, we are soliciting comment on subcategorizing RICE having a capacity utilization of less than 10 percent. We have performed a preliminary MACT floor analysis on engines with under 10 percent capacity utilization that are in EPA's RICE database. This analysis indicates that existing units would have a floor of no emissions reductions and new units would have a floor equal to the performance of an oxidation catalyst system. We are interested in comments on creating a subcategory for limited use peak shaving ( less than 10 percent capacity utilization) engines. We are interested in comments on the validity and appropriateness under the CAA for a subcategory for limited use peak shaving engines, data on the levels of control currently achieved by such engines, and any technical limitations that might make it impossible to achieve control of emissions from limited use peak shaving engines. VI. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must determine whether a regulatory action is `` significant'' and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined that the proposed rule is a `` significant regulatory action'' because it could have an annual effect on the economy of over $ 100 million. Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866. Any written comments from OMB and written EPA responses are available in the docket. As stipulated in Executive Order 12866, in deciding how or whether to regulate, EPA is required to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. To this end, EPA prepared a detailed benefit­ cost analysis in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines NESHAP,'' which is contained in the docket. The following is a summary of the benefitcost analysis. It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the proposed rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,000 tons per year due to reductions in formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and several other HAP from some existing and all new internal combustion engines. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have been classified as `` probable human carcinogens'' based on scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years. These studies have determined a relationship between exposure to these HAP and the onset of cancer; however, there are some questions remaining on how cancers that may result from exposure to these HAP can be quantified in terms of dollars. Acrolein, methanol and the other HAP emitted from RICE sources are not considered carcinogenic but have been reported to cause several noncarcinogenic effects. The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from RICE are also expected to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, primarily CO, NOX, and PM, however, VOC are also reduced to a minor extent. It is estimated that CO emissions reductions totals approximately 234,400 tons/ year, NOX emissions reductions totals approximately 167,900 tons/ year, and PM emissions reductions totals approximately 3,700 tons per year. These reductions occur from new and existing engines in operation 5 years after the implementation of the rule as proposed and are expected to continue throughout the life of the engines and continue to grow as new engines ( that otherwise would not be controlled) are purchased for operation. Human health effects associated with exposure to CO include cardiovascular system and CNS effects, which are directly related to reduced oxygen content of blood and which can result in modification of visual perception, hearing, motor and sensorimotor performance, vigilance, and cognitive ability. Emissions of NOX can transform into PM in the atmosphere, which produces a variety of health and welfare effects. Human health effects associated with NOX include respiratory problems, such as chronic bronchitis, asthma, or even death from complications. Welfare effects from direct NOX exposure include agricultural and forestry damage and acidification of estuaries through rain deposition of nitrogen; while fine PM particles created from NOX can reduce visibility in national parks and other natural and urban areas. At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate for the benefits associated with the reductions in CO. For NOX and PM, the Agency has conducted several analyses recently that estimate the monetized VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77852 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules benefits of these pollutant reductions, including: the Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA) of the PM/ Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( 1997), the NOX State Implementation Plan Call ( 1998), the section 126 RIA ( 1999), a study conducted for section 812( b) of the Clean Air Act Amendments ( 1990), the Tier 2/ Gasoline Sulfur Standards ( 1999), and the Heavy Duty Engine/ Diesel Fuel Standards ( 2000). On September 26, 2002, the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS) released a report on its review of the Agency's methodology for analyzing the health benefits of measures taken to reduce air pollution. The report focused on EPA's approach for estimating the health benefits of regulations designed to reduce concentrations of airborne particulate matter ( PM). In its report, the NAS said that EPA has generally used a reasonable framework for analyzing the health benefits of PM­ control measures. It recommended, however, that the Agency take a number of steps to improve its benefits analysis. In particular, the NAS stated that the Agency should: ( 1) Include benefits estimates for a range of regulatory options; ( 2) Estimate benefits for intervals, such as every 5 years, rather than a single year; ( 3) Clearly state the project baseline statistics used in estimating health benefits, including those for air emissions, air quality, and health outcomes; ( 4) Examine whether implementation of proposed regulations might cause unintended impacts on human health or the environment; ( 5) When appropriate, use data from non­ U. S. studies to broaden age ranges to which current estimates apply and to include more types of relevant health outcomes; ( 6) Begin to move the assessment of uncertainties from its ancillary analyses into its primary analyses by conducting probabilistic, multiple­ source uncertainty analyses. This assessment should be based on available data and expert judgment. Although the NAS made a number of recommendations for improvement in EPA's approach, it found that the studies selected by EPA for use in its benefits analysis were generally reasonable choices. In particular, the NAS agreed with EPA's decision to use cohort studies to derive benefits estimates. It also concluded that the Agency's selection of the American Cancer Society ( ACS) study for the evaluation of PM­ related premature mortality was reasonable, although it noted the publication of new cohort studies that should be evaluated by the Agency. Several of the NAS recommendations addressed the issue of uncertainty and how the Agency can better analyze and communicate the uncertainties associated with its benefits assessments. In particular, the Committee expressed concern about the Agency's reliance on a single value from its analysis and suggested that EPA develop a probabilistic approach for analyzing the health benefits of proposed regulatory actions. The Agency agrees with this suggestion and is working to develop such an approach for use in future rulemakings. In the RIA for the proposed rule, the Agency has used an interim approach that shows the impact of several important alternative assumptions about the estimation and valuation of reductions in premature mortality and chronic bronchitis. This approach, which was developed in the context of the Agency's Clear Skies analysis, provides an alternative estimate of health benefits using the time series studies in place of cohort studies, as well as alternative valuation methods for mortality and chronic bronchitis risk reductions. For today's action, we conducted an air quality assessment to determine the change in concentrations of PM that results from reductions of NOX and direct emissions of PM at all sources of RICE. Because we are unable to identify the location of all affected existing and new sources of RICE, our analysis is conducted in two phases. In the first phase, we conduct air quality analysis assuming a 50 percent reduction of 1996­ levels of NOX emissions and a 100 percent reduction of PM10 emissions for all RICE sources throughout the country. The results of this analysis serve as a reasonable approximation of air quality changes to transfer to the proposed rule's emissions reductions at affected sources. The results of the air quality assessment served as input to a model that estimates the benefits related to the health effects listed above. In the second phase of our analysis, the value of the benefits per ton of NOX and PM reduced ( e. g., $ benefit/ ton reduced) associated with the air quality scenarios are then applied to the tons of NOX and PM emissions expected to be reduced by the proposed rule. We also used the benefit transfer method to value improvements in ozone based on the transfer of benefit values from an analysis of the 1998 NOX SIP call. In addition, although the benefits of the welfare effects of NOX are monetized in other Agency analyses, we chose not to do an analysis of the improvements in welfare effects that will result from the proposed rule. Alternatively, we could transfer the estimates of welfare benefits from these other studies to this analysis, but chose not to do so because these studies with estimated welfare benefits differ in the source and location of emissions and associated impacted populations. Every benefit­ cost analysis examining the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities ( such as geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. Deficiencies in the scientific literature often result in the inability to estimate changes in health and environmental effects, such as potential increases in premature mortality associated with increased exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics literature often result in the inability to assign economic values even to those health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified. While these general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics literatures are discussed in detail in the RIA and its supporting documents and references, the key uncertainties which have a bearing on the results of the benefit­ cost analysis of today's action are the following: ( 1) The exclusion of potentially significant benefit categories ( e. g., health and ecological benefits of reduction in hazardous air pollutants emissions); ( 2) Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as population growth; ( 3) Uncertainties in the estimation of future year emissions inventories and air quality; ( 4) Uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of air quality monitoring data to some unmonitored areas required to better capture the effects of the standards on the affected population; ( 5) Variability in the estimated relationships of health and welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations; and ( 6) Uncertainties associated with the benefit transfer approach. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit­ cost analysis provides a reasonable indication of the expected economic benefits of the RICE NESHAP under two different sets of assumptions. We have used two approaches ( Base and Alternative Estimates) to provide benefits in health effects and in VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77853 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules monetary terms. They differ in the method used to estimate and value reduced incidences of mortality and chronic bronchitis, which is explained in detail in the RIA. While there is a substantial difference in the specific estimates, both approaches show that the RICE MACT may provide benefits to public health, whether expressed as health improvements or as economic benefits. These include prolonging lives, reducing cases of chronic bronchitis and hospital admissions, and reducing thousands of cases in other indicators of adverse health effects, such as work loss days, restricted activity days, and days with asthma attacks. In addition, there are a number of health and environmental effects which we were unable to quantify or monetize. These effects, denoted by `` B'' are additive to both the Base and Alternative estimates of benefits. Results also reflect the use of two different discount rates for the valuation of reduced incidences of mortality; a 3 percent rate which is recommended by EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses ( U. S. EPA, 2000a), and 7 percent which is recommended by OMB Circular A 94 ( OMB, 1992). More specifically, the Base Estimate of benefits reflects the use of peerreviewed methodologies developed for earlier risk and benefit­ cost assessments related to the Clean Air Act, such as the regulatory assessments of the Heavy Duty Diesel and Tier II rules and the section 812 Report to Congress. The Alternative Estimate explores important aspects of the key elements underlying estimates of the benefits of reducing NOX emissions, specifically focusing on estimation and valuation of mortality risk reduction and valuation of chronic bronchitis. The Alternative Estimate of mortality reduction relies on recent scientific studies finding an association between increased mortality and shortterm exposure to particulate matter over days to weeks, while the Base Estimate relies on a recent reanalysis of earlier studies that associate long­ term exposure to fine particles with increased mortality. The Alternative Estimate differs in the following ways: It explicitly omits any impact of long­ term exposure on premature mortality, it uses different data on valuation and makes adjustments relating to the health status and potential longevity of the populations most likely affected by PM, it also uses a cost­ of­ illness method to value reductions in cases of chronic bronchitis while the Base Estimate is based on individual's willingness to pay ( WTP) to avoid a case of chronic bronchitis. In addition, one key area of uncertainty is the value of a statistical life ( VSL) for risk reductions in mortality, which is also the category of benefits that accounts for a large portion of the total benefit estimate. The adoption of a value for the projected reduction in the risk of premature mortality is the subject of continuing discussion within the economic and public policy analysis community. There is general agreement that the value to an individual of a reduction in mortality risk can vary based on several factors, including the age of the individual, the type of risk, the level of control the individual has over the risk, the individual's attitude toward risk, and the health status of the individual. The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee ( EEAC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board ( SAB) recently issued an advisory report which states that `` the theoretically appropriate method is to calculate WTP for individuals whose ages correspond to those of the affected population, and that it is preferable to base these calculations on empirical estimates of WTP by age'' ( EPA SAB EEAC 00 013). In developing our Base Estimate of the benefits of premature mortality reductions, we have appropriately discounted over the lag period between exposure and premature mortality. However, the empirical basis for adjusting the current $ 6 million VSL for other factors does not yet justify including these in our Base Estimate. A discussion of these factors is contained in the RIA and supporting documents. The EPA recognizes the need for additional research by the scientific community to develop additional empirical support for adjustments to VSL for the factors mentioned above. Furthermore, EPA prefers not to draw distinctions in the monetary value assigned to the lives saved even if they differ in age, health status, socioeconomic status, gender or other characteristic of the adult population. However, adjustments to VSL for age and life expectancy are explored in the Alternative Estimate. Given its basis in methods approved by the SAB, we employed the approach used for the benefit analysis of the Heavy Duty Engine/ Diesel Fuel standards conducted in 2000 to the RICE NESHAP discussed in this preamble. A full discussion of considerations made in our presentation of benefits is summarized in the preamble of the Final Heavy Duty Engine/ Diesel Fuel standards issued in December 2000, and in all supporting documentation and analyses of the Heavy Duty Diesel Program, and in the RIA for the proposed rule. In addition to the presentation of quantified health benefits, our estimate also includes a `` B'' to represent those additional health and environmental benefits which could not be expressed in quantitative incidence and/ or economic value terms. A full appreciation of the overall economic consequences of the RICE NESHAP requires consideration of all benefits and costs expected to result from the new standards, not just those benefits and costs which could be expressed here in dollar terms. A full listing of the benefit categories that could not be quantified or monetized in our estimate are provided in Table 3 of this preamble. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77854 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3. UNQUANTIFIED BENEFIT CATEGORIES FROM RICE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS Unquantified benefit categories associated with HAP Unquantified benefit categories associated with ozone Unquantified benefit categories associated with PM Health Categories .......................... Carcinogenicity mortality. Genotoxicity mortality. Non­ Cancer lethality. Pulmonary function decrement. Dermal irritation. Eye irritation. Neurotoxicity. Immunotoxicity. Pulmonary function decrement. Liver damage. Gastrointestinal toxicity. Kidney damage. Cardiovascular impairment. Hematopoietic ( Blood disorders). Reproductive/ Developmental toxicity Airway responsiveness. Pulmonary inflammation. Increased susceptibility to respiratory infection. Acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage. Chronic respiratory damage/ Premature aging of lungs. Emergency room visits for asthma Changes in pulmonary function. Morphological changes. Altered host defense mechanisms Cancer. Other chronic respiratory disease. Emergency room visits for asthma Lower and upper respiratory symptoms. Acute bronchitis. Shortness of breath. Welfare Categories ........................ Corrosion/ deterioration. Unpleasant odors. Transportation safety concerns. Yield reductions/ Foliar injury. Biomass decrease. Species richness decline. Species diversity decline. Community size decrease. Organism lifespan decrease. Trophic web shortening. Ecosystem and vegetation effects in Class I areas ( e. g., national parks). Damage to urban ornamentals ( e. g., grass, flowers, shrubs, and trees in urban areas). Commercial field crops. Fruit and vegetable crops Reduced yields of tree seedlings, commercial and non­ commercial forests. Damage to ecosystems. Materials damage. Materials damage. Damage to ecosystems ( e. g., acid sulfate deposition). Nitrates in drinking water. Our Base Estimate of benefits totals approximately $ 280 million when using a 3 percent interest rate ( or approximately $ 265 million when using a 7 percent interest rate). The Alternative Estimate totals approximately $ 40 million when using a 3 percent interest rate ( or approximately $ 45 million when using a 7 percent interest rate). Benefit­ cost comparison ( or net benefits) is another tool used to evaluate the reallocation of society's resources needed to address the pollution externality created by the operation of RICE units. The additional costs of internalizing the pollution produced at major sources of emissions from RICE units is compared to the improvement in society's well­ being from a cleaner and healthier environment. Comparing benefits of the proposed rule to the costs imposed by alternative ways to control emissions optimally identifies a strategy that results in the highest net benefit to society. In the case of the proposed RICE NESHAP, we are proposing only one option, the minimal level of control mandated by the Clean Air Act, or the MACT floor. Table 4 of this preamble presents a summary of the costs, emission reductions, and quantifiable benefits by engine type. Table 5 of this preamble presents a summary of net benefits. Based on estimated compliance costs associated with the proposed rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected industries, the estimated social costs of the proposed rule are $ 254 million ( 1998$) as are discussed previously in this preamble. Unfortunately, the air benefits characterized in this analysis are limited by the data available on the numerous health and welfare categories for the affected pollutants and by the lack of approved methods for quantifying effects. Using the Base Estimate of benefits, the portion of total benefits associated with NOX and PM reductions exceed the estimated total costs of the proposed rule by $ 25 million + B when using a 3 percent discount rate ( or approximately $ 10 million + B when using a 7 percent discount rate). However, using the more conservative Alternative Estimate of benefits, net benefits are negative. Under the Alternative Estimate, net benefits total ¥ $ 215 million + B under a 3 percent discount rate ( or approximately ¥ $ 210 million + B when using a 7 percent discount rate). Approximately 90 percent of the total benefits ($ 255 million under the Base Estimate, and $ 35 million under the Alternative Estimate) are associated with NOX reductions from the 4SRB subcategory for new and existing engines. Approximately 10 percent of the total benefits ($ 25 million under the Base Estimate, and $ 5 million under the Alternative Estimate) are associated with the PM reductions from the compression ignition engine subcategory at new sources. In both cases, net benefits would be greater if all the benefits of the HAP and other pollutant reductions could be quantified. Notable omissions to the net benefits include all benefits of HAP and CO reductions, including reduced cancer incidences, toxic morbidity effects, and cardiovascular and CNS effects. It is also important to note that not all benefits of NOX reductions have been monetized. Categories which have contributed significantly to monetized benefits in past analyses ( see the RIA for the Heavy Duty Engine/ Diesel standards) include commercial agriculture and forestry, recreational and residential visibility improvements, and estuarine improvements. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77855 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF COSTS, EMISSION REDUCTIONS, AND QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS BY ENGINE TYPE Type of engine Total annualized cost ( million $/ yr in the 5th year after promulgation Emission reductions A ( tons/ yr in the 5th year after promulgation) Quantifiable annual monetized benefits B, C ( million $/ yr in the 2005) HAP CO NOX PM Base estimate Alternative estimate 2SLB­ New ........................................................... 3 250 2,025 0 0 B1 B2 4SLB­ New ........................................................... 66 4,035 36,240 0 0 B3 B4 4SRB­ Existing ..................................................... 38 230 98,040 69,900 0 $ 105 + B 5 $ 100 + B 6 $ 15 + B 7 $ 15 + B 8 4SRB­ New ........................................................... 48 215 91,820 98,000 0 $ 150 + B 9 $ 140 + B 10 $ 20 + B 11 $ 25 + B 12 CI­ New ................................................................. 99 305 6,320 0 3,700 $ 25 + B 13 $ 5 + B 14 Total ............................................................. 254 5,035 234,445 167,900 3,700 $ 280 + B $ 265 + B $ 40 + B $ 45 + B A For the calculation of PM­ related benefits, total NOX reductions are multiplied by the appropriate benefit per ton value presented in Table 8 7 of the RIA. For the calculation of ozone­ related benefits, NOX reductions are multiplied by 5 12 to account for ozone season months and 0.74 to account for Eastern States in the ozone analysis. The resulting ozone­ related NOX reductions are multiplied by $ 28 per ton. Ozone­ related benefits are summed together with PM­ related benefits to derive total benefits of NOX reductions. All benefits values are rounded to the nearest $ 5 million. B Benefits of HAP and CO emissions reductions are not quantified in this analysis and, therefore, are not presented in this table. The quantifiable benefits are from emissions reductions of NOX and PM only. For notational purposes, unquantified benefits are indicated with a `` B'' to represent monetary benefits. A detailed listing of unquantified NOX, PM, and HAP related health effects is provided in Table 8 13 of the RIA. C Results reflect the use of two different discount rates; a 3 percent rate which is recommended by EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses ( U. S. EPA, 2000a), and 7 percent which is recommended by OMB Circular A 94 ( OMB, 1992). TABLE 5. ANNUAL NET BENEFITS OF THE RICE NESHAP IN 2005 Million 1998$ A Social Costs B ................................................................................................................................................................................. $ 255 Social Benefits B, C, D: HAP­ related benefits ................................................................................................................................................................ Not monetized CO­ related benefits .................................................................................................................................................................. Not monetized Ozone­ and PM­ related welfare benefits ................................................................................................................................. Not monetized Ozone­ and PM­ related health benefits: Base Estimate Using 3% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 280 + B Using 7% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 265 + B Alternative Estimate Using 3% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 40 + B Using 7% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 45 + B Net Benefits ( Benefits Costs) C, D: Base Estimate Using 3% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 25 + B Using 7% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 10 + B Alternative Estimate Using 3% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 215 + B Using 7% Discount Rate ....................................................................................................................................... $ 210 + B A All costs and benefits are rounded to the nearest $ 5 million. Thus, figures presented in this chapter may not exactly equal benefit and cost numbers presented in earlier sections of the chapter. B Note that costs are the total costs of reducing all pollutants, including HAP and CO, as well as NOx and PM 10. Benefits in this table are associated only with PM and NOx reductions. C Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis. Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized are listed in Table 8 13. B is the sum of all unquantified benefits and disbenefits. D Monetized benefits are presented using two different discount rates. Results calculated using 3 percent discount rate are recommended by EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses ( U. S. EPA, 2000a). Results calculated using 7 percent discount rate are recommended by OMB Circular A 94 ( OMB, 1992). B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. We are required by section 112 of the CAA, 42 U. S. C. 7412, to establish the standards in the proposed rule. The proposed rule primarily affects private industry and does not impose significant economic costs on State or local governments. The proposed rule does not include an express provision preempting State or local regulations. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77856 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule, we consulted with representatives of State and local governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input into the development of the proposed rule. This consultation took place during the ICCR FACA committee meetings where members representing State and local governments participated in developing recommendations for EPA's combustion­ related rulemakings, including the proposed rule. The concerns raised by representatives of State and local governments were considered during the development of the proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, we specifically solicit comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials. C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' The proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No known stationary RICE are located within the jurisdiction of any tribal government. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the proposed rule on children, and explain why the proposed rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered. The Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks associated with the emissions addressed by the proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children. The public is invited to submit or identify peer­ reviewed studies and data, of which the Agency may not be aware, that assess the results of early life exposure to the pollutants addressed by the proposed rule and suggest a disproportionate impact. E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211, ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain actions identified as significant energy actions. Section 4( b) of Executive Order 13211 defines significant energy actions as any action by an agency ( normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: ( 1)( i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and ( ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or ( 2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. While the proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined that the proposed rule is not a significant energy action because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy based on the Statement of Energy Effects for this action provided below. The RIA estimates changes in prices and production levels for all energy markets ( i. e., petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and coal). We also estimate how changes in the energy markets will impact other users of energy, such as manufacturing markets and residential, industrial and commercial consumers of energy. The results of the economic impact analysis for the proposed rule are shown for 2005, for that is the year in which full implementation of the rule is expected to occur. These results show that there will be minimal changes in price, if any, for most energy products affected by implementation of the proposed rule. Only a slight price increase ( about 0.001 percent to 0.02 percent) may occur in three of the energy sectors: petroleum, electricity, and coal products nationwide, and approximately a one­ tenth of one percent ( i. e., 0.10 percent) change in natural gas prices. The change in energy costs associated with the proposed rule, however, represents only 0.03 percent of expected annual energy expenditures by residential consumers in 2005, a 0.008 percent change for transportation consumers of energy, and about 0.03 percent of energy expenditures in the commercial sector. In addition, no discernable impact on exports or imports of energy products is expected. Therefore, the impacts on energy markets and users will be relatively small nationwide as a result of implementation of the proposed reciprocating internal combustion engines NESHAP. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost­ effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost­ effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before we establish VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77857 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must develop a small government agency plan under section 203 of the UMRA. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. We have determined that the proposed rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, we have prepared a written statement under section 202 of the UMRA which is summarized below. The written statement is in the docket. 1. Statutory Authority As discussed previously in this preamble, the statutory authority for the proposed rulemaking is section 112 of the CAA. Section 112( b) lists the 189 chemicals, compounds, or groups of chemicals deemed by Congress to be HAP. These toxic air pollutants are to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112( d) of the CAA directs us to develop NESHAP based on MACT which require existing and new major sources to control emissions of HAP. These NESHAP apply to all stationary RICE located at major sources of HAP emissions, however, only certain existing and new or reconstructed stationary RICE have substantive regulatory requirements. In compliance with section 205( a), we identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. The regulatory alternative upon which the proposed rule is based represents the MACT floor for stationary RICE and, as a result, it is the least costly and least burdensome alternative. 2. Social Costs and Benefits The RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including the Agency's assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. Based on estimated compliance costs on all sources associated with the proposed rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected industries, the estimated social costs of the proposed rule are $ 254 million ( 1998$). It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the proposed rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,000 tons per year due to reductions in formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol and other HAP from existing and new stationary RICE. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have been classified as `` probable human carcinogens.'' Acrolein, methanol and the other HAP are not considered carcinogenic, but produce several other toxic effects. The proposed rule will also achieve reductions in 234,400 tons of CO, approximately 167,900 tons of NOX per year, and approximately 3,700 tons of PM per year. Exposure to CO can effect the cardiovascular system and the central nervous system. Emissions of NOX can transform into PM, which can result in fatalities and many respiratory problems ( such as asthma or bronchitis); and NOX can also transform into ozone causing several respiratory problems to affected populations. At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate for the benefits associated with the reductions in HAP and CO. For NOX and PM, we estimated the benefits associated with health effects of PM but were unable to quantify all categories of benefits of NOX ( particularly those associated with ecosystem and environmental effects). Unquantified benefits are noted with `` B'' in the estimates presented below. Total monetized benefits are approximately $ 280 million + B ( 1998$) under our Base Estimate when using a 3 percent discount rate ( or approximately $ 265 million + B when using a 7 percent discount rate). Under the Alternative Estimate, total benefits are approximately $ 40 million + B when using a 3 percent discount rate ( or approximately $ 45 million + B when using a 7 percent discount rate). The approach to value benefits is discussed in more detail in this preamble under the Executive Order 12866. These monetized benefits should be considered along with the many categories of benefits that we are unable to place a dollar value on to consider the total benefits of the proposed rule. 3. Future and Disproportionate Costs The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the proposed rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the future compliance costs of the proposed rule are discussed previously in this preamble. We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate budgetary effects of the proposed rule on any particular areas of the country, State or local governments, types of communities ( e. g., urban, rural), or particular industry segments. 4. Effects on the National Economy The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the proposed rule on the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of the U. S. goods and services if we determine that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and material. The nationwide economic impact of the proposed rule is presented in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis for RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. This analysis provides estimates of the effect of the proposed rule on most of the categories mentioned above. The results of the economic impact analysis are summarized previously in this preamble. 5. Consultation With Government Officials The UMRA requires that we describe the extent of our prior consultation with affected State, local, and tribal officials, summarize the officials' comments or concerns, and summarize our response to those comments or concerns. In addition, section 203 of UMRA requires that we develop a plan for informing and advising small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by a proposal. Although the proposed rule does not affect any State, local, or tribal governments, we have consulted with State and local air pollution control officials. We also have held meetings on the proposed rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies, environmental groups, consultants and vendors, labor unions, and other interested parties. We have added materials to the docket to document these meetings. In addition, we have determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. G. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77858 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, `` small entity'' is defined as: ( 1) A small business whose parent company has fewer than 500 employees ( for most affected industries); ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government or a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not­ forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that the proposed rule covers more than 25 different industries. For each industry, we applied the definition of a small business provided by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR part 121, and classified by the NAICS. The Small Business Administration ( SBA) defines small businesses in most industries affected by the proposed rule as those with fewer than 500 employees. However, SBA has defined `` small business'' differently for a limited number of industries, either through reference to another employment cap or through the substitution of total yearly revenues in place of an employment limit. For more information on the size standards for particular industries, please refer to the regulatory impact analysis in the docket. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In support of this certification, EPA examined the percentage of annual revenues that compliance costs may consume if small entities must absorb all of the compliance costs associated with the proposed rule. Since many firms will be able to pass along some or all compliance costs to customers, actual impacts will frequently be lower than those analyzed here. As is mentioned in previous sections of this preamble, the proposed rule will set standards for only a limited set of existing units, specifically 4SRB units. For all other types of engines, the proposed rule would impose requirements only on new engines. The EPA identified a total of 26,832 engines located at commercial, industrial, and government facilities. From this initial population of 26,832 engines, 10,118 engines were excluded because the proposed regulation will not cover engines smaller than 500 horsepower or engines used to supply emergency/ backup power. Of the 16,714 units remaining, 2,645 units had sufficient information to assign to model unit numbers developed during the cost analysis. These 2,645 units were linked to 834 existing facilities, owned by 153 parent companies. A total of 47 companies were identified as small entities, and only 13 of them own 4SRB engines. These small entities own a total of 39 4SRB units at 21 facilities. Further, assuming only 40 percent of the all RICE sources are located at major sources and, thus, affected by the regulation, about 16 of the 39 4SRB units identified at facilities owned by small businesses would be located at major sources. Under this scenario, there are no small firms that have compliance costs above 3 percent of firm revenues and only two small firms owning 4SRB engines that have impacts between 1 and 3 percent of revenues. In addition to 12 small firms with 4SRB engines, there is one small government in the Inventory Database affected by the proposed rule. The costs to this city are approximately $ 3 per capita annually assuming their engine is affected by the proposed rule, less than 0.01 percent of median household income. Based on this subset of the existing engines population, the regulation will affect no small entities owning RICE at a cost to sales ratio ( CSR) greater than 3 percent, while approximately 4 percent ( 2/ 47) of small entities owning RICE greater than 500 horsepower will have compliance costs between 1 and 3 percent of sales under an upper bound cost scenario. In comparison, the total existing population of engines with greater than 500 horsepower that are not backup units is estimated to be 22,018. Assuming the same breakdown of large and small company ownership of engines in the total population of existing engines as in the subset with parent company information identified, the Agency expects that approximately 17 small entities in the existing population of RICE owners would have CSR between 1 and 3 percent under an upper bound cost scenario where we assume all RICE owned by small entities are located at major sources. In addition, because many small entities owning RICE will not be affected because of the exclusion of engines with less than 500 horsepower, the percentage of all small companies owning RICE that are affected by the proposed rule is even smaller. Based on the proportion of engines in the Inventory Database that are greater than 500 horsepower and are not backup units ( 16,714/ 26,832, or 62.3 percent) and assuming that small companies own the same proportion of small engines ( less than 500 horsepower) as they do of engines greater than 500 horsepower, the Agency estimates that 628 small companies own RICE. Of all small companies owning RICE, 2.7 percent ( 17/ 628) are expected to have CSR between 1 and 3 percent under an upper bound cost scenario. If the percentage of RICE owned by small companies that are located at major sources is the same as the engine population overall ( 40 percent), only about 1.1 percent of small companies owning RICE would be expected to have CSR greater than 1 percent. The average profit margin for the industries in our analysis is approximately 5 percent. Therefore, based on this median profit margin data, it seems reasonable to review the number of small firms with CSR above 3 percent in screening for significant impacts. In addition, based on the low number of affected small firms, the fact that no small firms have CSR between 3 and 5 percent, and the fact that industry profit margins average 5 percent, this analysis concludes that the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of existing small entities. For new sources, it can be reasonably assumed that the investment decision to purchase a new engine may be slightly altered as a result of the proposed rule. In fact, for the entire population of affected engines ( approximately 20,000 new engines over a 5­ year period), 2 fewer engines ( 0.01 percent) may be purchased due to changes in costs of the engines and market responses to the proposed rule. It is not possible, however, to determine future investment decisions by the small entities in the affected industries, so we cannot link these 2 engines to any one firm ( small or large). Overall, it is very unlikely that a substantial number of small firms who may consider purchasing a new engine will be significantly impacted, because the decision to purchase new engines is not altered to a large extent. In addition to this consideration of costs on some firms attributable to the proposed rule, EPA notes the proposed rule is likely to increase revenues for many small firms, including those not regulated by the proposed rule, due to a predictable increase in prices of natural gas in the industry. Although the proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77859 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules entities. In the proposed rule, we are applying the minimum level of control allowed by the CAA ( i. e., the MACT floor), and the minimum level of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting by affected sources. In addition, as mentioned earlier in the preamble, new RICE units with capacities under 500 horsepower and those that operate as emergency/ limited use units are not covered by the proposed rule, provisions that should greatly reduce the level of small­ entity impacts. We continue to be interested in reducing any remaining impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. H. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the proposed rule will be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request ( ICR) document has been prepared ( ICR No. 1975.01) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 200, by email at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 566 1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http:/ / www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA ( 42 U. S. C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the control devices but would not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be 142,436 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of $ 15,998,347. The estimate includes a one­ time performance test and report ( with repeat tests where needed); onetime purchase and installation of bag leak detection systems; one­ time submission of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual excess emission reports; maintenance inspections; notifications; and recordkeeping. Total capital/ startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3­ year period of the ICR are estimated at $ 5,436,882, with operation and maintenance costs of $ 1,208,206/ yr. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. That includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Comments are requested on our need for the information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the U. S. EPA, Director, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20500; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 19, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 21, 2003. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in the proposed rule. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995 ( Pub. L. No. 104 113; 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. We propose in the rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 3A, 3B, 4, 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; PS 3, PS 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; EPA SW 8 Method 0011, and ARB Method 430, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. Consistent with the NTTAA, we conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 3B, PS 3, PS 4 of CFR part 60, and ARB Method 430, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the docket for the proposed rule. One voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable, and we propose to use that standard in the proposed rule. The voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D6522 00 ( 2000) Standard Test Method for Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions From Natural Gas­ Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers, is an acceptable alternative procedure for use in determining carbon monoxide and oxygen concentrations the exhaust gases of reciprocating internal combustion engines. In addition to the voluntary consensus standard we propose to use in the rule, this search for emission VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77860 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules measurement procedures identified ten other voluntary consensus standards. We determined that six of these ten standards were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rulemaking. Therefore, we do not propose to adopt these standards today. The reasons for this determination for the six methods are discussed below. Two of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rulemaking because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently detailed to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM E337 84 ( Reapproved 1996), `` Standard Test Method for Measuring Humidity with a Psychrometer ( the Measurement of Wet­ and Dry­ Bulb Temperatures),'' for EPA Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; and CAN/ CSA Z223.2 M86( 1986), `` Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Streams,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Four of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rulemaking because they lacked sufficient quality assurance and quality control requirements necessary for EPA compliance assurance requirements: ASTM D3154 91, `` Standard Method for Average Velocity in a Duct ( Pitot Tube Method),'' for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ASTM D5835 95, `` Standard Practice for Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas Concentration,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ISO 10396: 1993, `` Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ISO 9096: 1992, `` Determination of Concentration and Mass Flow Rate of Particulate Matter in Gas Carrying Ducts Manual Gravimetric Method,'' for EPA Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The following four of the ten voluntary consensus standards identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of the proposed rulemaking because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/ BSR MFC 13M, `` Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 1 ( and possibly 2) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ISO/ DIS 12039, `` Stationary Source Emissions Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ASTM D6348 98, `` Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform ( FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' for EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; and Gas Research Institute, `` Measurement of Formaldehyde Emissions Using the Acetylacetone Colorimetric Method'' for EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. While we are not proposing to include these four voluntary consensus standards in today's proposal, we will consider the standards when final. The consensus standard, GRI, `` Measurement of Formaldehyde Emissions Using the Acetylacetone Colorimetric Method,'' is currently under our review as an alternative method for sampling formaldehyde emissions in the exhaust of natural gasfired combustion sources. This standard is based on the `` Chilled Impinger Train Method for Methanol, Acetone, Acetaldehyde, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and Formaldehyde'' and is described by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement in its Technical Bulletin No. 684, dated December 1994. After EPA's review, if this GRI standard is determined to be technically appropriate for identifying formaldehyde emissions, it could be incorporated by reference for our regulatory applicability at a later date. For the voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D6348 98, `` Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform ( FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' we have submitted comments to ASTM regarding EPA's technical evaluation of ASTM D6348 98. Currently, the ASTM Subcommittee D22 03 is undertaking a revision of the ASTM standard in part to address EPA's comments. Upon successful ASTM balloting and demonstration of technical equivalency with EPA's FTIR methods, the revised ASTM standard could be incorporated by reference for EPA regulatory applicability. We are taking comment on the compliance demonstration requirements in the proposed rulemaking and specifically invite the public to identify potentially­ applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commentors should also explain why the proposed regulation should adopt these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method ( if a method other than Method 301, of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used). Tables 4, 5, and 6 of proposed subpart ZZZZ list the EPA testing methods and performance standards included in the proposed rule. Under 40 CFR 63.8 of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 26, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 63 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401, et seq. 2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart ZZZZ to read as follows: Subpart ZZZZ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Sec. What This Subpart Covers 63.6580 What is the purpose of subpart ZZZZ? 63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.6590 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emission and Operating Limitations 63.6600 What emission limitations and operating limitations must I meet? General Compliance Requirements 63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements 63.6610 By what date must I conduct the initial performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.6615 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I use? VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77861 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules 63.6625 What are my monitor installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations? Continuous Compliance Requirements 63.6635 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations? Notification, Reports, and Records 63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.6650 What reports must I submit and when? 63.6655 What records must I keep? 63.6660 In what form and how long must I keep my records? Other Requirements and Information 63.6665 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.6670 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Emission Limitations for Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Operating Limitations for Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Emission Limitations for New and Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Operating Limitations for New and Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Subsequent Performance Tests Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Continuous Compliance with Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Requirements for Reports Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart ZZZZ What This Subpart Covers § 63.6580 What is the purpose of subpart ZZZZ? Subpart ZZZZ establishes national emission limitations and operating limitations for hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) emitted from stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines ( RICE) located at major sources of HAP emissions. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations. § 63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart? You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a stationary RICE at a major source of HAP emissions, except if the stationary RICE is being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/ stand. ( a) A stationary RICE is any internal combustion engine which uses reciprocating motion to convert heat energy into mechanical work and which is not mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that stationary RICE are not self­ propelled, are not intended to be propelled while performing their function, or are not portable or transportable as that term is identified in the definition of non­ road engine at 40 CFR 89.2. ( b) A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons ( 9.07 megagrams) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons ( 22.68 megagrams) or more per year, except that for oil and gas production facilities, a major source of HAP emissions is determined for each surface site. § 63.6590 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? This subpart applies to each affected source. ( a) Affected source. An affected source is any existing, new, or reconstructed stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions, excluding stationary RICE being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/ stand. ( 1) Existing stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is existing if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the stationary RICE before December 19, 2002. A change in ownership of an existing stationary RICE does not make that stationary RICE a new or reconstructed stationary RICE. ( 2) New stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is new if you commenced construction of the stationary RICE after December 19, 2002. ( 3) Reconstructed stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is reconstructed if you meet the definition of reconstruction in § 63.2 and reconstruction is commenced after December 19, 2002. ( b) Exceptions. ( 1) A stationary RICE which meets either of the criteria in paragraph ( b)( 1)( i) or ( ii) of this section does not have to meet the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part except for the initial notification requirements of § 63.6645( d). ( i) The stationary RICE is an emergency power/ limited use unit; or ( ii) The stationary RICE combusts digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel. ( 2) A stationary RICE which meets any of the criteria in paragraph ( b)( 2)( i) or ( ii) of this section does not have to meet the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part. ( i) The stationary RICE is an existing spark ignition 2 stroke lean burn ( 2SLB), an existing spark ignition 4 stroke lean burn ( 4SLB), or a compression ignition ( CI) stationary RICE; or ( ii) The stationary RICE has a manufacturer's nameplate rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower. § 63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart? ( a) Affected sources. ( 1) If you have an existing stationary RICE, you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating limitations no later than [ 3 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. ( 2) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE before [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating limitations in this subpart no later than [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. ( 3) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating limitations in this subpart upon startup of your affected source. ( b) Area sources that become major sources. If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, any existing, new, or reconstructed stationary RICE must be in compliance with this subpart when the area source becomes a major source. ( c) If you own or operate an affected RICE, you must meet the applicable notification requirements in § 63.6645 and in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. Emission and Operating Limitations § 63.6600 What emission limitations and operating limitations must I meet? ( a) If you own or operate an existing, new, or reconstructed spark ignition 4 stroke rich burn ( 4SRB) stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations in Table 1( a) of this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 1( b) of this subpart which apply to you. ( b) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a new or reconstructed CI VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77862 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations in Table 2( a) of this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 2( b) of this subpart which apply to you. ( c) If you own or operate: an existing 2SLB stationary RICE, 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE; a stationary RICE that combusts digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel; an emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE; a stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less; or a stationary RICE which is being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/ stand, you do not need to comply with the emission limitations in Tables 1( a) and 2( a) of this subpart or operating limitations in Tables 1( b) and 2( b) of this subpart. General Compliance Requirements § 63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? ( a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations in this subpart that apply to you at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( b) If you must comply with emission limitations and operating limitations, you must operate and maintain your stationary RICE, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at all times, including during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements § 63.6610 By what date must I conduct the initial performance tests or other initial compliance demonstrations? You must conduct the initial performance test or other initial compliance demonstrations in Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you within 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your stationary RICE in § 63.6595 and according to the provisions in § 63.7( a)( 2). § 63.6615 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? If you must comply with the emission limitations and operating limitations, you must conduct subsequent performance tests as specified in Table 3 of this subpart. § 63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I use? ( a) You must conduct each performance test in Tables 3 and 4 of this subpart that applies to you. ( b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7( e)( 1) and under the specific conditions that this subpart specifies in Table 4. ( c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 1). ( d) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. ( e)( 1) You must use Equation 1 of this section to determine compliance with the percent reduction requirement: C C C i o i × 100 = R ( Eq. 1) Where: Ci = concentration of CO or formaldehyde at the control device inlet, Co = concentration of CO or formaldehyde at the control device outlet, and R = percent reduction of CO or formaldehyde emissions. ( 2) You must normalize the carbon monoxide ( CO) or formaldehyde concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst or non­ selective catalytic reduction ( NSCR) ( whichever applies to you) to a dry basis and to 15 percent oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon dioxide ( CO2) if you are using a continuous emissions monitoring system ( CEMS). ( f) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, you must petition the Administrator for additional operating limitations to be established during the initial performance test and continuously monitored thereafter; or for approval of no additional operating limitations. You must not conduct the initial performance test until after the petition has been approved by the Administrator. ( g) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you petition the Administrator for approval of additional operating limitations, your petition must include the information described in paragraphs ( g)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as additional operating limitations; ( 2) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions change with changes in these parameters, and how limitations on these parameters will serve to limit HAP emissions; ( 3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/ or lower values for these parameters which will establish the limits on these parameters in the operating limitations; ( 4) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and instruments; and ( 5) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these parameters. ( h) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you petition the Administrator for approval of no additional operating limitations, your petition must include the information described in paragraphs ( h)( 1) through ( 7) of this section. ( 1) Identification of the parameters associated with operation of the stationary RICE and any emission control device which could change intentionally ( e. g., operator adjustment, automatic controller adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally ( e. g., wear and tear, error, etc.) on a routine basis or over time; ( 2) A discussion of the relationship, if any, between changes in the parameters and changes in HAP emissions; ( 3) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to increase HAP emissions, a discussion of whether establishing limitations on the parameters would serve to limit HAP emissions; ( 4) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to increase HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish upper and/ or lower values for the parameters which would establish limits on the parameters in operating limitations; ( 5) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the methods you could use to measure them and the instruments you could use to monitor them, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and instruments; ( 6) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor them; and ( 7) A discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible or unreasonable to adopt the parameters as operating limitations. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 EP19DE02.000</ MATH> 77863 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 63.6625 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? ( a) If you are required to install a CEMS as specified in Table 5 of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to monitor CO and either oxygen or CO2 at both the inlet and the outlet of the oxidation catalyst according to the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according to the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. ( 2) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation and an annual relative accuracy test audit ( RATA) of each CEMS according to the requirements in § 63.8 and according to the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B as well as daily and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1. ( 3) As specified in § 63.8( c)( 4)( ii), each CEMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation ( sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15­ minute period. You must have at least two data points, with each representing a different 15­ minute period, to have a valid hour of data. ( 4) The CEMS data must be reduced as specified in § 63.8( g)( 2) and recorded in parts per million or parts per billion ( as appropriate for the applicable limitation) at 15 percent oxygen or the equivalent CO2 concentration. ( b) If you are required to install a continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) as specified in Table 5 of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the requirements in § 63.8. § 63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations? ( a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission and operating limitation that applies to you according to Table 5 of this subpart. ( b) During the initial performance test, you must establish each operating limitation in Tables 1( b) and 2( b) of this subpart that applies to you. ( c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.6645. Continuous Compliance Requirements § 63.6635 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? ( a) If you must comply with emission and operating limitations, you must monitor and collect data according to this section. ( b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities ( including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must monitor continuously at all times that the stationary RICE is operating. ( c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling the minimum data availability requirement. You must, however, use all the valid data collected during all other periods. § 63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations? ( a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation and operating limitation in Tables 1( a) and 1( b) and Tables 2( a) and 2( b) of this subpart that apply to you according to methods specified in Table 6 of this subpart. ( b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limitation or operating limitation in Tables 1( a) and 1( b) and Tables 2( a) and 2( b) of this subpart that apply to you. These instances are deviations from the emission and operating limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.6650. If you change your catalyst ( i. e., replace catalyst elements), you must reestablish the values of the operating parameters measured during the initial performance test. When you reestablish the values of your operating parameters, you must also conduct a performance test to demonstrate that you are meeting the required CO or formaldehyde percent reduction applicable to your stationary RICE. ( c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. ( d) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations from the emission or operating limitations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations. ( e) If you are complying with the requirement to limit the formaldehyde concentration, you must conduct performance tests as shown in Table 4 of this subpart. Following the initial performance test, subsequent performance tests must be conducted at the lowest load. You must also conduct a performance test and reestablish the minimum load or minimum fuel flow rate if you want to operate the stationary RICE at a load or fuel flow rate lower than that established during the initial performance test. ( f) You must also report each instance in which you did not meet the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart that apply to you. If you own or operate an existing 2SLB stationary RICE, existing 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE, or a stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, you do not need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart. If you own or operate a stationary RICE that combusts digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel or an emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE, you do not need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart, except for the initial notification requirements. Notifications, Reports, and Records § 63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when? ( a) You must submit all of the notifications in § § 63.7( b) and ( c), 63.8( e), ( f)( 4) and ( f)( 6), 63.9( b) through ( e), and ( g) and ( h) that apply to you by the dates specified. ( b) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 2), if you must comply with the emission and operating limitations, and you start up your stationary RICE before [ the effective date of this subpart], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than [ 120 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. ( c) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 3), if you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE on or after the [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 days after you become subject to this subpart. ( d) If you are required to submit an Initial Notification but are otherwise not affected by the requirements of this subpart, in accordance with § 63.6590( b), your notification should include the information in § 63.9( b)( 2)( i) through ( v), and a statement that your stationary RICE has no additional requirements and explain the basis of the exclusion ( for example, that it operates exclusively as an emergency/ limited use stationary RICE). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77864 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a Notification of Intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as required in § 63.7( b)( 1). ( f) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to § 63.9( h)( 2)( ii). ( 1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5 of this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the initial compliance demonstration. ( 2) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5 of this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test according to § 63.10( d)( 2). § 63.6650 What reports must I submit and when? ( a) You must submit each report in Table 7 of this subpart that applies to you. ( b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10( a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 7 of this subpart and according to the requirements in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) The first Compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.6595 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.6595. ( 2) The first Compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.6595. ( 3) Each subsequent Compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. ( 4) Each subsequent Compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period. ( 5) For each stationary RICE that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), you may submit the first and subsequent Compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( c) The Compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. ( 1) Company name and address. ( 2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the report. ( 3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. ( 4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10( d)( 5)( i). ( 5) If there are no deviations from any emission or operating limitations that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission or operating limitations during the reporting period. ( 6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring system ( CMS), including CEMS and CPMS, was out­ of­ control, as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out­ of­ control during the reporting period. ( d) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation that occurs for a stationary RICE where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission or operating limitations in this subpart, the Compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 4) of this section and the information in paragraphs ( d)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) The total operating time of the stationary RICE at which the deviation occurred during the reporting period. ( 2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations ( including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. ( e) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation occurring for a stationary RICE where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission and operating limitations in this subpart, you must include information in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 4) and ( e)( 1) through ( 12) of this section. ( 1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped. ( 2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero ( low­ level) and high­ level checks. ( 3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out­ of­ control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). ( 4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or during another period. ( 5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. ( 6) 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. ( 7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total operating time of the stationary RICE at which the CMS downtime occurred during that reporting period. ( 8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant ( CO or formaldehyde) that was monitored at the stationary RICE. ( 9) A brief description of the stationary RICE. ( 10) A brief description of the CMS. ( 11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. ( 12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls since the last reporting period. ( f) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A). If an affected source submits a Compliance report pursuant to Table 7 of this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), and the Compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission or operating limitation in this subpart, submission of the Compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77865 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a Compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority. § 63.6655 What records must I keep? ( a) If you must comply with the emission and operating limitations, you must keep the records described in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( a)( 3), ( b)( 1) through ( b)( 3) and ( c) 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, according to the requirement in § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv). ( 2) The records in § 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through ( v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( 3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as required in § 63.10( b)( 2)( viii). ( b) For each CEMS or CPMS, you must keep the records listed in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Records described in § 63.10( b)( 2)( vi) through ( xi). ( 2) Previous ( i. e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan as required in § 63.8( d)( 3). ( 3) Requests for alternatives to the relative accuracy test for CEMS or CPMS as required in § 63.8( f)( 6)( i), if applicable. ( c) You must keep the records required in Table 6 of this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission or operating limitation that applies to you. § 63.6660 In what form and how long must I keep my records? ( a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review according to § 63.10( b)( 1). ( b) As specified in § 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 keep each record on site for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). You can keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. Other Requirements and Information § 63.6665 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 8 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in § § 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. If you own or operate an existing 2SLB, an existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an existing CI stationary RICE, or a stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, you do not need to comply with any of the requirements of the General Provisions. If you own or operate a stationary RICE that combusts digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel or is an emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE, you do not need to comply with the requirements in the General Provisions except for the initial notification requirements. § 63.6670 Who implements and enforces this subpart? ( a) This subpart is implemented and enforced by 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 ( as well as 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 whether 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 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph ( c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of the U. S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency. ( c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are: ( 1) Approval of alternatives to the non­ opacity emission limitations and operating limitations in § 63.6600 under § 63.6( g). ( 2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under § 63.7( e)( 2)( ii) and ( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under § 63.8( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10( f) and as defined in § 63.90. § 63.6675 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 as follows: Area source means any stationary source of HAP that is not a major source as defined in part 63. Associated equipment as used in this subpart and as referred to in section 112( n)( 4) of the CAA, means equipment associated with an oil or natural gas exploration or production well, and includes all equipment from the well bore to the point of custody transfer, except glycol dehydration units, storage vessels with potential for flash emissions, combustion turbines, and stationary RICE. CAA means the Clean Air Act ( 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq., as amended by Public Law 101 549, 104 Stat. 2399). Compression ignition engine means any stationary RICE in which a high boiling point liquid fuel injected into the combustion chamber ignites when the air charge has been compressed to a temperature sufficiently high for autoignition including diesel engines and dual­ fuel engines. Custody transfer means the transfer of hydrocarbon liquids or natural gas: after processing and/ or treatment in the producing operations, or from storage vessels or automatic transfer facilities or other such equipment, including product loading racks, to pipelines or any other forms of transportation. For the purposes of this subpart, the point at which such liquids or natural gas enters a natural gas processing plant is a point of custody transfer. 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 or operating 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 ( 3) Fails to meet any emission limitation or operating limitation in this subpart during malfunction, regardless or whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. Diesel engine means any stationary RICE in which a high boiling point liquid fuel injected into the combustion chamber ignites when the air charge has been compressed to a temperature sufficiently high for auto­ ignition. This process is also known as compression ignition. Diesel fuel means any liquid obtained from the distillation of petroleum with a boiling point of approximately 150 to 360 degrees Celsius. One commonly used form is fuel oil number 2. Digester gas means any gaseous byproduct of wastewater treatment formed through the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste materials and composed principally of methane and CO2. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77866 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules Dual­ fuel engine means any stationary RICE in which a liquid fuel ( typically diesel fuel) is used for compression ignition and gaseous fuel ( typically natural gas) is used as the primary fuel. Emergency power/ limited use stationary RICE means any stationary RICE that operates as a mechanical or electrical power source when the primary power source for a facility has been rendered inoperable by an emergency situation. Examples include stationary RICE used when electric power from the local utility is interrupted, stationary RICE used to pump water in the case of fire or flood, etc. Emergency power/ limited use units also include units that operate less than 50 hours per year in non­ emergency situations, including certain peaking units at electric facilities and stationary RICE at industrial facilities. Four­ stroke engine means any type of engine which completes the power cycle in two crankshaft revolutions, with intake and compression strokes in the first revolution and power and exhaust strokes in the second revolution. Gaseous fuel means a material used for combustion which is normally a gas with a heating value at standard temperature and pressure. Hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) means any air pollutants listed in or pursuant to section 112( b) of the CAA. ISO standard day conditions means 288 degrees Kelvin ( 15 degrees Celsius), 60 percent relative humidity and 101.3 kilopascals pressure. Landfill gas means a gaseous byproduct of the land application of municipal refuse formed through the anaerobic decomposition of waste materials and composed principally of methane and CO2. Lean burn engine means any twostroke or four­ stroke engine where the manufacturer's recommended operating air/ fuel ratio divided by the stoichiometric air/ fuel ratio is greater than 1.1. Liquefied petroleum gas means any liquefied hydrocarbon gas obtained as a by­ product in petroleum refining of natural gas production. Liquid fuel means any fuel in liquid form at standard temperature and pressure, including but not limited to diesel, residual/ crude oil, kerosene/ naphtha ( jet fuel), and gasoline. Major Source, as used in this subpart, shall have the same meaning as in § 63.2, except that: ( 1) Emissions from any oil or gas exploration or production well ( with its associated equipment ( as defined in this section)) and emissions from any pipeline compressor station or pump station shall not be aggregated with emissions from other similar units, to determine whether such emission points or stations are major sources, even when emission points are in a contiguous area or under common control except when they are on the same surface site; ( 2) For oil and gas production facilities, emissions from processes, operations, or equipment that are not part of the same oil and gas production facility, as defined in this section, shall not be aggregated; and ( 3) For production field facilities, only HAP emissions from glycol dehydration units, storage tanks with flash emissions potential, combustion turbines and reciprocating internal combustion engines shall be aggregated for a major source determination. 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. Natural gas means a naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and non­ hydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's surface, of which the principal constituent is methane. May be field or pipeline quality. Non­ selective catalytic reduction ( NSCR) means an add­ on catalytic nitrogen oxides ( NOX) control device for rich burn engines that, in a two­ step reaction, promotes the conversion of excess oxygen, NOX, CO, and volatile organic compounds ( VOC) into CO2, nitrogen, and water. Oil and gas production facility as used in this subpart means any grouping of equipment where hydrocarbon liquids are processed, upgraded ( i. e., remove impurities or other constituents to meet contract specifications), or stored prior to the point of custody transfer; or where natural gas is processed, upgraded, or stored prior to entering the natural gas transmission and storage source category. For purposes of a major source determination, facility ( including a building, structure, or installation) means oil and natural gas production and processing equipment that is located within the boundaries of an individual surface site as defined in this section. Equipment that is part of a facility will typically be located within close proximity to other equipment located at the same facility. Pieces of production equipment or groupings of equipment located on different oil and gas leases, mineral fee tracts, lease tracts, subsurface or surface unit areas, surface fee tracts, surface lease tracts, or separate surface sites, whether or not connected by a road, waterway, power line or pipeline, shall not be considered part of the same facility. Examples of facilities in the oil and natural gas production source category include, but are not limited to, well sites, satellite tank batteries, central tank batteries, a compressor station that transports natural gas to a natural gas processing plant, and natural gas processing plants. Oxidation catalyst means an add­ on catalytic control device for lean burn engines that controls CO and VOC by oxidation. Peaking unit or engine means any standby engine intended for use during periods of high demand that are not emergencies. 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. Production field facility means those oil and gas production facilities located prior to the point of custody transfer. Propane means a colorless gas derived from petroleum and natural gas, with the molecular structure C3H8, suitable for use in spark­ ignited internal combustion engines. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Rich burn engine means any fourstroke spark ignited engine where the manufacturer's recommended operating air/ fuel ratio divided by the stoichiometric air/ fuel ratio is less than or equal to 1.1. Spark ignition engine means a type of engine in which a compressed air/ fuel mixture is ignited by a timed electric spark generated by a spark plug. Stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine ( RICE) means any reciprocating internal combustion engine which uses reciprocating motion to convert heat energy into mechanical work and which is not mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that stationary RICE are not self propelled, are not intended to be propelled while performing their function, or are not portable or transportable as that term is identified VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77867 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules in the definition of non­ road engine at 40 CFR 89.2. Stationary RICE test cell/ stand means an engine test cell/ stand, as defined in subpart PPPPP of this part, that tests stationary RICE. Stoichiometric means the theoretical air­ to­ fuel ratio required for complete combustion. Subpart means 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. Surface site means any combination of one or more graded pad sites, gravel pad sites, foundations, platforms, or the immediate physical location upon which equipment is physically affixed. Two­ stroke engine means a type of engine which completes the power cycle in single crankshaft revolution by combining the intake and compression operations into one stroke and the power and exhaust operations into a second stroke. This system requires auxiliary scavenging and inherently runs lean of stoichiometric. Tables to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 TABLE 1A TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR EXISTING, NEW, AND RECONSTRUCTED SPARK IGNITION, 4SRB STATIONARY RICE [ As stated in § § 63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with the following emission limitations for existing, new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE] For each . . . You must meet one of the following emission limitations . . . 1. 4SRB stationary RICE .......................................................................... a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more, if you use NSCR; or b. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2, if you use means other than NSCR to reduce HAP emissions. TABLE 1B TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. OPERATING LIMITATIONS FOR EXISTING, NEW, AND RECONSTRUCTED SPARK IGNITION, 4SRB STATIONARY RICE [ As stated in § § 63.6600, 63.6630 and 63.6640, you must comply with the following operating emission limitations for existing, new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE] For each . . . You must meet the following operating limitation . . . 1. 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more using NSCR. a. Maintain your catalyst so that the pressure drop across the catalyst does not change by more than two inches of water from the pressure drop across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test; and b. Maintain your catalyst so that the temperature rise across the catalyst is no more than 5 percent different from the temperature rise across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test; and c. Maintain the temperature of your stationary RICE exhaust so that the catalyst inlet temperature is greater than or equal to 750 ° F and less than or equal to 1250 ° F. 2. 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2 using means other than NSCR to reduce emissions. a. Maintain an operating load equal to or greater than 95 percent of the operating load established during the initial performance test; or b. Maintain a fuel flow rate equal to or greater than 95 percent of the fuel flow rate established during the initial performance test; and c. You must comply with any additional operating limitations approved by the Administrator. TABLE 2A TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED LEAN BURN AND COMPRESSION IGNITION STATIONARY RICE [ As stated in § § 63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with the following emission limitations for new and reconstructed lean burn and compression ignition stationary RICE] For each . . . You must meet the following emission limitation . . . 1. 2SLB stationary RICE .......................................................................... a. Reduce CO emissions by 60 percent or more, if you use an oxidation catalyst; or b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 17 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2, if you use some means other than an oxidation catalyst to reduce emissions. 2. 4SLB stationary RICE .......................................................................... a. Reduce CO emissions by 93 percent or more, if you use an oxidation catalyst; or b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 14 ppmvd or less at 15 percent O2, if you use some means other than an oxidation catalyst to reduce emissions. 3. CI stationary RICE ............................................................................... a. Reduce CO emissions by 70 percent or more, if you use an oxidation catalyst; or VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77868 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2A TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED LEAN BURN AND COMPRESSION IGNITION STATIONARY RICE Continued [ As stated in § § 63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with the following emission limitations for new and reconstructed lean burn and compression ignition stationary RICE] For each . . . You must meet the following emission limitation . . . b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust to 580 ppbvd or less at 15 percent O2, if you use some means other than an oxidation catalyst to reduce emissions. TABLE 2B TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. OPERATING LIMITATIONS FOR NEW AND RECONSTRUCTED LEAN BURN AND COMPRESSION IGNITION STATIONARY RICE [ As stated in § § 63.6600, 63.6630, and 63.6640, you must comply with the following operating limitations for new and reconstructed lean burn and compression ignition stationary RICE] For each . . . You must meet the following operating limitation . . . 1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a brake horsepower < 5000 complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst. a. Maintain your catalyst so that the pressure drop across the catalyst does not change by more than two inches of water from the pressure drop across the catalyst that was measured during the initial performance test; and b. Maintain the temperature of your stationary RICE exhaust so that the catalyst inlet temperature is greater than or equal to 500 ° F and less than or equal to 1250 ° F. 2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust. a. Maintain an operating load equal to or greater than 95 percent of the operating load established during the initial performance test; or b. Maintain a fuel flow rate equal to or greater than 95 percent of the fuel flow rate established during the initial performance test; and c. You must comply with any additional operating limitations approved by the Administrator. TABLE 3 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. SUBSEQUENT PERFORMANCE TESTS [ As stated in § § 63.6615 and 63.6620, you must comply with the following subsequent performance test requirements] For each . . . Complying with the requirement to . . . You must . . . 1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a brake horsepower < 5000. Reduce CO emissions if using an oxidation catalyst. Conduct subsequent performance tests quarterly 2. 4SRB stationary RICE with a brake horsepower 5000. Reduce formaldehyde emissions 75 percent or more using NSCR. Conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually a. 3. Stationary RICE ( all stationary RICE subcategories and all brake horsepower ratings). Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, if using means other than an oxidation catalyst or NSCR. Conduct subsequent performance tests semiannually a. a After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to annually If the results of any subsequent annual performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in compliance with the formaldehyde emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests. TABLE 4 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS [ As stated in § § 63.6610, 63.6620, and 63.6640, you must comply with the following requirements for performance tests] For each . . . Complying with the requirement to . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a brake horsepower < 5000. a. Reduce CO emissions if using an oxidation catalyst i. Measure the O2 at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst. and ( 1) Portable CO and O2 analyzer. ( a) Using ASTM D6522 00 b. Measurements to determine O2 must be made at the same time as the measurements for CO concentration. ii. Measure the CO at the inlet and the outlet of the oxidation catalyst. ( 1) Portable CO and O2 analyzer. ( a) Using ASTM D6522 00 b. The CO concentration must be at 15 percent O2, dry basis. 2. 4SRB stationary RICE .. a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more using NSCR. i. Select the sampling port location and the number of traverse points. and ( 1) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A § 63.7( d)( 1)( i). ( a) Sampling sites must be located at the inlet and outlet of the NSCR. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77869 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS Continued [ As stated in § § 63.6610, 63.6620, and 63.6640, you must comply with the following requirements for performance tests] For each . . . Complying with the requirement to . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . ii. Measure O2 at the inlet and outlet of the control device. and ( 1) Method 3A and 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. ( a) Measurements to determine O2 concentration must be made at the same time as the measurements for formaldehyde concentration. iii. Measure moisture content at the inlet and outlet of the NSCR. and ( 1) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. ( a) Measurements to determine moisture content must be made at the same time and location as the measurements for formaldehyde concentration iv. Measure formaldehyde at the inlet and the outlet of the NSCR. ( 1) Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, EPA SW 846 Method 0011 or Method CARB 430 a. ( a) Formaldehyde concentration must be at 15 percent O2, dry basis. Results of this test consist of the average of the three 1­ hour or longer runs. 3. Stationary RICE ............ a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust. i. Select the sampling port location and the number of traverse points. and ( 1) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A § 63.7( d)( 1)( i). ( a) If using a control device the sampling site must be located at the outlet of the control device ii. Determine the O2 concentration of the stationary RICE exhaust at the sampling port location and ( 1) Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. ( a) Measurements to determine O2 concentration must be made at the same time and location as the measurements for formaldehyde concentration iii. Measure moisture content of the stationary RICE exhaust at the sampling port location. and ( 1) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. ( a) Measurements to determine moisture content must be made at the same time and location as the measurements for formaldehyde concentration iv. Measure formaldehyde at the exhaust of the stationary RICE. ( 1) Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; or Method CARB 430 a ( spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE only); or EPA SW 846 Method 0011. ( a) The stationary RICE must be operating at the lowest operating load at which you will operate the stationary RICE; and Formaldehyde concentration must be at 15 percent O2, dry basis. Results of this test consist of the average of the three 1­ hour or longer runs. a You may obtain a copy of ARB Method 430 from the California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento CA 95812, or you may download a copy of ARB Method 430 from ARB's web site ( http:// www. arb. ca. gov/ testmeth/ vol3/ vol3. htm). b You may also use Methods 3A and 10 as options to ASTM D6522 00. You may obtain a copy of ASTM D6522 00 from at least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohochen, PA 19428 2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77870 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND OPERATING LIMITATIONS [ As stated in § § 63.6625 and 63.6630, you must initially comply with the emission and operating limitations as required by the following] For each . . . Complying with the requirement to . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a brake horsepower < 5000. a. Reduce CO emissions if using an oxidation catalyst. i. The average reduction of emissions of CO determined from the initial performance test achieves the required CO percent reduction; and ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously monitor catalyst pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature according to the requirements in § 63.6625( b); and iii. You have recorded the catalyst pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature during the initial performance test. 2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a brake horsepower 5000. a. Reduce CO emissions if using an oxidation catalyst. i. You have installed a CEMS to continuously monitor CO and either O2 or CO2 at both the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst according to the requirements in § 63.6625( a); and ii. You have conducted a performance evaluation of your CEMS using PS 3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B; and iii. The average reduction of CO calculated using § 63.6620 equals or exceeds the required percent reduction. The initial test comprises the first 4­ hour period after successful validation of the CEMS. Compliance is based on the average percent reduction achieved during the 4­ hour period. 3. 4SRB stationary RICE ........................ a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions if using NSCR. i. The average reduction of emissions of formaldehyde determined from the initial performance test is equal to or greater than the required formaldehyde percent reduction and ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously monitor catalyst pressure drop and catalyst temperature rise according to the requirements in § 63.6625( b); and iii. You have recorded the catalyst pressure drop, catalyst inlet temperature and catalyst temperature rise during the initial performance test. 4. Stationary RICE .................................. a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust. i. The average formaldehyde concentration, corrected to 15 percent O2, dry basis, from the three test runs is less than or equal to the formaldehyde emission limitation; and ii. You have installed a CPMS to continuously monitor stationary RICE operating load or fuel flow rate according to the requirements in § 63.6625( b); and iii. You have recorded the average stationary RICE operating load or fuel flow rate during the initial performance test. TABLE 6 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND OPERATING LIMITATIONS [ As stated in § 63.6640, you must continuously comply with the emissions and operating limitations as required by the following] For each . . . Complying with the requirement to . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a brake horsepower < 5000. a. Reduce CO emissions if using an ozidation catalyst. i. Conducting quarterly performance tests for CO to demonstrate that the required CO percent reduction is achieved; and ii. Collecting the catalyst pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature data according to § 63.6625( b); and iii. Reducing these data to 4­ hour rolling averages; and iv. Maintaining the 4­ hour rolling averages within the operating limitations for the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature established during the initial performance test. 2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a brake horsepower 5000. a. Reduce CO emissions if using an oxidation catalyst. i. Collecting the monitoring data according to § 63.6625( a), reducing the measurements to 1­ hour averages, calculating the percent reduction of CO emissions according to § 63.6620; and ii. Demonstrating that the oxidation catalyst achieves the required percent reduction of CO emissions over the 4­ hour averaging period; and VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77871 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 6 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND OPERATING LIMITATIONS Continued [ As stated in § 63.6640, you must continuously comply with the emissions and operating limitations as required by the following] For each . . . Complying with the requirement to . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . iii. Conducting an annual RATA of your CEMS using PS 3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as well as daily and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1. 3. Spark ignition, 4SRB stationary RICE a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions if using NSCR. i. Collecting the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst data according to § 63.6625( b); and ii. Reducing these data to 4­ hour rolling averages; and iii. Maintaining the 4­ hour rolling averages within the operating limitations for pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and temperature rise across the catalyst established during the performance test. 4. 4SRB stationary RICE with a brake horsepower 5000. Reduce formaldehyde emissions if using NSCR. Conducting semiannual performance tests for formaldehyde to demonstrate that the required formaldehyde percent reduction horsepower is achieved a 5. Stationary RICE .................................. a. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust. i. Conducting semiannual performance tests for formaldehyde to demonstrate that your emissions remain at or below the formaldehyde concentration limit a; and ii. Collecting the operating load or fuel flow data; and iii. Reducing operating load or fuel flow data to 4­ hour rolling averages; and iv. Maintaining the 4­ hour rolling averages equal to or greater than 95 percent of the operating limitations established during the initial performance test. a After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive tests, you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to annually If the results of any subsequent annual performance test indicate the stationary RICE is not in compliance with the formaldehyde emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests. TABLE 7 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63. REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS [ As stated in § 63.6650, you must comply with the following requirements for reports] You must submit a ( n) The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 1. Compliance report .............................. a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations or operating limitations that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations or operating limitations during the reporting period. If there were no periods during which the CMS, including CEMS and CPMS, was out­ of­ control, as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), a statement that there were not periods during which the CMS was out­ of­ control during the reporting period. or i. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6650( b). b. If you had a deviation from any emission limitation or operating limitation during the reporting period, the information in § 63.6650( d). If there were periods during which the CMS, including CEMS and CPMS, was out­ of­ control, as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), the information in § 63.6650( e). or i. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6650( b). c. If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period, the information in § 63.10( d)( 5)( i). i. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.6650( b). 2. An immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period. a. Actions taken for the event ............................................... and i. by fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the plan. b. The information in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii) .................................... i. By letter within 7 working days after the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authorities. ( § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii)). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 30 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77872 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63 APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART ZZZZ [ As stated in § 63.6665, you must comply with the following applicable general provisions:] General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to Subpart Explanation 1. § 63.1 ......................................... General applicability of the General Provisions. Yes. 2. § 63.2 ......................................... Definitions ..................................... Yes ................................................ Additional terms defined in § 63.6675. 3. § 63.3 ......................................... Units and abbreviations ................ Yes. 4. § 63.4 ......................................... Prohibited activities and circumvention Yes. 5. § 63.5 ......................................... Construction and reconstruction ... Yes. 6. § 63.6( a) ..................................... Applicability ................................... Yes. 7. § 63.6( b)( 1) ( 4) .......................... Compliance dates for new and reconstructed sources. Yes. 8. § 63.6( b)( 5) ................................ Notification .................................... Yes. 9. § 63.6( b)( 6) ................................ [ Reserved] .................................... Yes. 10. § 63.6( b)( 7) .............................. Compliance dates for new and reconstructed area sources that become major sources. Yes. 11. § 63.6( c)( 1) ( 2) ........................ Compliance dates for existing sources. Yes. 12. § 63.6( c)( 3) ( 4) ........................ [ Reserved] .................................... Yes. 13. § 63.6( c)( 5) ............................... Compliance dates for existing area sources that become major sources. Yes. 14. § 63.6( d) ................................... [ Reserved] .................................... Yes. 15. § 63.6( e)( 1) ( 2) ........................ Operation and maintenance ......... Yes. 16. § 63.6( e)( 3) .............................. Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. No ................................................. No requirement for a startup, shutdown and malfunction plan. 17. § 63.6( f)( 1) ............................... Applicability of standards except during startup shutdown malfunction ( SSM). Yes. 18. § 63.6( f)( 2) ............................... Methods for determining compliance Yes. 19. § 63.6( f)( 3) ............................... Finding of compliance .................. Yes. 20. § 63.6( g)( 1) ( 3) ........................ Use of alternate standard ............. Yes. 21. § 63.6( h) ................................... Opacity and visible emission standards. No ................................................. Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, does not contain opacity or visible emission standards. 22. § 63.6( i) .................................... Compliance extension procedures and criteria. Yes. 23. § 63.6( j) .................................... Presidential compliance exemption Yes. 24. § 63.7( a)( 1) ( 2) ........................ Performance test dates ................ Yes. 25. § 63.7( a)( 3) .............................. Section 114 authority .................... Yes. 26. § 63.7( b)( 1) .............................. Notification of performance test ... Yes. 27. § 63.7( b)( 2) .............................. Notification of rescheduling .......... Yes. 28. § 63.7( c) ................................... Quality assurance/ test plan .......... Yes. 29. § 63.7( d) ................................... Testing facilities ............................ Yes. 30. § 63.7( e)( 1) .............................. Conditions for conducting performance tests. Yes ................................................ Except that testing is required under lowest load conditions for some regulatory alternatives. 31. § 63.7( e)( 2) .............................. Conditions for conducting performance tests. Yes. 32. § 63.7( e)( 3) .............................. Test run duration .......................... Yes. 33. § 63.7( e)( 4) .............................. Administrator may require other testing under section 114 of the CAA. Yes. 34. § 63.7( f) .................................... Alternative test method provisions Yes. 35. § 63.7( g) ................................... Performance test data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting. Yes. 36. § 63.7( h) ................................... Waiver of tests .............................. Yes. 37. § 63.8( a)( 1) .............................. Applicability of monitoring requirements Yes ................................................ Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, contains specific requirements for monitoring at § 63.6625. 38. § 63.8( a)( 2) .............................. Performance specifications .......... Yes. 39. § 63.8( a)( 3) .............................. [ Reserved]. 40. § 63.8( a)( 4) .............................. Monitoring with flares ................... No. 41. § 63.8( b)( 1) .............................. Monitoring ..................................... Yes. 42. § 63.8( b)( 2) ( 3) ........................ Multiple effluents and multiple monitoring systems. Yes. 43. § 63.8( c)( 1) ............................... Monitoring system operation and maintenance. Yes. 44. § 63.8( c)( 1)( i) ........................... Routine and predictable SSM ...... Yes. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77873 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63 APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART ZZZZ Continued [ As stated in § 63.6665, you must comply with the following applicable general provisions:] General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to Subpart Explanation 45. § 63.8( c)( 1)( ii) ........................... SSM not in Startup Shutdown Malfunction Plan. Yes. 46. § 63.8( c)( 1)( iii) .......................... Compliance with operation and maintenance requirements. Yes. 47. § 63.8( c)( 2) ( 3) ........................ Monitoring system installation ...... Yes. 48. § 63.8( c)( 4) ............................... Continuous monitoring system ( CMS) requirements. Yes ................................................ Except that Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, does not require Continuous Opacity Monitoring System ( COMS). 49. § 63.8( c)( 5) ............................... COMS minimum procedures ........ No ................................................. Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, does not require COMS. 50. § 63.8( c)( 6) ( 8) ........................ CMS requirements ........................ Yes ................................................ Except that Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, does not require COMS. 51. § 63.8( d) ................................... CMS quality control ...................... Yes. 52. § 63.8( e) ................................... CMS performance evaluation ....... Yes ................................................ Except for § 63.8( e)( 5)( ii), which applies to COMS. 53. § 63.8( f)( 1) ( 5) ......................... Alternative monitoring method ...... Yes. 54. § 63.8( f)( 6) ............................... Alternative to relative accuracy test. Yes. 55. § 63.8( g) ................................... Data reduction .............................. Yes ................................................ Except that provisions for COMS are not applicable. Averaging periods for demonstrating compliance are specified at § § 63.6635 and 63.6640. 56. § 63.9( a) ................................... Applicability and State delegation of notification requirements. Yes. 57. § 63.9( b)( 1) ( 5) ........................ Initial notifications ......................... Yes. 58. § 63.9( c) ................................... Request for compliance extension Yes. 59. § 63.9( d) ................................... Notification of special compliance requirements for new sources. Yes. 60. § 63.9( e) ................................... Notification of performance test ... Yes. 61. § 63.9( f) .................................... Notification of visible emission ( VE)/ opacity test. No. 62. § 63.9( g)( 1) .............................. Notification of performance evaluation Yes. 63. § 63.9( g)( 2) .............................. Notification of use of COMS data No ................................................. Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, does not contain opacity or VE standards. 64. § 63.9( g)( 3) .............................. Notification that criterion for alternative to RATA is exceeded. Yes ................................................ If alternative is in use. 65. § 63.9( h)( 1) ( 6) ........................ Notification of compliance status .. Yes ................................................ Except that notifications for sources using a CEMS are due 30 days after completion of performance evaluations. 66. § 63.9( i) .................................... Adjustment of submittal deadlines Yes. 67. § 63.9( j) .................................... Change in previous information ... Yes. 68. § 63.10( a) ................................. Administrative provisions for record keeping/ reporting. Yes. 69. § 63.10( b)( 1) ............................ Record retention ........................... Yes. 70. § 63.10( b)( 2)( i) ( v) ................... Records related to SSM ............... Yes. 71. § 63.10( b)( 2)( vi) ( xi) ................ Records ........................................ Yes. 72. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xii) ....................... Record when under waiver .......... Yes. 73. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiii) ...................... Records when using alternative to RATA. Yes ................................................ For CO standard if using RATA alternative. 74. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv) ...................... Records of supporting documentation Yes. 75. § 63.10( b)( 3) ............................ Records of applicability determination Yes. 76. § 63.10( c) ................................. Additional records for sources using CEMS. Yes. 77. § 63.10( d)( 1) ............................ General reporting requirements ... Yes. 78. § 63.10( d)( 2) ............................ Report of performance test results Yes. 79. § 63.10( d)( 3) ............................ Reporting opacity or VE observations No ................................................. Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, does not contain opacity or VE standards. 80. § 63.10( d)( 4) ............................ Progress reports ........................... Yes. 81. § 63.10( d)( 5) ............................ Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. Yes. 82. § 63.10( e)( 1) and ( 2)( i) ............. Additional CMS reports ................ Yes. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 13 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2 77874 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8 TO SUBPART ZZZZ OF PART 63 APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART ZZZZ Continued [ As stated in § 63.6665, you must comply with the following applicable general provisions:] General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to Subpart Explanation 83. § 63.10( e)( 2)( ii) ........................ COMS­ related report .................... No ................................................. Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, does not require COMS. 84. § 63.10( e)( 3) ............................ Excess emission and parameter exceedances reports. Yes. 85. § 63.10( e)( 4) ............................ Reporting COMS data .................. No ................................................. Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, does not require COMS. 86. § 63.10( f) .................................. Waiver for recordkeeping/ reporting Yes. 87. § 63.11 ..................................... Flares ............................................ No. 88. § 63.12 ..................................... State authority and delegations .... Yes. 89. § 63.13 ..................................... Addresses ..................................... Yes. 90. § 63.14 ..................................... Incorporation by reference ........... Yes. 91. § 63.15 ..................................... Availability of information .............. Yes. [ FR Doc. 02 31232 Filed 12 18 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 32 Dec 18, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEP2. SGM 19DEP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.217787

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0060-0337

Supporting & Related Material

­­ . ­­ ­ ­­ , . =. .. _. . " _. ­.,­ 4 m I . . ado 4 . . I E H . . ri _. . ., ril . . x .. . . c_;. ­ d­ . . E ­ d n 4 4 d ' ... ­. . . ­ I I I I Test No. I I ­­ ~ %* z E L 4 7 l \ I bf4f­ l 1 Dr'rt/ ( ;­)> 60.4 Ambient Temp. ( WB) Ambient Temp. @ B) Specific Humidity Baro. Press I I .. 3 . . ­ n . '. I .. . _ . :. . ... J ­.­ I ­ _ Is ­­. I ill ­ i :: Y ' I W .­.. .~ . , . . ~, ~ j ~ ~ . . . ­ , ^ ~ . , . ~ . .. . . . . . . . , ,. .., . . _ _ . . . . .. . ' ... . :?." E .. . '­& &: A ..._ r­ 4 I+ .­ m .. , ~ ". . . . e 0 c: ib . . h . . I 030 i r . ­ ­ ­ I ­ I . ? . 9. L . . ­. r .. . .., b. ~ . . . c .. ­ 7­. . .­ .. _ A ­ . c t ­­­­ . I,­.* ­.. r ­­ . . 1 5 I B Y 5=. f . .. _ . ._­­ 1­ 0 . .. 9 p' m J 4 \ = .% . ts :­ i . I . 06Cs : . . . L. . . . c . " . = SI50 . . I am63 1 ­ 4 n Y b F . . .; &% ri 91 I '+ ... _. Ln ' a 1.3 . . . I z, .3: . E 4." J ­, . . 1 s 0 ..­ f, . b.' I­ i ­ s . d F, E Y 4 i +. m , ._ . . . .. ­ __ I . . : ­­ PI_=­ . ­ ­. Ambient Temp. ( DU) S peci fic I I u 111 id it y 1 t h r o . Press 7 ./* ­ *.' ? 7 , 7 ­ ­ Test No. Time Ambient Temp. ( DB) Specific Hunnidiity I I I Baro. Press k I I I ­+= I­= 7 7 . . _ I­ ­.. " . . . I e c e ' i! zD r s . I i .­ ­ I 1 2 _ r. I .. ­ : :.. _ r .,­ . . . ­ . d u ­ 1 . b.' ­. L ! m ­ . I * c; : .+ I . . ­. , ­. c * I . T ." K ­. ­ 6.. .... ..­ I­ n +: ; Ci .. . ­~ s .. . i E ­ Y e ­ 1 . _­ ­ . e . r i' 2 .­ _=___ . . i.. . I .. ­* r? u 2 A ip .­­ ­ u * u L­ 9 Q C L b C ?­ 4 . w . ._ .­­ id : 2& . ­. .­ 1 , , : ­ : . & A ­ _­ ?­. . .. L ._ ... . . .. x l i. t v ­ c . . r . . I ­ ?­ c, . h u t _ _ ­.. . ­ .... 4 W U E T E T f u ­ __ * ­ . . . . . U Test No. Date 12­ 8 ­ 9 3 I Time a: 50 67: 30­ F*. Turbine Cont. Temp.= TS QF) I I I Ambient Temp. @ B) I I I SDecific Humidity I I I Baro. Press t p h= r a ­ :­­ s 1 m AT iJ . U . . . . i . ­ . . :­ I ­ ­ ; fs.;: *< L. ­­ ~~. . . _ i ­­­ ­ A,. . ­ . ­. ­ < , ­­­, Appendix C. 2. b Load Curves GRI 1 E­ 125 15­ 1971 5/ R 120D755. T I_ ___ I______ s__ ­ _ TURBINES INCORPORATED ..­ I ­ DATE RUN :­ ­ 8­ NOV­ 9 3 ­ c ­? "` GINE PERFOWANCE DATA REV. 2.3 RUN BY: DAN JARRELL EXHAUST GAS ANlD EMISSION DATA. REV. 2.0 , IB ID : .­: XT CHANGES REV. 2.1 ­@ MARS 100s MARS T14000S ( SOLONOX) CS/ MD 59F MATCH GAS TMD­ 2S REV. 2 DATA FOR NOMINAL PERFORMANCE FUEL TYPE ELEVATION, I? EET INLET LOSS, I N . ` H20 EXHAUST LOSS, I N . H 2 0 AMB TEMP, DEG. F REL " MI, PCT INLET LOSS HP EXHAUST LOSS HP ELEVATION LOSS HP COMP OR PIJME' RPM OPTIMUM RI? M PERCENT G2lS PROD, SPEED GAS PRODUCER RPM NET OUTPUT POWER ( HP) SPECIFIED PART LOAD FUEL FLOW,, MMBTU/ HR HEAT RATE BTU/ HP­ HR S D NATURAL GAS 35.0 60.0 43. 24 . 300. 6591. 6591. 87. 9365. 3430. 25.0% 54 . 47 15878 . INmT AIR FLOW, LB/ HR 204515. ENGINE EXH FLOW, LB/ HR 206442. PCD P. S. 1C. GI.. 93.7 P. T. INLET TEMP, DEG. F 1251. COMPENSATED PTIT DEG, F 1310. ENGINE EXH TEMP, DEG. F 888 . 2185. 2.0 2.0 35.0 60.0 49. 26. 358. 6910. 6910. 88. 9455. 4116. 30.0% 59.03 14340. 13148. 12202. 214218. 222968. 230826. 216332. 225251. 233267. 103.1 112.4 121.2 1260. 1268. 1274 . 1319. 1327. 1333. 896, 902. 905. 35.0 60.0 55. 28. 418 . 7207 . 7207. 88. 9536. 4803. 35.0% 63 . 14 35.0 60.0 60. 30. 478 . 74` 61, 7461. 89 . 9601. 5489. 40.0% 66.97 35.0 601.0 66. 32. .538. 7687. 7687. 90. 9658. 6175. 45.0% 70.59 11433. 238093. 240684. 129.7 1279 . 1339. 907 . 35.0 60.0 71. 33 .. 597 . 7886. 7886. 90. 9723. 6861. 50.0% 74.11 10801. 244736. 247475, 137.7 1285, 1345. 909. "% R TURBINES INCORPORATED DATE RUN: 8­ NOV­ 93 ­ NE PERFORMANCE­ DATA REV. 2.3 ­ R U R ­ B ­ E ­ D j ­ ­ JJST GAS­ AND­ EMISSION ­ DA ? CHANGES REV. 2.1 MARS T14000S ( SOLONOX) CS/ MD 59F MATCH GAS TMD­ 2S REV. 2 DATA FOR NOMINAL PERFORMANCE : VEL T Y ~ G S D NATURAL GAS , LEVATION, FEET 2185. 7­+ LNLET LOSS, I N . H20 2.0 SXHAUST LOSS, I N . H20 2.0 r J + f O D WMB TEMP, DEG. F 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 $ EL HUMI, PCT 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60. 30. ~ X H A U S T LOSS H P 24. 26. 28. ELEVATION LOSS HP 297. 353 . 413. 472. COMP OR PUMP RPM 6585. 6899. 7191. 7450. 89. PERCENT GAS PROD. SPEED 87 . 88. 89 . SAS PRODUCER R P M 9402. 9491. 9571. 9639. NET OUTPUT POWER ( HP) 3389. 4067. 14744. 5422.1 S P E C I F I E D PART LOAD 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% IZNLET LOSS HP 43. 48. 54 . 3PTIMUM RPM . 6585. 6899. 7191. 7450. FUEL FLOW, MMBTU/ HR 54.09 58.61 62.64 HEAT RATE , BTU/ HP­ HR 15963. 14411. 13202. INLET AIR FLOW, LB/ HR 202242. 211747. 220297. ENGINE EXH FLOW, LB/ HR 204158. 213849. 222565. P. T. INLET TEMP. DEG. F 1257. 1266. 1273. COMPENSATED PTIT DEG. F 1316. 1325. 1332. I C D P. S. I. G. 93.0 102.4 111.5 ENGINE EXH TEMP, DEG. F 897. 904. 909. 66.40 12247. 228067 . 230490. 120.3 1279 . 1338. 913. 40.0 60.0 65. 31. 531. 7674 . 7674. 90. 9695. 6100. 45.0% 69.99 11474­ 7M­ f . C I " 40.0 60.0 71. 33 . 590. .. 7874. 7874 . 90. 9756. 50.0% 1 6778. ­ 73.38 10827 . 235219. 241730, 237791. 244444. 128.6 136.7 1284. 1289. 1343. 1348. 914 . 915 . . . . . 7 , :­ L. * : ­ I MARS T14000S ( SOLONOX) CS/ MD 59F MATCH GAS TMD­ 2S REV. 2 DATA FOR NOMINAL PERFORMANCE ­ FUEL TYPE S D NATURAL GAS ELEVATION, FEET 2185. '­­ INLET LOSS, : IN. H20 2.0 EXHAUST LOSS, I N . H 2 0 2.0 ' AMB TEMP, DE(:. F 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 ­ REL HTJMI, P c r 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 INLET LOSS HIP 76. 81. 87. 92. 97 . 103 . EXHAUST LOSS HP 35. 36. 38. 39. 41. 42 . . ELEVATION LOSS HP 648. 708. 766. 825. 884, 941. .' zOMP OR PUMP RPM 8054 . OPTIMUM RPM 8054 . GAS PRODUCER RPM 9820. SPECIFIED PART LOAD 55.0% FUEL FLOW, MUIBTU/ HR 76.67 OHEAT RATE , I3TU/ HP­ HR 10284 . . INLET AIR FLOW, LB/ HR 247994. ENGINE EXH FlLOW, LB/ HR ­ 250846. ­ ZPCD P. S. I. G<. 144.6 P. T. INLET TEMP. DEG. F 1293, COMPENSATED ]? TIT DEG. F 1353. , ENGINE EXH TEMP, DEG. F 915. NET OUTPUT POWER ( HP) 7456J 7. 8226. 8226. 9883 . 8133 . 60.0% 79 . 84 9816. 254158. 257142. 152 . 5 1298. 1357. 915. 8379. 8379. 9995. 8811. 65.0% 83.09 9431. 260628. 263747. 160.0 1304. 1363. 914 . 8519. 8519 . 10117. 9489. 70.0% 86.24 9088. 266511. 269762. . 167.4 1310. 1369. 913. 8648. 8648 . 10238. 10167 . 75.01% 89 . 16 87701. 271926. 275300. 174.7 1314 . 1373 . 912 . 8770. 8770. 10374 . 10845. 80.0% 91.92 8475 . 276721. 280212. 182.1 ' 13 17. 1377. 910. . .­ i MARS T14000S ( SOLONOX) CS/ MD 59F MATCH GAS TMD­ 2S REV. 2 DATA FOR NOMINAL PERFORMANCE ­ 3JEL TYPE ISLEVATION , FEET ENLET LOSS, I N . H20 ' ZXHAUST LOSS, IN­ H20 iHB TEMP, DEG. F S D NATURAL GAS 2185. 2.0 2.0 b33' 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 60.0 87. 93 . 98 . 103 . 656. 716. 776. 835. 895. 951. 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 *, EL HUMI, PCT INLET LOSS HP 77. 82. ­­ 2XHAUST LOSS H P ZSVATION LOSS HP 35. 36. 38, 40. 41. 43 . ZOMP OR PUMP RPM 8069. 8240. 8395. 8534. 8664. 8788. IlPTIMUM RPM 8069. 8240. 8395. 8534. 8664. 8788. SAS PRODUCER RPM 9788. 9866. 9983. 10111. 10233. 10385. 7547. 8233. 8919. 9606. 110292. 10978 I ~ E T OUTPUT POWER ( HP) ' SPECIFIED PART LOAD 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% 80.0 1 _ . I ' FUEL FLOW, MMBTU/ HR 77.44 80.73 84.07 87.27 90.24 93.00 ­ BEAT RATE , BTU/ HP­ HR 10261. 9805. 9426. 9085. 8768. 8472. INLET AIR FLOW, LB/ HR 251135. 257572. 264240. 269988. 275537. 279984, ENGINE EXH FLOW, LB/ HR 254013. 260587. 267394. 273277. 278950. 283516. PCD P . S . I . G . 145.8 153.6 161.2 168.7 176.2 183.5 B, T. INLET TEMP, DEG. F 1290. 1296, 1302. 1309. 1313. 1317. COMPENSATED PTIT DEG. F 1349, 1355. 1362. 1368. 1372. 1376, ENGINE EXH TEMP, DEG. F 909 . 909. 908. 909. 907. 906. MARS ' T14000S ( SOLONOX) CS/ MD 59F MATCH GAS . TMD­ 2S REV. 2 DATA FOR NOMINAL PERFORMANCE FUEL TYPE: SD NATURAL ELEVATIONI, FEET EXHAUST LOSS, I N . H20 INLET LOSiS, I N . H 2 0 GAS 2185. 2.0 2 . 0 ' ­ 33' AMB TEMP, DEG, F 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 REL HUMI, PCT 6 0 . 0 60.0 60.0 60.0 INLET LOSS HP 109. 114. 119 . 125. EXHAUST LOSS HP 44. 46. 47 . 49. ELEVATION LOSS HP 1009. 1068, 1129. 1193. COMP OR PUMP RPM 8902. 9001. 9087. 9234. OPTIMUM RPM 8902. 9001. 9087. 9234. GAS PRODUCEIR RPM 10536. 10695, 10848. 11051. NET OUTPUT POWER ( HP) 11664. 12350. 113036. 13722.1 SPECIFIED PART LOAD 85.0% 90.0% 95.0% FULL FUEL FLOW, IYIMBTU/ HR 95.49 97.71 99.73 104.01 HEAT RATE , BTU/ HP­ HR 8187. 7912. 7650. 7580. INLET AIR FILOW, LB/ HR 283905. 286668. 288893, 291168. ENGINE EXH F L O W , LB/ HR 287544. 290404. 292720. 295195. PCD P. S. 1. G. 190.9 198.2 205.5 211.1 PIT, I N W T TEMP, DEG. F 1318. 1319. 1320. 1356. COMPENSATED PTIT DEG, F 1378. 1379, 1379. 1415. ENGINE EXlK TEMP, DEG. F 904 . 901, 896, 918 , , ... ­_ ~ LE~ WRE$ UES INCORPORATED DATE RUN: 9­ NOV­ 93 RUN BY: DAN J A R R E r ­ X _ PE_ fzF_ pECE DATA REV. 2.3 ­ UST GAS AND EMISSION­. DATA ­% iEV.­ 2 . o­­ . REV. 2.1 MARS T14000S ( SOLONOX) CS/ MD 59F MATCH GAS TMD­ 2S REv. 2 DATA FOR NOMINAL PERFORMANCE ` UEL TYPE LEVAT TI ON, FEET 3LET LOSS, I N . H20 : XHAUST LOSS, I N . H20 IMB TEMP,. DEG. ­ F ZL HUMI, PCT : NLET LOSS HP X AUST LOSS HP XEVATION LOSS HP : OMP OR PUMP RF'M bPTIMUM RPM ; AS PRODUCER RPM ET OUTPUT POWER ( HP) iPECIFIED PART LOAD ; PEL FLOW, MMBTU/ HR lEAT RATE , BTU/ HP­ HR INLET AIR FLOW, LB/ HR ENGINE EXH FLOW, LB/ HR T D P. S. I. G. ). To INLET TEMP. DEG. F SD NATURAL GAS 2185. 2.0 . 2.0 40.0 40.0 6 0 . 0 60.0 108. 113. 44 . 46. 997. 1055­ 8883. 8985. 8883. 8985. 10521. 10673 . 11522. 12200. 85.0% 90.0% 94.38 96.61 8191. 7919. 40.0 60.0 118 . 47 . 1114 9077 . 9077. 10834. 12878. 95.0% 98.66 7661. 40.0 6 0 . 0 124. 49. 1177. 9221. 9221­ 11034. 13556. FULL 102.90 7591. 280792, 283842. 286574. 2a8872. 284388. 287535. 290357. 292853. 189.4 196.6 203.8 209.3 1319. 1320. 1 3 2 0 , ` 1356. _ _ ­ ` OMPENSATED PTIT DEG. F 1378, 1379. 1379. 1415. ZNGINE EXH TEMP, DEG. F 907. 904. 899. 921. i GlU 1 E­ 125 15­ 197 lSlRl20D755. T Appendix C. 3 Carnot CEMS Data Appendix C. 3. a NO,, N, O, SO,, CO, 0,, and CO, Summaries GFUl E­ 125 15­ 1971 YR120D755. T ­­ <.­ ' Test No. l­ CEM­ 6A 2­ CEM­ 6A 3CEM­ 6A Average IDate 12/ 7/ 93 12/ 7/ 93 12t7193 . Time 1019.1119 1144­ 1234 1254­ 1334 ­­ INominal Load (%) IF& Flow ( scfh) IDry Bulb Temp. 0 Wet t3ulb Temp. 0 IReference Temp. 0 . IBarornetric Press. ( in. Hg) lrlumidity (# H2O# air) 4 . .. IEPA " Fd factor( dscf/ l OqBtu)' lfPA " Fc' factor( dscf/ l O" 6Bhr)" liW ( btulsd) Stack Flow ­ based on Fd ( dsdm) ! Stack Flow ­ based on Fc ( dxfm) Stack Flow ­ based on S­ type pitot ( dxfm) 02.41; ( 202. Y IWx. ppm ( 3. ppm IQO. ppm IUOX. ppm Q 15 % 0 2 IWx, ppm Q 15 % 0 2 IS0 IUOx. Iblhr+ IUOx. Ibihr++ IrlOX. Iblhr+++ IJOX. lWlCr68tW lmx. lb110* 6Blu++ CO. pipm Q 15 % 0 2 CO. Itfir+ (= o. uJhr++ CO. Itmr­ co. IVlO* GBtu+ ( 10. ItdlO% Bhr* 1520. ppm Q 15 % 02 1520, Ibh+ 1520, lwhr++ 1520. Ib/ hr+++ 1520. IWl C r 6 m 1520. Ibll 0%­ H2S. ppm tQS. lWhr S02. pprn !; 02. ppm Q 15% 0 2 S02, lblhr , r302. IWlO" GBtw SO2, rmi 0%­ 100 108.200 35 35 68 27.57 0.0043 8.609 1,017 ­ 1.013 57.463 54.007 89.428 15.18 3.44 25.1 5.8 1 . o 25.9 27.9 10.3 9.7 16.1 0.094 0.089 6.0 1 5 1.4 2.3 0.01 3 0.013 1.0. 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.004 0.003 < 1.4 < 0.013 < 0.04 < 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 100 108.420 35 35 68 27.55 0.0043 8,609 1.017 1,013 59.237 55241 89.969 15.34 3.37 26.3 8.4 1.1 27.9 30.1 112 10.4 16.9 0.1 02 0.095 8.9 2 2 2.0 3.3 0.020 0.018 1 2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.004 0.004 1.4 0.01 3 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.0002 O. OOO2 100 108.660 36 36 68 27.54 0.0044 8.609 1.01 7 1.013 59.907 57231 90.055 15.39 3.26 25.9 5 2 1.1 27.7 29.9 11.1 10.6 , 16.7 0.101 0.096 5.6 1.4 .1.3 2.0 0.012 0.012 1 2 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.004 0.004 1.4 0.013 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.0002 0.0002 58.869 55.493 89.817 15.30 3.36 ' 25.8 6.5 1 . l 272 29.3 10.9 102 16.6 0.099 0.093 6.8 1.7 1.6 2.5 0.015 0.014 1.1 0.4 . 0.4 0.7 0.004 0.004 1.4 0.01 3 0.04 Q. 05 0.03 0.0002 0.0002 IS0 PRESS ( Camot method) I: S0 TEMP I S 0 HUMIDITY 150 F, ACTOR 1.042 1.042 1.042 . 1.042 1.075 1.075 1 . OR 1.074 0.963 0.963 0.965 0.963 1.078 1.079 1.078 1.078 ­­ ­ EF'A Fd­ factor 02 based ­* ­ EPA Fc­ factor C02 based 4. ~ Mass emissions are calc. using stack flow based on Fd­ factor ( 02) ++ ­ Mass emissions are calc. using stack flow based on Fc­ facior ( C02) +++ ­ Mass emissions are calc. using stack flow based on S­ type pitot IS0 PISESS = ( 29.92 in. Hg I B. P. in. Hg)" l/ 2 IS0 TEMP = ( 288 K I Tambient K)" l .53 IS0 HIUMIDITY = eA( l 9 ( Humidity ­ 0.0063)) 180 FACTOR = IS0 PRESS IS0 TEMP IS0 HUMIDITY Nominal Load (%) F I J ~ Fliow ( sdfi) Dry Bulb Temp. ( F) * ret Bidb Temp. 0 Reference Temp. ( F) Rarometrk Press. on­ Hg) Humidity ( 0 HZOM air) EIPA ­ F W factor( dscf/ lO% Btu)' EIPA T c ­ factor( dscfll0" BBtu)" HMI ( l1Wsd) Stack I3ow ­ based on Fd ( dsdm) Stack Flow ­ based on Fc ( dscfrn) Sib& Flow ­ based on S­ type pitot ( dscfm) 02. w co2. ? 6 CO. Prim N20. ppm N&. FlPm NOx. Flpm @ 15 % 0 2 N&. FIpm @ 15 % 02 fso NOx. IldtU+ NOx. Ilfir++ NOx. UJ/ llr+++ NDX. lldl owBtu+ NOx. ll3/ 10" 68an+ CO. prim Q 15 % 02 CQ. bhr+ co. m++ CO. bhr­ CO. IbtlOAGBtu+ CO. lhfl OA6Bhr++ N20. ppm @ 15 % 0 2 N20. Ibh+ NZO. Iblhr++ N20. Ihlhrcc+ N2O. lhll NBtu+ N2O. lbllO% 8tuc+ H2S. pprn H2S. llblhr S02. ppm S02. pprn @ 15% 02 s02. lblhr SOZ. lbll o% Btu+ 502. IbllCP6Btu­ 75 94.860 36 36 68 27.54 0.0044 8,609 1,017 1.013 56,392 52204 65.965 15.79 3.12 20.8 15.1 1.3 24.0 25.9 8.4 7.8 9.8 0.087 0.081 17.4 3.7 3.4 4.3 0.039 0.036 1 .5 0.5 0 5 0.6 0.005 0.­ C 1.4 C 0.012 C 0.04 < 0.05 < 0.02 < O. OOO2 < o. Oo02 75 94.700 37 37 68 27.56 0.0046 8.609 1.017 1,013 55.860 51 ,950 67.025 15.75 3.13 21 . o 15.0 1 . o 24.1 26.0 8.4 7.8 10.1 0.088 0.082 172 3.6 3.4 4.4 0.038 0.035 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.004 0.004 1.4 0.01 2 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.0002 0.0002 56,126 52.077 66.495 15.77 3.13 20.9 15.0 1.1 24.0 25.9 8.4 7.8 10.0 0.088 0.081 17.3 3.7 3.4 4.4 0.038 0.036 1.3 ' 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.005 0.004 1.4 0.012 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.0002 O. OOO2 ­.' , . ­­ ISb PRESS ( Camot method) IS0 TEMP BO H~ UMlOITY SO FACTOR 1.042 . 1 . on 0.965 1.078 1.042 1.069 0.968 1.078 1.042, 1.070 0.966 1.078 .. ­_. ­ PIA FdJactor 0 2 based *' ­ EF'A Fc­ factor CO2 based " *. + ­ Misss emissions are calc. using stack flow based on Fd­ lador ( 02) ++ ­ Nhss emisuons are calc. using stack R4w based on Fc­ facbr ( CO2) +++ ­ Mass emissions are calc. using stack flow based on S­ type pitd I S 0 PRESS = ( 29.92 in. Hg I B. P. in. Hg)* lQ I O TEMP = ( 288 K I Tambient Kp1.53 BO HUMlDlN = eA( 19 ( Humidity ­ 0.0063)) IS0 FACTOR = IS0 PRESS IS0 TEMP * IS0 HUMiOlTY Test No. Date Time Average Nominal Load (% j Fuel Flow ( SCRI) Dry Bulb Temp. ( F) Wet Bulb Temp. ( F) Reference Temp. ( F) Baromebic Press. ( in. Hg) Humidity ( at HZOl air) EPA ' F6 factor( dsdl1NBhr)' EPA ' Fc. factor( dSdl1 OW3tu)­ HHV WSCQ StacK Flow ­ based on Fd ( dsdm) Stack Flow ­ based on Fc ( dscfm) Stack Row ­ based on S­ type pitot ( dsdm) 02, % c02. % NO*. ppm CO. ppm N20. ppm NO*. ppm @ 15 '% 02 NOx, pprn@ 15% 02! SO NO*. Ib/ hr+ NOx. IMU* NO*. Ib/ ht++ NO*. lbll O% Btu+ NOx. IbflO% Btw+ CO. ppm Q 15 % 02 CO. IWr+ CO. IMr* CO. IWr* co. Ibllo" GBtu+ CO. Ib/ lO% Btu++ ~ 2 0 . ppm Q 15 % 02 N20. Ibhr+ N20. lblhr++ N20. Lblhr*++ N20. IbM 0" 6Btu+ N20. lWlO% Btuc* S02. pprn S02, pprn Q 15% 02 s02. fMu 502. IbllD* 6Btui s02. IWl0" 6Btu++ < < 50 sO. 520 43 41 68 27.44 O. OO50 8.609 1.017 1.013 47.496 46.866 44.474 . 15.75 2.95 352 572 1.8 403 43.1 121) 11.8 112 0.147 0.145 65.6 11.9 11.7 11.1 0.145 0.143 2.1 0 6 0.6 0.6 0­ 007 0­ 007 1.4 0.01 0 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.0002 O. OOO2 50 ( Lean PreMi) 79,580 44 42 68 27.40 0.0051 8.609 1.017 1,013 48253 46.795 44.658 15.89 2.92 34.5 52.5 1 3 40.6 43.4 11.9 11.6 11.0 0.1 48 0.143 61.8 11.0 10.7 10.2 0.137 0.133 1.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.005 0.005 1.4 0.01 0 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.0002 0.0002 47.874 46.831 44.566 15.82 2.94 34.9 54.9 1.6 40: s 43.3 11.9 11.7 11.1 0.1 47 ai+ 63.7 11.4 1 1 2 0.141 0.138 1 8 0 5 0 5 O S 0.006 0.006 1.4 0.01 0 0.04 0.05 0.02 O. WO2 0.0002 10.7 IS0 PRESS ( Carnot method) 1.044 1.045 1.045 IS0 TEMP 1.049 1.046 1.048 0.976 0.977 0.977 1.069 1­. 068 1.069 IS0 HUMIDITY IS0 FACTOR ­ EPA Fd­ factor 0 2 based .. ­ EPA Fc­ fador C02 based + ­ Mass emissions are calc. using stack flow based on Fd­ factor ( 02) ++ ­ Mass emissions are calc. using stack fiow based on Fc­ factor ( C02) +++ ­ Mass emissions are calc. using stack flow based on S­ type pitot IS0 PRESS = ( 29.92 in. Hg I B. P. in. Hg) W2 IS0 TEMP = ( 288 K i Tambient QA1 ­ 53 IS0 HUMlDrrY = eA( 19 . ( Humidity ­ ODO63)) IS0 FACTOR = IS0 DRESS * IS0 TEMP IS0 HUMIDITY 7 Test No. Date Time Average Nominal Load (%) Fuel fllow ( scfh) Dry Bulb Temp. ( F) Wet Bulb Temp. 0 Refwence Temp. ( FJ Barometric Press. ( in. Hg) Humidity (# H2OnP air) EPA ' Fb factor( dsdI1 OA6BtU)' PA ' Fc" factor( dsdI1 O% BtU)­­ Stack lRow ­ based cn Fd ( dscfm) Stack lnow ­ based on Fc ( dscfm) Stack lflow ­ based on S­ type pitot ( dsmn) 02. % COZ. ' R NOx. ppm CO. piJm N 2 0 . ppm ( IWN NlOx, ppm Q 15 % 02 NKk, ppm Q 15 % 02 IS0 NIOx. Ilbhr+ NDx, IiblhrM NDx, UMu+++ ~ i ~ x , mwi w a ~ + CD. ppm Q 15 % 0 2 NDx, IIWl ( yLGBtu++ GO. Iblhr+ CO. Iblhr++ CD. lblhrm CO, IbllO% Btu+ cx9. Ibillo% Bam hQ0. ppm Q 15 % 0 2 N20, Im+ hl2O. llb/ hr* hr20. IlblhW N2O, Ilbllo% 8tu+ hno. Ilbllo% Btu++ H2S. ppm HZS. llbh S02. lppm S02. lppm Q 15% 02 502, IIMU bi02. ' Wlo% Btu+ $ 02. WlO% Btu++ . . 45 42 68 27.35 0.0048 8.609 1.017 1.013 44.210 45.793 45,515 16.96 2.15 9 1498.6 112.6 302 32­ 0 6.4 6.6 6.6 0.110 0.114 22442 288.9 2992 297.4 4.973 5.151 168.5 34.1 35.3 35.1 0587 0.608 c 1.4 < 0.007 SC 20.1 c 0.03 < 0. B < 0.01 < O. OOO2 < 0. m1 35 ( Diision) 58,220 43 42 68 27.35 0.0052 8.609 1.01 7 1.013 44.888 45.233 44,? 78 16.96 221 20.1 1453.0 112.5 30.1 32.3 , 6.5 6 5 6.4 0.110 0.110 21 75.7 284.3 286.5 283.6 4.821 4.858 168.5 34.6 34.9 34.5 0.587 0.591 1.4 0.007 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.0002 OMMZ 44.549 45.513 45.147 16.96 2.1 8 20.1 1475.8 112.5 30.1 322 6.4 6.6 6 5 0.1 10 0.1 12 2209.9 2196.6 292.9 290.5 4.897 5.005 168.5 34.3 35.1 34.8 0.587 0.600 1.4 0.007 0.03 0.05 0.01 O. OOO2 O. OOO2 ­­ SO PRESS ( Carnot method) L30 TEMP L30 " JMIDITY t S 0 FACTOR 1.046 1.046 1.043 1.049 0.972 0.979 1 . om 1.075 1.046 1.046 0.976 1.067 * ­ PA Fd­ fador 02 based 41 ­ Mass emissions are cak. using stack iiow based on Fd­ factw ( 02) ++ ­ Mass emissions are calc. using stack flow based on Fc­ factor ( C02) + H.+ ­ Mass emissions are calc. usingstackflow based on S­ lype pitot Is0 PRESS = ( 29.92 in. Hg I B. P. in. Hg) W2 IS0 TEMP = ( 288 K I Tarnbient Q' 1.53 SO PlUMlMM = eA( l 9 * ( Humidity ­ 0.0063)) IS0 FACTOR = IS0 PRESS * IS0 TEMP IS0 HUMIDITY ** ­ PA Fc­ factw C02 based . _. ­ .­ . . 1 .­­ 7 Ted No. Date rime 20 15 ( Diion) 34= 28.500 Nominal Load (%) Fuel Row ( XR) I ­ Dry Bulb Temp. ( F) Wet Bulb Temp. ( F) Reference Temp. ( F) Barometric Press. ( in. Hg) Humidity (# H20W air) 43 42 68 27.35 0.0052 43 42 68 27.35 0.0052 8.609 1,017 1,013 30.061 33.983 8.609 1.017 1.013 34.362 37.731 EPA ' Fb factor( dsdl1 WBtu)' EPA ' Fc' factor( dsdl1 WBtu)" HHV ( btulsd) Stack Flow ­ based on Fd ( dsdm) Stack Flow ­ based on Fc ( dsdm) 02. Dk co2. % NOx. P P ~ CO. ppm N2O. ppm NOx. ppm@ 15% 02 NOx. ppm Q 15 % 0 2 IS0 NOx. Iblhr+ NOx. IbhM NOx. IbllO" 6Btuc NOx. Wl0" 6Btu++ 17.85 1.57 10.6 2009.4 351.4 18.02 1.44 9.2 1923.0 382.8 18.8 20.3 2.0 2 2 0.078 0. oSs 20.6 22.1 2.6 2.9 0.075 0.082 3939.4 252.0 284.9 8.730 9.868 CO. ppm @ 15 % 0 2 CO. Iblhr+ co. Ihlhr++ co. Wl o" GBtu+ co. Ibllcr6BtVw 3887.1 ' 301.0 330.6 8.614 9.458 679.7 82.7 90.8 2.367 2599 784.1. 78.8 89.1 2.730 3.087 N20. ppm @ 15 % 0 2 N20. Whr+ N20. I W h m N20. IbllO" 6Btu+ N20. IbllO" 6Btrm 1.4 0.00 1.4 0.00 H2S. ppm H2S. lblhr C C 0.02 0.05 0.01 o: m1 0. m1 0.02 0.05 0.01 . o. Ooo1 o. oO01 SO2. ppm S02. ppm Q 15% 02 s02. Iblhr s02. IblloLGBtu+ s02. Ibllo" GBtU++ IS0 PRESS ( Carnot method) IS0 TEMP IS0 HUMIDITY IS0 FACTOR 1.046 1.049 0.979 1.075 1.046 1.049 0.979 1.075 I . . ­ EPA Fd­ factor 02 based ­ ­ PA Fc­ factor C02 based ' + ­ Mass emissions are calc. using stack flow based on Fd­ factor ( 02) ++ ­ Mass emissions are calc. using stack flow based on Fc­ factor ( CO2) IS0 PRESS = ( 29.92 in. Hg I B. P. in. Hg)' lR IS0 TEMP = ( 288 K I Tambient K)* l. 53 IS0 HUMIDITY = e*( 19 ( Humidity ­ 0.0063)) IS0 FACTOR = IS0 PRESS * IS0 TEMP ­ IS0 HUMIDITY . . ­ .. ...... . I. .­ Appendix C. 3. b Calibration md Drift Corrc:::­ zs GRI 1E­ I25 15­ 197 1 SIR 120D755. T t CEM System Bi, as and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run 1 ­ CEM­ 6A 0 2 c02 co NOx N20 Criteria Status Linearity: Analyzer Range 1 Analyzer Range 2 High Cat Mid Cal Analyzer Reads Analyzer Cat. Error,% Low Cal Analyzer Reads Analyzer Cal. Error.% . System Bias: Pretest Bias zero Span ZWO Span Posttest Bias Span V, alue Zero IDrift, % Span Drift. % Test Ave. Corrected Ave. 25 20.90 11.17 11.31 0.6 7.99 8.16 0.7 0.1 5 8.30 0.1 5 8.03 7.99 0.00 ­ 1 ­ 08 15.39 15.18 . 25 22.48 15.20 15.59 1.6 NA NA 0.0 0.00 22.03 0.00 22.64 22.48 0.00 2.44 3.42 3.44 500 100. 424.00 84.87 79.90 ­ 1 . o NA NA 0.0 0.00 79.90 ­ 1.10 79.50. 84.87 ­ 1.10 ­ 0.40 4.96 5.83 250 100 227.20 139.30 139.40 0.0 89.72 90.30 0.2 100 80.00 40.10 40.60 0.5 NA NA 0.0 0.00 1.20 87.50 40.25 0.30 1.15 86.00 40.70 89.72 40.1 0 0.12 ­ 0.05 ­ 0.60 0.45 i 2% < 2% < 5% < 5% < 5% e 5% c 3% K 3% PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS FAIL PASS PASS 24.40 2.16 25.12 1.01 ­ Calculations: Analyzer Cal. Ernor,% = [ Low( Analyzer Reads) ­ Low( Cal)] / Analyzer Range X 100, % Zero Drift, % := [ Posttest Biasgero) ­ Pretest Bias( Zero}] / Analyzer Range X 100, % Span Drift, % = [ Posttest Bias( Span) ­ Pretest Bias( Span)] / Analyzer Range X 100, % Corrected Avt?. = ( Span Value / ((( Posttest Bias( Span) + Pretest Bias( Span)) ­ ( Posttest Biasgera) + Pfietest Bias ( Zero))) / 2)) X ( Test Ave. ­ ( Posttest Biasgero) + Pretest Bias( 2ero)) / 2) Carnot 2/ 21/ 94 CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run 2­ CEM­ 6A 0 2 c 0 2 co NOx N20 Criteria Status Analyzer Range 25 25 100 100 100 .­ System Bias: Pretest Bias Zero 0.1 5 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.15 < 5% PASS ­­ Spain 8.03 22.64 85.90 86.00 40.70 < 5% PASS Posttest Bias Zero 0.1 5 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.15 < 5% PASS Spain 7.99 22.50 85.00 85.50 40.25 < 5 % PASS Span ' Value ' 7.99 22.48 84.87 89.72 40.1 0 Zero Drift, % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ 3 % PASS Spain Drift, % ­ 0.16 ­ 0.56 ­ 0.90 ­ 0.50 ­ 0.45 < 3% PASS Test Ave. 15.25 3.38 8.48 25.39 2.23 Corrected Ave. 15.34 3.37 8.42 26.34 1.10 Camot 3/ 29/! 94 . .­ CEM System Bizs and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run 3­ CEM­ 6A 02 c02 co NOx N20 Criteria Status 4 Analyzer Range 25 25 100 100 100 System Bias: Pretest Bias Zero Span Zero Span Posttest Bias Span Value 0.00 22.50 0.00 85.00 0.30 85.50 1.15 < 5% PASS 40.25 2 5% PASS 0.15 7.99 0.00 85.60 84.87 0.30 89.72 85­ 90 1.15 c 5% PASS 40.50 5% PASS 40.1 0 0.15 . 7.98 7.99 0.00 22.50 22.48 0.00 0.40 0.00 < 3% PASS 0.25 c 3% PASS Zero Drift, % Span Drift, % 0.00 .­ 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 Test Ave. Corrected Ave. 24.93 25.88 2.24 1.11 15.25 15.39 3.26 3.26 5.22 5.1 9 CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run 4­ CEM­ 6A 0 2 c02 co NOx N20 Criteria Status Analyzer Range System Bias:. Pretest Bias , Zero Span Posttest Bias Zero Span Spain Value Zero Drift, % Span Drift, % Test. Ave. Corrected Ave. 25 25 0.15 0.00 7.98 22.55 0.14 ­ 0.04 7.97 . 22.39 7.99 22.48 ­ 0.04 ­ 0.16 ­ 0.04 ­ 0.64 15.63 3.10 , 15.79 3.12 100 0.00 85.60 0.00 85.80 84.87 0.00 0.20 15.26 . 15.11 100 0.30 . 85.90 0.1 0 86.00­ 89.72 ­ 0.20 9.1 0 20.06 20.78 100 1.15 1 ~ 5 % . PASS 40.50 < 5% PASS 1­ 95 < 5% PASS 40.60 ~ 5 % PASS 40.1 0­ 0.80 < 3% PASS 0.1 0 c 3%' PASS 2.82 1.31 ... . 7 Camot 2/ 21 / 94 CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run Status 1 5­ CEM­ 6A 0 2 e 0 2 co NOx N20 Criteria Analyzer Range 25 25 100 100 100 System Bias: Pretest Bias Zero Span Zero Span Posttest Bias . Span Value 0.00 85.80 0.10 86.00 1.95 40.60 ~ 5 % PASS < 5 % PASS 0.14 7.97 ­ 0.04 22.39 0.30 85.80 84.87 0.10 85.30 89.72 2.00 41 ­ 00 40.1 0 ~ 5 % PASS ~ 5 % PASS 0.1 5 8.01 7.99 ­ 0.04 22.55 22.48 0.05 0.40 ~ 3 % PASS ~ 3 % . PASS Zero Drift, % Span Drift, % 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.64 3.09 3.13 0.30 0.00 0.00 ­ 0.70 20.1 5 21.03 2.90 0.96 Test Ave. ' Corrected Ave. 15.62 15.75 15.27 14.98 Carnot 2/ 21/ 94 ­ CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run 6­ CEM­ 6A 02 c02 co NOx N20 Criteria Status ­ Linearity: Analyzer Range 1 Analyzer Range 2 High Cal Mid Cal Analyzer Reads Analyzer Cal. Enror,% Low Cal Analyzer Reads Analyzer Cal. Enror,% System Bias: Pretest Bias Zero Sipan Posttest Bias Zero . Spain Value SlPan Zero Drift. % Sipan Drift, % Test Ave. Corrected Ave. 25 20.90 11.17 11 ­ 46 1.2 7­ 99 8.1 8 0.8 0.10 8­ 09 0.12 7.99 7.99 0.08 ­ 0.40 15.75 15.75 . 25 22­ 48 15.20 15.59 1.6 NA NA 0.0 ­ 0.05 22.58 0.00 22.38 22.48 0.20 ­ 0.80 2.93 2.95 500 100 424.00 84.87 82.30 ­ 0.5 NA NA 0.0 0.00 82.50 0.90 82­ 40 84­ 87 0.90 ­ 0.1 0 55.74 57.23 250 100 227.20 139.30 138.30 ­ 0.4 89­ 72 89.50 ­ 0.1 100 80.00 40.10 40.60 0.5 c2% PASS NA NA 0.0 c2% PASS 0.00 0.60 ~ 5 % PASS 78.40 5% PASS 87.00 1.20 1 . a0 c5% PASS 89.50 77.40 < 5% PASS 89.72 80.00 0.48 1.20 c3% PASS 1 . oo ­ 1 . oo < 3% PASS 34.98 2.95 35.1 9 1.83 . ­ Calculations: ,. Analyzer Cal. Enor,% = [ Low( Analyzer Reads) ­ Low( Cal)] / Analyzer Range X 100, % Zero Drift, % = [ Posttest Biasvero) ­ Pretest Biasgero)] / Analyzer Range X 100, % Span Drift, % I = [ Posttest Bias( Span) ­ Pretest Bias( Span)] / Analyzer Range X 100, % Corrected Ave. =: ( Span Value I ((( Posttest Bias( Span) + Pretest Bias( Span)) ­ ( Posttest Bias( Zero) ­ + Pretest Bias ( Zero))) / 2)) X vest Ave. ­ ( Posttest Biasgero) + Pretest BiasGero)) / 2) Carnot 2/ 21/ 94 L CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run 7­ CEM­ 6A 02 c02 co NOx N20 Criteria Status Analyzer Range 25 25 . 500 100 100 System Bias: Pretest Bias Zero 0.12 0.00 0.90 1.20 1.80 < 5 % PASS Span 7.99 22.38 82.40 89­ 50 77.40 < 5% PASS Zero 0.12 ­ 0.05 0.90 1.00 1.30 < 5% PASS Span 7.91 22.17 82.30 89.1 0 78.00 ~ 5 % PASS Posttest Bias Span Value 7.99 22.48 84.87 89.72 80.00 Zero Drift, % 0.00 ­ 0.20 0.00 ­ 0.20 ­ 0.50 < 3% PASS Span Drift, % ­ 0.32 ­ 0.84 ­ 0.02 ­ 0.40 0.60 < 3% PASS Test Ave. 15.70 2.87 51 ­ 30 35.03 2.82 Corrected Ave. . 15; 89 2.92 52.52 34.51 1.33 7 Camot 2/ 21/ 94 CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run 8­ CEM­ 6A 0 2 co2 co NOx N 2 0 Criteria Status Analyzer Range System Bias: Preteslt Bias Zero Span Zero Span Po. sttest Bias Span Value ilero Drift. % Span Drift. % Test Ave. Corrected Ave. 25 0.12 7.91 0.1 0 7.86 7.99 ­ 0.08 ­ 0.20 16.62 16.96 25 ­ 0.05 22.1 7 ­ 0.05 22.00 22.48 0.00 ­ 0.68 2.07 2.15 1000 0.90 82.30 1 . oo 83.40 84.87 0.01 0.1 1 ND ­ 0.98 100 1.00 89.1 0 1 . oo 88.00 89.72 0.00 ­ 1.10 20.65 20.14 1000 1.30 < 5% 78.00 < 5% 2.00 < 5% 79.90 < 5% 80.00 0.07 < 3% 0.1 9 < 3% 1 10.40 112.55' . PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS Carnot U21l94 Y ­ CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptanc Run 8­ CEM­ 6A 02 02 DIL CO CO( Corr) Criteria Status Analyzer Range 25 25 1000 1000 System Bias: Pretest Bias Zero Span 0.12 0.10 0.90 NA ~ 5 % PASS 7.91. 8.10 82.30 NA ~ 5 % PASS Posttest Bias 0.10 1.00 NA ~ 5 % PASS Zero 0.10 Span 7.86 8.08 83.40 NA ~ 5 % PASS 7.99 7.99 84.87 NA Span Value Zero Drift, % ­ 0.08 0.00 0.01 Span Drift, % ­ 0.20 ­ 0.08 0.1 1 ~ 3 % PASS ~ 3 % PASS Test Ave. 16.62 19.13 690.50 1669.68 Corrected Ave. 16.96 19.02 714.56 1498.64 Calculations: CO( C0r­ r) = ( 20.9 ­ Stack 02, %)/( 20.9 ­ Dilution 02, %)* CO, ppm CEM System1 Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run 9­ CEM­ 6A 02 c o 2 co NOx N20 Criteria Status Analyzer Range 25 25 1000 100 200 System Bias: Pretest Bias Zero 0.1 0 ­ 0.05 1.00 1­ 00 3.50 ~ 5 % PASS Span 8.1 5 22.00 425.80 88.00 80.1 o ~ 5 % PASS Zero 0.1 0 ­ 0.04 1.80 0.50 4.50 ~ 5 % ? ASS Span 8.1 4 22.25 425.80 89.1 0 80.90 ~ 5 % PASS Pos; ttes; t Bias Spain Value 7.99 22.48 424.00 89.72 80.00 Zero Drift. % 0.00 0.04 0.08 ­ 0.50 0.50 < 3% PASS Sipan Drift, % . ­ 0.04 1.00 . 0.00 1.10 0.40 ~ 3 % PASS Test Ave. 17.19 ~ 2.1 3 ND 20.43 111.60 Corrected Ave. 16.96 ­ 2.21 ­ 1.40 20.11 112.52 Camot 3/ 29/ 94 CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptanc Run 9­ CEM­ 6A 02 02 DIL CO CO( Corr) Criteria Status .. Analyzer Range 25 25 1 000 1000 System Bias: Pretest Bias Zero 0.10 0.10 1.00 NA ~ 5 % PASS Span 8.15 8.03 425.80 NA ~ 5 % PASS Zero 0.10 0.10 1.80 NA ~ 5 % PASS Posttest Bias Span 8.14 8.00 425.80 NA < 5% PASS Span Value 7.99 7.99 424.00 NA Zero Drift, % 0.00 0.00 0.08 Span Drift, YO ­ 0.04 ­ 0.12 0.00 Test Ave. 17.19 18.71 785.99 1331.52 Corrected Ave. 16.96 10.78 783.85 1452.95 ~ 3 % PASS c 3% PASS \ \ Carnot 2/ 21/ 94 . . CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run 1 O­ CEM­ GA 02 co2 co NOx N20 Criteria Status ~ . J ­ ~~ Analyzer Range 25 25 1000 100 1000 System Bias: ­_ Pretest Bias Zero 0.10 r' ­ 0.05 1­ 00 1 . oo 3­ 50 c5% PASS Span 8.1 5 22­ 00 425.80 88.00 80.10 5% PASS Zero 0.1 0 ­ 0.04 1.80 0.50 4.50 ~ 5 % PASS Span 8.14 22.25 425.80 89.10 80.90 c5% PASS Posttest Bias Span Value 7.99 22.48 424.00 89.72 80.00 Zlero Drift, % 0.00 0.04 0.08 ­ 0.50 0.1 0 < 3% PASS Span Drift. % ­ 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.10 0.08 ~ 3 % PASS ­ Test Ave. 18.08 1.50 ND 11.15 340.00 Corrected Ave. 17.85 1.57 ­ 1.40 10.63 351.37 .­­ . . Camot 2/ 21/ 9,4 ­ ­ e CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptanc Run 1 0­ CEM­ 6A 02 02 DIL CO CO( C0rr) Criteria Status Analyzer Range 25 25 1000 1000 System Bias: Pretest Bias Zero . 0.10 0.10 1.00 NA ~ 5 % PASS Span 8.1 5 8.03 425.80 NA ~ 5 % PASS Zero 0.10 0.1 0 1.80 NA < 5% PASS Span 8.14 8.00 425.80 NA ~ 5 % PASS Posttest Bias Span Value 7.99 7.99 424.00 NA Zero Drift, YO 0.00 0.00 0.08 ~ 3 % PASS Span Drift, YO ­ 0.04 ­ 0.12 0.00 ~ 3 % PASS Test Ave. ­ 18­ 08 19.88 622.60 1721.31 Corrected Ave. 17.85 19.96 620.61 2009.44 Calculations: CO( Corr) = ( 20.9 ­ Stack 02, %)/( 20.9 ­ Dilution 02, %)* CO, ppm CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations . \ T) Camot 2/ 21/ 94 . .­ CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptance Run 1 1­ CEM­ 6A 02 c02 co NOx N20 Criteria Status Analyzer Ramie System Bias: . Zero Span Zero Span Pretest 13ias Posttest Bias Span Value Zero Drift, % Span IMt, % ` Test Ave. Corrected Ave. 25 0.1 0 8.1 5 0.1 0 8.14 7.99 0.00 ­ 0.04 18.25 18.02 25 ­ 0.05 22­ 00 ­ 0.04 22.25 22.48 0.04 1 . oo 1.38 1­ 44 1000 1.00 425.80 1.80 425.80 424.00 0.08 0.00 ND ­ 1 ­ 40 100 1 . oo 88.00 0.50 89.10 89.72 ­ 0.50 1­ 10 9­ 75 9.20 . 1000 3.50 ' 5% 80.1 0 c 5% 4.50 5% 80.90 c 5% 80.00 0.10 < 3% 0.08 c 3% PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS 370.00 382.75 Camot 2/ 21/ 94 ... CEM System Bias and Linearity Correction Calculations Test No. Acceptanc Run 11­ CEM­ 6A 02 02DIL CO CO( Corr) Criteria status Analyzer Range 25 25 1000 1000 System Bias: Pretest Bias Zero Span 0.1 0 1 . oo NA ~ 5 % PASS 8.03 425.80 NA < 5%. PASS 0.10 8.15 Posttest Bias 0.10 1.80 NA ~ 5 % PASS 8.00 425.80 NA ~ 5 % PASS Zero 0.10 Span 8.14 7.99 7.99 424.00 NA 0.00 0.00 0.08 ~ 3 % PASS Span Drift, % ­ 0.04 ­ 0.12 0.00 < 3% PASS Span Value Zero Drift, YO Test Ave. 18.25 19.98 563.30 1622.55 ­ Corrected Ave. 18.02 20.06 561.37 1922.95 Calculations: CO( C0r­ r) = ( 20.9 ­ Stack 02, %)/( 20.9 ­ Dilution 02, %) r CO, ppm ,. GRI 1E­ 125 15­ 197151R120D755. T Appendix C. 3. c Raw Data GASEOUSMEASUREMENTS ' CLIEh7ILOCATl3N: CONDfTON: t=;\ ­ CORRECTED TO x ­, DRY POINT/ DRY, UNCORRECTED ­ I I I SAMPLE TIME TEST CO, I CO I NOx I NO I NO, CO 1 NOx SO, ; 0, I 1 SFAN GAS CONCENTF; r? FlOh' I A f M . AS FOUND SPAN I i l i , , CONDITION: I CLENTROCATION: SEOUS MEASUREMENTS CONDITION: 7 u ,> n.! cA! c; r ­ I OPEfikTOR: GL" if) 2. DATE: TEST LOCATION: # ' TESTNUMEX 6 m%& SEOUS MEASUREMENTS CLIENT/ LOCATICIN: * CONDITION: 55% Cjfk/ Nw] TEST NUM3fFi:­ 9 a 4 4 ­ TEST LOCATION: Appendix C. 4 Formaldehyde Data GFU 1 E4251 5­ 19715/ R 120D755. T ­. x .­, ..... L Appendix C. 4. a Exhaust Gas . ­ ... . w a­ _ . _._ il ­..­ r I I­ ­ oc' N c C c ? I­ 2 # I­ Y ­ I­ rr) 2 VI P­ m ' 3 T VI p: W ­ w s W m VI 2 N 0 0 2 m ­ rrl e e 2 VI m 2 ; I f! ­ < Ri 0 i& e cn J i > 1 d .. H 0 e 0 0 9 r! I­ N Y m N 9 N v) ? N Q\ 1 4 CI v) r ­ m . . . u U x " L ­ .. ­ ­­ ­ , r­­ .. 8 .. z P c t ' C & ­ s 5 p? . s N .­ 0 N 0 d N OI 0 m 0 : $ 8 h 5 8 9 0 N Y OI Y x n: 0 0. c'! N m VI 04 a W . o: cy VI 2 N 0 I­ ? 2 . ­ m a : o * 9 2 0 LL :! Y ' I­ . . December 21 354 Nordhoff St., Suite 11 3, Chatsworth, CA 9131 1 ( 81 8) 71 8­ 6070 FAX ( 818) 71 8­ 9779 21, 1993 environmental consultants laboratory servlcer LTR/ 468/ 93 Rus=? l1 Pence CARNOT 1140 Pearl S t r e e t , S t e 216 Boulder, CO 80302 re: impingers & cartridge samples Dear Russell: P l e a s e f i n d enclosed t h e laboratory analysis reports and t h e o r i g i n l a l chain of custody forms for f i f t y DNPH impinger samples received on December 8 & 9 , 1993. The sa~ mpltes w e r e analyzed for formaldehyde by high performance liquid chromatography. Sincerely, AtmAA, Iric. Dr. Koc: hy Fung Air Programs Director Encl. KF/ krp k. ., rL c .. ... .~ ­ ­­ , .,. .­­. . ~ ~ ­ ~ _.­* F Inc.­ _­ 21 354 Nordhoff St.. Suite 1 13, Chatsworth, CA 91 31 1 ( 81 8) 71 8­ 6070 FAX ( 81 8) 71 8­ 9779 environmental consultants laboratory services LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT DNPH impinger s o l u t i o n s w e r e extracted and analyzed for formaldehyde ( HCHO) by h i g h performance liquid chromatography. Report D a t e : December 20, 1993 D a t e Received: December 9, 1993 D a t e E x t r a c t e d : December 9, 1993 D a t e Analyzed: December 17, 1993 P. O. No.: 1510 C l i e n t P r O j . No.: 10515 19714 HCHO ug/ sample Sample. AtmAA Lab, No. Sample I D ug/ sample vol., m l ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­_­­­ ­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­ 93433­ 21 9 343 3­ 2 2 9 34 3 3­ 2 3 9 34 33­ 24 9 34 33 ­ 2 5 9 3 433 ­ 2 6 9 3433­ 21 9 34 33­ 29 93433­ 30 93433­ 31 9 3433­ 32 93433­ 33 93433­ 34 93433­ 35 93433­ 36 93433­ 37 93433­ 39 93433­ 40 93433­ 41 934 33­ 42 * * 93433­ 43** 93433­ 44 93433­ 45** 93433­ 46** 93433­ 47 93433­ 49 93433­ 50 93433­ 28 93433­ 38 93433­ 48 1A­ fom­ 6A 1.07 lB­ fom­ 6A 1­ blk­ 6A 2 ~ ­ f o r m ­ 6 ~ 2B­ fom­ 6A 3­ 0.20 2­ blk­ 6A ­ 0.21 3B­ fom­ 6A 1.­ ­+ 0­ 18 3A­ fom­ 6A 1.04 3 ­ blk­ 6A 4A­ f 0m­ 6A ­ 0­ 16 m 4B­ fom­ 6A sp $ 0.38 4­ blk­ 6A ­ 0.21 5A­ f om­ 6A 2 ­ 9 8 SB­ fOm­ BA 3­\ 5 t 0.36 5­ blk­ 6A I O . 1 9 6A­ f om­ CA 43.20 6B­ fom­ 6A q*­ Q ­ p 1 ­ 0 9 6­ blk­ 6A ­ 0.23 7A­ fom­ 6A 45­ 35 7B­ f orm­ 6A YrOdS? A­ 1 ­ 1 0 ­ 0.22­ 7­ blk­ 6A ­ 8A­ f orm­ 6A 8B­ f om­ 6A 8­ blk­ 6A ­ 4 ­ 2 9 . 9A­ f om­ 6A 620­ 39 9­ blk­ 6A 8.22 9B­ fom­ 6A \\!%' 2? t 501 ­ 16 t r i p b l a n 1.40 1.78 , 1.22 5.93 3.34 44 ­ 29 46.44 1281 . 7 3 1121 ­ 55 15 ­ 2 9.9 10 ­ 7 16.5 10.5 1 0 ­ 2 15.9 10.6 10.2 13.7 11.6 14.2 9.9 10.4 14.9 10.6 9.9 17.0 10.8 11.1 15.0 12.2 13.3 15 ­ 9 10.8 13.1 9.9 13.2 11.0 9.8 .­ ._ ..:.: . I S . . ..­/. c .­ L . . ­ LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT ( continued) RCHO ug/ sample Sample A t m ~ Lab. N o . ug / sample Vol., ml RE: PEATS : 93 433­ 2 1 1A­ f om­ 6A 0 . 9 8 9 3 433­ 3 1 0.35 4 B ­ f o m ­ 6A 9 3 433­ 4 1 7­ blk­ 6A 0.22 " TRIX SPIKES: 9 343 3­ 22 1B­ f om­ 6A 7.46 93433­ 37 6B­ fom­ 6A . 8 . 3 1 0 . 0 2 Field spikes are at 5 ug/ sample. * HCHO s p i k e i s at 6 . 7 1 ug per sample. ** Large d i l u t i o n needed or these samples. Df. Kochy Fung A i r Programs Director 2 : . : . .. ­. . COHC NfiHE 0 . 0 2 3 8 HCHO El. 11378 CHSCHEl 0.6864. PF; PNGL e. 1 179 ­­­­­­­­­ , .­. i ' 3 8.6251 8. 1748 I tim HCHO A C ET 0 N CARNOT CLIENT: CARB METHOD 430 TEST DATA ' I TEST LOCATION: 0 AMBENT TEMPERATURE: OPERATOR: c# MPINGERS LOADED c4­ Y MPINGER RECOVERED CAt SAMPLE LINE RECOVERED ,& NOTES: ­ ,. I I c­ . . ." CARNOT ­ CARB METHOD 430 TEST DATA 2 . ST BAROMETRIC PRESS.: 7 DATE: ­­ / J/ 7/$ 2 TEST LOCATION/: Lfh FUEL A I & ~ AMBIENT' TEMPERATURE: RELATIVE HUMIDIW. IMPINGERS LOADED L IMPJNGER RECOVERED cg SAMPLE LINE RECOVERED c# NOTES: ' INCLUDES CA?. ­ PMF­ 037 CARNOT CARB METHOD 430 TEST DATA ­ OPERATOR: cff UPINGERS LOADED MPINGER RECOVERED SAMPLE LINE RECOVEFIED &­ NOTES: J CARNOT CARB METHOD 430 TEST DATA . ­ TEST NO.: L/­ P>&­ I (( A BAROMETRIC PRESS.: 77­ 5v I&/ 7A] CLIENT:. DATE: ­­ TEST LOCATION: FUEL I'f.&= S AMBIENT TEMPERATURE: RELATIVE HUMIDIIY: OPE RAT0 R: GYP 4 9 ­ 3b 06 ­ 36 IMPINGEFlS LOADED led IMPfNGER RECOVERED C " d SAMPLE LINE RECOVERED c/ H NOTES: t­ i I ­ ­ 1 ­­­ ­ , 1 *­ ­ PMF437 CARNOT AMBIENT TEMPER ANRE: RELATIVE HUMIDITY: OPERATOR: &# d0­ 37 IMPINGERS LOADED SAMPLE LINE RECOVERED ­ IMPINGER RECOVERED I NOTES: Pt&­ c37 I ­_ .. . . 5 CARNOT L. CARB METHOD 430 TEST DATA c .­ ­.­ DATE: ­­ , c?/ 5/ 9?, BAROMETRIC PRESS.: 274 TEST LOCATION: ' d4.?­ FUEL: td : O M S r/ AM6 I ENT TE Ivl PE RATU RE: RELATIVE HUMIDIN: OPEFATOR: G/ IMPINGERS LOADED L IMPINGER RECOVERED A SAMPLE LINE RECOVERED NOTES: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE: RELATIVE HUMIDITY: n // OPE %. TOR: cjy ll IMPINGERS LOADED IMPINGER RECOVERED 11 II SAMPLE LINE RECOVERED I NOTES: .­ CARNOT CARB METHOD 420 TEST DATA ­$.. 8­ /&% ­ 6A . '­ ' mm­ TEST NO.: CLIENT: ­ TEST LCCATION: ' f § uf/ 2­ RIEL: J r k 5 DATE: ­­ @ mv BAROMETRIC PRESS.: a5 L­ . . r­ . .­ IMPINGEAS LOADED IMPINGER RECOVERED L SAMPLE LINE RECOVERED C­ tt­ NOTES: L COMMENTS AND OBSERVATJONS: CARNOT CAR8 METHOD 430 TEST DATA 7 ­ / s­ ­ Gp TEST NO.: DATE: 2 />/=/ e BAROMETRIC PRESS.: 21­ 35 CUENT: ' @ of/& FUEL: NrGCLe) E S T LOCATION: RELATIVE HUMIDITY: ­ . I MPINGERS LOADED IMPlNGER RECOVERED ­­ .... . ­ I ­. ­. ... ­, GRI 1 E­ 125 lii­ 197 15/ R 120D755. T c Appendix C. 4. b Ambient Air 3 z B f ! < 0 L. l i. 1 d d z z F . . i, l .. u i o I ­.. r n z L 2 a 4 z d z 0 \ 4 0 ' 0 0 d z r­ l 0 9 W 2 n n n M d 9 ­ : f c Z d f a n d d z 0 8 0 E 2 N 3 E) W > 4 d _ _ .­ A. . i . . I . .. i ... I ­ ­ z M n I w i w > rf e h ­ s­ 8 3 d e x .. . 3 x ' I Y 21 354 Nordhoff St.. Suite 1 13, Chatsworth, CA 91 31 1 ( 81 8) 71 8­ 6070 FAX ( 81 8) 71 8­ 9ng environmental consultants laboratory services LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT I m P R cartridges were extracted and analyzed for formaldehyde perf onnance liquid chromatography. I[ HCHO) by high Report Date : Date Received: Date Analyzed : c­­ c l i e n t I? ro j. NO. : . ..­ I. ­ AtsrAlL Lab. No. 9 3 4 33 ­ 97 9 3 4 33­ 9 8 9 3 4 3 3 ­ 9 9 93433­ 100 93433­ 101 93433­ 102 93433­ 103 93 433­ 1 04 93433­ 105 9 3 34 3 3­ 1 06 ­­­.­­.­­­­­­­­­­ REPEATS : ­ 93433­ 91 D e t . . L i m i t . *' December 10, 1993 December 9; 1993 December 9, 1993 10515 19714 Sample I D 147 138 13 5 151 116 179 137 130 16 1 1 Cr­ rs] 147 0.21 0.03 Dr. Kochy Fung Air Programs Director 1 t l E t l O R I Z E D RRT M E A IlK I D N O CONC R 1 6. lilE. l NAHE HCHO L­ . . .­ . I I I c 1. i I i i I ! I ' I.! I . . .. L . A 4 ' 1 . ' . . . . N 1. ! m a 1 I It I Q ii I I .. N ­ ', I 1 1 I I c , I I . I I i i 0­ ­ .­. I­ s­ ! . . ­ 1 ­ . ­ ' . ­, I ­­ I , . 1. ­ f ­­ i­ f . I / I 1 1 I 1 ­ . m = c c i i j : N a i c I t * I I m a 1 I i I I I I 11 \" T .. Y 0 ! I/ I 1 ­ I H I J a" X I ­' 4 W ( 3­ u ­ P I I c 4 > ­ 0­ Appendix C. 5 Benzene, Methane, and TGNMO Data 1 . . .,, e,: I. .­­ GR. 31 E125 15­ 19715/ R120D755. T . Appendix C. 5. a Exhaust Gas GRI 1 E­ ITS 15­ 1 97 1S/ R120D7SS. T G W t b ! . ­. e N C V w m m kl N 5 5 m 044 v v v ­ w m m m m CI;. 2 P r r 3 N ­ . ­ ( r, N ? = " w b w m m m ­ B ? " i 5 w c. 0 z s­ r­ 3 d . r­ U M 5 I n b­ e .. L U Q b 9 9 Iff2 2 % ­, OQ­ * * 21 354 Nordhoff St.. Suite 1 13. Chatsworth, CA 91 31 1 ( 81 8) 71 8­ 6070 FAX ( 81 8) 71 8­ 9779 environmental consultants laboratory services December 22, 1993 Russell Pence CARNOT 1140 Pearl Street Ste 216 Bouldeic CO 80302 re: 10515­ 19714 Dear Russel 1 : LTR/ 4 6 9 / 9 3 Please find enclosed the laboratory analysis reports, quality assurance summaries, and the original chain of custody forms for ten ! Sunma canister and ten Tedlar bag samples received on December 9, 1993, The samples were analyzed for methane, total gaseous non­ methane organics, benzene, toluene, and carbon monoxide per the chain of custody , Sincerely, AtmAZi, Inc. Caboratory Director Encl. MLP/ kzp environmental consultants laboratory services LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT Benzene, Toluene, Methane, & Total Gaseous Non­ Methane Organics Analysis in Tedlar Bag Samples Report Date: December 21,1993 Client: CARNOT P0. No.: 1509 Project No.: 10515 19714 Date Received: December 9,1993 Date Analyzed: December 10 & 11,1993 ANALYSIS DESCRPTXON Methane and totdgaseous non­ methane organics were measured ly flame ionizah` on detecfionltotal combustion analysis FIDlTCA)­ Benzene and toluene were measwed by GCIMS. At& Lab NO.: 93433­ 11 93433­ 12 93433­ 13 93433­ 14 93433­ 15 93433­ 16 Sample LD.: l­ Bexu 2­ Benz 3­ Benz 4­ Benz 5­ Ben2 6­ Benz I I 1 I I I 6A 6A 6A 6A 6A 6A 1 Components ( Concentration in ppmv) Methane 4.49 ( 1 cl 1.02 1.09 2.59 TGNMO 1.70 3.02 2.21 1.28 2.22 4.69 Benzene 0.62 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.76 Toluene 0.95 1.48 1.66 1.12 1.70 1.16 ( Concentration m ppbv) TGNMO is total gaseous non­ methane organics reported as ppm methane. ­.­ I­ LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT ] Benzene, Toluene, CO, Methane, & Total Gaseous Non­ Methane Organics Analysis in Tedlar Bag Samples & port Date: December 21,1993 Client: CARNOT P. 0. No.: 1503 Project No.: 10515 19714 . Date Received: December 9,1993 Date P d y z e d December 10 & 11,1993 ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION Methane,, total gaseous non­ methane organics, and c& n rnonm. de were measured by flame ionization detectionliotal combustion analysis FIDITCA). Benzene and toluene were mectsured by GCIMS. AbAA : Lab NO.: 93433­ 17 93433­ 18 93433­ 19 93433­ 20 Sample I. D.: ?­ Bern 8­ Ben2 9­ Benz BIk­ Bern I 6A I 6A 1 6A I 6A 1 ­ Components ( Concentration in ppmv) Methane. 8.95 1440 1360 < 1 TGNMO 6.48 185 202 < 1 1460 1370 < 1 Carbon Monoxide ­ Benzene 0.83 7.33 7.19 0.21 ( Concentration in ppbv) Toluene 2.68 3.94 4.05 1.04 TGNMO is total gaseous non­ methane organics reported as ppm methane. h Michael L. Porter QUALITYASSURANCE SUMMARY mepeat ~ n d y s i s ) i 4 Sample Repeat AMI* Mean ID Run# 1 1 Rm# 2 Cone. % M. FromMean Methane 8­ Ben2 1440 1430 1440 0.35 TGNMO 8­ Ben~ 184 186 185 0.54 Carbon 8­ Benz 1460 1460 1460 0.0 Monoxide ( Concentration in ppbv) Benzene 4­ Ben2 0.29 0.39 0.34 15 9­ Benz 7.31 7.08 7.19 1.6 Toluene 4­ Benz 0.80 1.43 1.12 28 9­ Benz 3.36 4.75 4.05 17 A set of 10 TedIar bug samples laboratory numbers, 93433­( 11­ 20) was analyzed for methane, TGNMO, carbon monoxide, benzene, and toluene. Agreement between repeat andyses is a measure of precision and is shown above in the column " R Diffemnce fmm Mean." Repeaf analyses are an important part of AtmAA's quaiie msurance program The merage 5% Diffetence f b m Mean for 7 ­ at rneczsmments fivm the sample set of 10 Tedlur bag samples is 83%. Project No.: Date R e i v d Date Analyzed: QUALITYASSURANCE SUMMARY ( Spike Analysis) 1 1 10515­ 19714 December 9,1993 December ll, 1993 Component Amount Recovery Spike I Theoretical lExperimentaIf ( W Components ­­ Composition ( Concenration in ppbv) Benzene ( 8 ml NBS 1811 99.5 134 135 + 12 ml93433­ 19) Toluene ( 8 ml NBS 1811 92.4 90.4 97.8 + 12 ml93433­ 19) Spike results in obtained by analyzing an exact mlme ofa standard, mixed with an exact volwne of a prwiously analyzed sample. The theomfical amount is obtained by adding componeni! amrtunts contributed by the known standard OOILune and b. r the Known. CpreV; ously analyzed) sample volume. Eqxrimental results are those derived fiom anai'. ng the spike mixture. CARNOT 0, ­ AND CO, INTEGRATED BAG SAMPLES Analytical Method ( Orsat/ CEM): &' k Unit: 6 4 Fuel: ­ 6 ~ ~ 7 Date: 121 ' 3 ' 3 I I 1 1 I 3 ­ Q Appendix C. 5. b Ambient Air GRI 1 E­ ll251! i­ 197 I 5IR120D755 . T 21 354 Nordhoff St., Suite 1 13, Chatsworth, CA 91 31 1 ( 81 8) 71 8­ 6070 FAX ( 81 8) 71 8­ 9779 LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT environmental consultants laboratory services Benzene, Toluene, Methane, & Total Gaseous Non­ Methane Organics Analysis in Summa Canister Samples I Report Date: December 21,1993 ' Client: CARNOT P. O. No.: 1511 Project No.: 10515 19714 . Date Ikeived: December 9,1993 Date ILnalyzed: December 11 & 13,1993 ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION Methane and totalgaseorrs nowmethane organics were measlrred by flame ionization deiecfionlfottd combustion analysis FIDITCA). Benzene and toIuene were measwrd by GCIMS. AtmAA : Lab NO.: 93433­ 1 93433­ 2 934­ 33­ 3 93433­ 4 93433­ 5 9 M ­ 6 Saniple I. D.: l­ Benz 2­ Ben2 3­ Benz Blk­ Benz 4­ Benz 5i­ Be; nz I AMB­ 6A 1 AMB­ 6A I AMB­ 6A I AMB­ 6A I AMB­ GA 1 AMB­ GA 1 656 742 11.4 666 7301 801 805 780 803 803 1.84 1.61 1.65 c 1 1.64 1.72 inititd p m s s m 653 finad pressure.. 797 Componeints ( Concentration in ppmv) Methane TGNMO Benzene 1.56 < 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 < 1 0­ 88 0.25 0.59 0.22 0.25 0.21 ( Concentration in ppbv) 0.34 0.17' Toluene 1.61 1.06 0.92 0.020 TGNMO is total gaseous non­ methane organics reporfed as ppm methane. inifialpnessure, mm Hg final pressure, mm Hg 4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT Benzene, Toluene, Methane, & Total Gaseous Non­ Methane Organics Report Date: Client: P. O. No.: Project No.: Date Received: Date Analyzed: Amlysis in Summa Canister Samples December 21,1993 CARNOT 1511 1051519714 . December 9,1993 December 11 & 13,1993 ANALYSIS DESCRfPTION Methane and total gaseous non­ methane organics were measured by thermal conductivity detectionfgas chmmatography VCDIGC). Benzene and toluene wem measured by GCfMS. At­ Lab NO.: 93433­ 7 93433­ 8 93433­ 9 93433­ 10 Sample ID.: 6­ Ben2 7­ Bem & Ben2 9­ Benz initial pmssm­ 645 715 644 ­ 650 final pressure= 801 802 801 800 Components ( Concentration in ppmv) Methane 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.65 TGNMO ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 < 1 Benzene 0.33 0.47 0.27 0.30 Toluene 18.0 3.37 3.45 1.33 1 AMB­ 6A I AMB­ 6A 1 AMB­ 6A 1 AMB­ 6A I ( Concentration in ppbv) TGNMO is totdgaseorrs non­ methane orgmics reported as ppm methane. initialpressrrre, mm Hg final presswe, mm Hg Michael L. Porter ' Laboratory Director ­ ­ . ... Repeat Analysis Run# 1 1 Run# 2 Jty Mean % DDiff. Cone FromMean . . ' , L :_ . __.. .... _­ QUAUTYASSURANCE SUMMARY ( Repeaf AnaIysis) Client Project No.: 10515 19714 Date R. eceivd December 9,1993 Date Andyzd December 11 & 13,1993 Sample ID Components Methane 2­ Benz 6­ BenZ TG". Io 2­ Bern 6­ I3em 1.58 1.65 1.61 2.2 1.64 1.62 1.63 0.61 ­ I < 1 < I . e1 < 1 ( Concentration m ppbv) ­ ­ Benzene Blk­ Bm 026 0.17 0.22 21 6­ BenZ 0.42 0% 0.33 27 Toluene Blk­ Bem 0.023 0.016 0.020 18 6­ Bern 20.9 15.1 18.0 16 A set of10 Sunzna canister samples laboratory numbers, 93433­( 1­ 10) was analyzed for methane, TGNMO, benzene, and toluene. Agreement between repeat analyses is a measum of precision and is shown above in the coIumn ' 8 Diffemnce fhm Mean.' Repeat analyses are an impwtant part of AtmAA's quality asswance program. The uverage % Diffimnce j% m Mean for 6 repeal measurements frvm the sample sef of 10 Summa canisier sampIes is 14%. page3of 4 QUALITYASSUBANCE SUMMARY ( Spike Andysis) Project No.: 10515­ 19714 Date Received: December 9,1993 Date Analyzed: December 13,1993 Comuonent Amount Recovery Spike I Theorbtical [ Experimentall (% I I Components Composition ( Comemation in ppbv) Benzene ( 10 ml NBS 1811 48.0 48.2 100.4 + 40 mI 93443­ 8) Toluene ( 10 ml NBS 1811 47.7 49.3 103 + 40 mI 93443­ 8) Spike msulfs are obtained by analya'ng an exact volume of a standard, mixed with an exact volume of a previously andjmd sample. The theoreiical amount is obtained by adding component amounts mntduted by the known standard volume and by the known ( previously analyzed) sample volume. E x p e r i r n d msrlts are those & rived h r n anaiyzing Me spike rnixfwv. .­ CARNOT EVACUATED FLASK DATA . ­ . . . . CARNOT EVACUATED FLASK DATA BY: M AL Appendix C. 6 Fuel Analysis Data GRI 1 E­ 12515­ 19715/ Rl20D755. T GAS FUEL F FACTOR CALCS Y_ . .­ ­. 12/ 07/ 93 .12/ 08/ 93 ­ ­ SPECIES Mole(%) c1 C2 C5 IS0 c4 N­ C4 IS0 c5 NC5 C ~ C co ~ C02 : N2 102 94.307 2.486 0.298 0.027 0.034 0.008 0.006 0.003 O. Oo0 0.501 0. OOO 1.937 0.393 94.507 2.757 0.320 0­ 032 0.042 0.012 0.008 0.004 O. Oo0 0.524 O­ OOO 1.527 0.267 ­­ Average 94.407 2.622 0.309 0.030 0.038 0.010 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.513 0.000 1.732 0.330 GAS MW ' 16.93 ' 16.92 16.93 I3TU/ SCF= 1008.6825 1016.78 @ 60F 13TLJAb. = 22610.70 22804.51 Ib./ scf= 0.0446 0.0446 Fd"( 68) = Fdl'( 60) = 8608.87 8610.53 ( 02 Based) 8478.43 8480.07 FC "( 68) = 1017.34) Fc'( 60) = 1001.92) 1018.42 ( C02 Based) 1002.99 1012.73 22707.60 0.0445 8609.70 8479.25 1017.88 1002.46 . . 1.: 15 PM GAS FUEL F FACTOR CALCS Date: 1247­ 93 De~~ ripdon: 5­ F~ l­ 6A SPECIES Cl ' c 2 c3 IS0 c 4 N­ C4 IS0 c5 NC5 C6+ co c02 H20 N2 02 MW MOLE % 16 30 44 58 58 72 72 86 28 44 18 28 32 94.307 2.486 0.298 0.027 0.034 0.008 0.006 0.003 O. Oo0 0.501 0­ OOO 1­ 937 0.393 Mw*% HHV BTU/ SCF C H 0 1511.46 74.69 13.13 1.57 1.97 0.58 0.43 0.26 0.00 22.05 0.00 54.26 12.58 1012.00 954.39 11.33 3.79 0.00 1773­ 00. 44­ 08 0.60 0.15 0.00 2524.00 7­ 52 0.11 0.02 0.00 3271.00 0.88 0.01 0.00 0.00 3271­ 00 1.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 3998.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 3998.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 4743.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 321.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ­ ­ 0.06 0.00 0.16 ­ 0.00 0.00 0.00 ­ 0.00 0.00 0.00 ­ ­ 0.00 0.00 0.13 N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 ­­ 1 AVGJTOT. 100.00 16Z. 98 1008.68 12.13 3.97 0.29 0.54 wr. x 100.00 ­ 71.66 23.45 1.69 3.21 GAS Mw 16.93 BTU! SCF= 1008.68 @ 6OF BTUnb. = 22610.70 I b . k f = 0.0446 Fd"( 68)= 8608.87 ( 02 Based) Fd"( 60)= 8478.43 F~'( 68) = 1017.34 ( CO2 Based) ­ _ + Fc'( 60) = 1001.92 ­­ .­ Calculations: Fd"( 68) 10­ 6 * [ 3.64 * ( HX) + 1.53 * ( C%) + 0.14 * ( N%) ­ 0.46 * ( 02%)] / " V, B d l b Fd"( 60) = Fd"( 68) * 520 R / 528 R Fc"( 68) = 10­ 6 * 10.321 * ( C$)] / HHV, BmAb Fc"( 60) = Fc'( 68) * 520 R / 528 R I ­. ­ r­ . . . ­. Y L ­ . . *­ ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. Analytical & Consufting Services . ­­. * ­ . LL; i ­ . _ . _. _. . CAHNIDT Z ' u s t l n , , CA 92680­'/ 388 15991 R e d Hill A v e . S t e . 110 L a b . No.: 038144­ 001 Received: D e c 9, 1993 Reported: D e c 1 0 , 1993 A t t e m t l . o n : R u s s Pence * CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSiS [ Z 1635) * C o n i p o n e n ts . Mole ?, Wt Y Hydrogen 0.000 0.000 C a r b o n IYonoxlde 0.000 0.000 Hydrogen Sulfide 0.000 0.000 Propane ,298 ­ 377 N­ ButanE? ­ 0 3 4 ­ 11s N ­ P e n tarre .006 , 0 2 7 Hexanles+ .003 .015 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ C a r b o n Dioxide . so1 1.. 301 O x y g e n * 393 .742 N1 tralgeln 1.937 3.202 Methane 94.307 89.285 E t h a n e 2.486 4.411 I soBu tarie .027 ­ 092 1 s o P e n t a n e . OD8 .032 CHONS W t Y CARBON 71.55) .­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ HYUHOGEhl 23.51 OXYGEN 1.69 NLTHOGEN 3.20 SULFUR 0.00 T o t a l s 9' 9.99 T o t a l H/ C ­ 3 3 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ 100.000 100.000 ' l'ot, a1s = ! 3lJEClFIC GKAVI'I'Y 1 A i r = 11 ­ 5 8 6 0 22.36 SPECIFIC VOiL'PlE, cu. ft./ lb GROSS CALORIFIC VALUE, B * r u / c u . f t . ** 1010.68 GROSS C A L O R I F I C VALUE, BTU/ fb X X 22598.88 NF:' l' CALOR1 FIIC VALUE, B T U / c u . ft. X X 910.85 ! JET C A L O R l F l C VALUE, B T U / l b x* 20366.70 8.5784 C: OMPHESSIBILl'TY FACTOR ' 2' 160 F , l ATMj ­ 9980 E: PA ' F' F a c t o r @ 68 F: 8618.980 DSCF / MM B t u . KCAPCD ' F ' Factor I$ 60 F: 8489.695 DSCF / HM B t u . 1 GROSS CALORIFIC VALUE, wru/ cu. t t . x 993.50 DSCF EXHAUST PEW SCF FUEL ( 0% Oxygen1 * Water S a t u r a t e d ** Dry G a s @ 60 F , 14.73 p s i a ­. . . , ~ i Jlrn k L ___=_­­­­# LE­ __ T S a l y s r LaboratGry . D i r e c t o r ­ 4309 Armour Avenue Bakersfield. Californts 93308­ FAX 1 8 0 5 1 395­ 3069 GAS FUEL F FACTOR CALCS Date: 1248­ 93 Descripaon: 7­ Fuei­ 6A SPECIES MW MOLE% MW*% HHV BTUlSCF C H 0 N c1 c 2 c 3 IS0 c4 NC4 IS0 c5 NC5 C6+ co c02 H20 . N2 02 16 30 44 58 58 72 72 86 28 44 18 28 32 94.507 2.757 0.320 0.032 0.042 0.012 0.008 0.004 0. OOO 0.524 0. ooo 1.527 0.267 1514.66 82.84 14.10 1.86 2.44 0.87 0.58 0.34 0.00 23.06 0.00 42.78 8­ 54 1012.00 2524.00 3271.00 3271­ 00 3998.00 3998.00 4743.00 321.00 . im: m 956.41 11.35 48.88 0.66 8.08 0.12 1.05 0.02 1.37 0.02 0.48 0.01 0.32 . 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 ­ . 0.06 ­ 0.00 ­ 0.00 ­ 0.00 3.80 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0­ 00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 AVG./ TOT. 100.00 1692.07 1016.78 12.24 4.00 0.25 0.43 WT. 5% 100.00 ­ 72.35 23.63 ' 1.50 ' 2.53 GAS MW 16.92 BTU/ SCF = 1016.78 @ 60F BTUAb. = 2304.51 Ib./ scf= 0.0446 Fd'( 68) = 8610.53 ( 02 Based) Fd'( 60) = 8480.07 FC " ( 68) = 1018.42 ( C02 Based) F~"( 60) = 1002.99 __._ I* . . .­ Calculations: Fd'( 68) = 10' 6 * 13.64 * ( HX) + 1.53 * ( C%) + 0.14 * ( N%) ­ 0.46 * ( OZX)] i' HHV, B d I b Fd"( 60) = Fd"( 68) * 520 R / 528 R Fc"( 68) = 10' 6 * 10.321 * ( C %)] / HHV, B d l b Fc'( 60) = Fc"( 68) * 520 R / 528 R I c­ 7 L C O LABORATORIES, INC. Analytical G Consulting Services 1 CARNO'I' Lab. No.: 038144­ 002 1 5 Y Y l ! Hled Hill Ave. Ste. 110 Received: U e c 9 , 1993 Tust3. n, CA 92680­ 7388 Reported: D e c 10, 1993 I Attention: ~ u s s Pence \ 2/ 3l% Sample Description: 7­ Yuel­ 6A . 12­ 7­ 93 Id 1030 * CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSlS ( 2 1635) * Cornponen t s Mole % Wt Y CHONS Wt % ­­­­­­­.­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Hydrogen 0.000 0 . 0 0 0 CAKBON 72.28 Carbon ] Dioxide . 5 2 4 1.361 HYDROGEN 23.69 Oxygen ­ 2 6 7 . SO4 OXYGEN 1.49 Nitrogen 1.527 2.525 * NlTROGEN 2.53 Carbon Honoxide 0.000 0 . 0 0 0 SU L FUR 0 . 0 0 Hydrogen S u l f i d e 0 . 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Me thane 94.507 8Y. 521 Totals 99.99 E t ha n e 2.757 4.896 ' rota1 H/ C .33 Prop a 1' 1 e , 3 2 0 .834 3. so Bu IC a ne ­ 032 . ill hl­ BUtZIAe ­ 0 4 2 ­ 142 1 sopen tane .012 . os0 N­ Pen t a ne . 0 0 8 ­ .036 Hexanes+ .004 .019 T o t a l s = 100.000 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ SPECIFIC GRAVITY ( Air = 1) . 5 8 5 7 S: PECIFIC VOLUME, cu. ft./ lb % 22.37 GROSS CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ cu. ft. ** . 1018.84 GROSS CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ lb %* 22792.65 NET CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ cu. ft. % * 918.3U NET CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ lb % * 20543.34 DSCF EXHAUST PER SCF FUEL ( 0 % Oxygen) 8.6429 COMPRESSlBLLlTY FACTOR ' 2' ( 6 0 F, 1 ATM) .9980 EPA ' F' Factor @ 68 F: 8620.641 DSCF / MM Btu. KCAPCD ' F' Factor @ 60 F: 8491.332 DSCF / M M Btu. a n G: Z. OSS CkLCiXlTIC VALilE, ETU/ cu. fi. * AU31.52 I * Watler Saturated ** Dry Gas @ 60 F, 14.73 p s l a ­­ 4309 Armour Avenue Bakersfield. California 93308 .. GAS FUEL ANALYSIS SPECIES CI c2 c3 IS0 c4 NC4 IS0 c. 5 NC5 C6+ CO2 HZO N2 02 ­ co Mole ( X) 9­ 13­ 93 96.523 1.659 0.125 0.044 0.013 0.005 O. Oo0 0.002 O. Oo0 0.381 O. Oo0 1.153 0.095 11­ 16­ 93 93.065 4.181 0.382 0.038 0.050 0.014 0.009 0.005 0. OOO 0.621 O. Oo0 1.385 0.25 1 11­ 18­ 93 84.202 3 ­ 4 3 0.3 17 0.032 0­ 043 0.010 0.010 0.004 O. Oo0 0.541 O. Oo0 8.901 2.536 12­ 07­ 93 94.307 2.486 0.298 0.027 0.034 0.008 0.006 0.003 0. OOO 0.501 O. Oo0 1.937 0.393 12­ 08­ 93 Avenge* 94.507 2.757 . 0.320 0.032 0.042 0.012 0.008 0.004 O. Oo0 0.524 O. Oo0 1.527 0.267 Notes: * ­ Avaerage for H2s includes the fuel samples collected on 9­ 13­ 93 and 11­ 16­ 93 and omits the sample collected on 11­ 18­ 93, 12­ 7­ 93 and 12­ 9­ 93 as it appears the 11­ 18­ 93 sample was diluted With ambient and the ocher two sampl were not anal by th; & ntracred labratoty. The sample collected on 9­ 13­ 93 w a ~ ~ 01le~ red at w t A and the sample collected on 11­ 16­ 93 was collected at ­ nit C. The average of these cwo fuel gas sampies presents a more representarive itel sample for H2S than any of che the octten collecd during the system­ wide test program. _­ 2/ 17/ 94 1: 15 PM ! ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. Anafytical &. Consuking Services * 1150 3umerz Avenue, Suire­ C Caacord, CA 94520 Lab. No.: 037261­ 001 Received: Sep IS, 1 ~ 9 3 Reported: Sep 15, 1993 . A t t e t i t i . o n : . Russ P e n c e a . Sample D e s c r i p t i o n : Project ' S30152­ 9­ 13­ 93 * CHROHATOaPHIC ANALYSIS ( 2 1535) * Components Mole % Wt 1 cxobis Wf ' 5 Hydrogen CarSon Dioxide N i trogen Carbon Honoxide Hydrogen S u l f i d e fierhane . Ethane Pro pan e 1 so9u Larue I s oP en tan e N­ Pen t: a ne n exa n E? s+ ­ Yg=* N­ BU tiZne 0.000 .381 . 0 9 5 1.153 0.000. 0 . 0 0 0 96.523 1 .­ 65 9 .. I 25 I 0 4 4 ­ 013 ,005 . 0 . 0 0 0 IO02 0 ­ 000 1.010 1 ­ 947 0.000 0.000 93.293 3 ­ 006 ­ 331 ­ 154 ­ 0 4 6 ­ 021 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 8 . is4 T o t a l s ­ 100.000 100.000 ­ SPECIFIC GZUiVITY ( A i r ­ 1) SPECIFIC VOLUXE, cu. ft./ lb L GXOSS CALORIFIC VALUE, E? TU/ cu . f t . x G2OSS CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ lb X X NET CALORIFIC ? VALUE, B! I? U/ cu. f t. xx NET CALORIFIC VALUE, B T U / l b x x GFtOSS CALORlFIC VALUE, BTU/ cu. 2 t . * x e DSCF ­ EXHAUST P U SCF FUEL I O 1 Oxygen1 COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR ' 2' 160 F , 1 ATHl EPA ' F' F a c t o r @ 58 F: 8618.222 DSCF KCXE'CD ' F' Factor @ 60 F: 8488.949 DSCF CkillJON HYDROGEN OXYGEN NITROGZN su L FUB Totals T o t a l H/ C ­ 72.90 2 4 . 1 4 ­ 9 2 1 ­ 9 5 0 . 0 0 99 . I 99 ­ 33 ­­ . .5­ 74 0. 22.83. 9 9 6 ­ 2 7 1013.50 23136.42 913.08 20844.04 . 8 ­ 5874 / M 9tu. / rVI Btu. .9380. ** Dry Gas @ 60 F, 14.73 p s i a * Water S a t u r a t e d Carno t 1150 Burnett Avenue, Suite C Concord, CA 94520 Attention: Russ Pence . . Laboratory No: Oate Received: Date Reported: P 0 8: 1120 .. 37261 9­ 15­ 93 9­ 16­ 93 Sample: Gas Sample Description: 5,. '* ;. T o t a l Sulfur ( ASTM 0 3246) As BzS, ppm ( v o l ­ ) ~ As S , Grains/ 100 SCF* Sampled on 9­ 13­ 93 a t * Stzndard cubic feet ( 60 OF, 14­ 7 p i a ) 1200 hours . . . ­ ­ ­ . . . 1­ .­­. . . Lab Operations Manager . .. . . . .. ­. L ­. T.. L. c .. . . r ­. ZALLCO IEORATOHIES, INC. Analyti­ I & Consulting Services L Carnoc . 1140 Pearl Street, Suite 216 Bouldler, CO 80302 Atcention: Russell Tence *'. :. .' : *­ . . . *. 3,: . ' . .:;> Lab. No.: 037960­ 001 Received: Nov 18, 1 9 9 3 Reported: Nov 22, 1993 Samp1. e Description: Trojecr # SO100 11­ 16­ 93 I * CHROMATOG­ PHIC ANALYSIS 12 1635) X Comiponents Hole % Wt % CHONS Wt % ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_ I_­ ­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­ Hydrogen 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 CARBON 72.54 Carbon , Dioxide ­ 621 1.592 HYDROGEN 23­ 57 Oxygen .251 .467 OXYGEN 1­ 62 N i crogen 1.385 2.259 NITROGEN 2 . 2 6 Carbon Honoxide 0.000 0 . 0 0 0 SULFUR 0 . 0 0 Hydrogen Sulfide 0 . 0 0 0 ­ 0 , 0 0 0 Methane 93.065 8 6 . 9 6 2 T o t a l s 9 9 . 9 9 Ethane 4.181 7 . 3 2 3 T o t a l H/ C ­ 32 Propane ­ 382 .982 I so 9 u ta ne I038 .129 N­ Sutantt . os0 .169 I s o Pein t a n e .014 . O S 8 N­? en cane .009 .037 . H exa n e s i­ ­ 005 .023 * rot: ais = 100.000 100.000 : j f g c I F i C G a ­ d I T y [ Air I r; S I E C I r ' I C VOLUHE, Cu. ft./ lb x C; 20SS CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ lb x x NET CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ lb x x C; EIOSS CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ cu. f t. X (; XlSS CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ cu. ft. x * NET' CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ cu. ft. x a DSCP EXHAUST PER SCF FUEL ( 0 % Oxygen1 GOMPAESSl~ ILITY FACTOR ' 2 ' 1 6 0 F, 1 ATHj ETA ' F' Factor 6 8 F: 8624.165 DSCF KCAPCD ' F' ­ f a c t o r li! 60 Fr 8494.803 DSCF ca­ e 22.07 1014.21 1031.75 22767 ­ 32 930.33 20529.20 LI .7547 ­ 9 9 7 9 / t l f l Btu. 1 , HM Btu, *­ a­ WaCt?? S a t u r a t e d * x Dry Gas @ 60 F, 1 4 . 7 3 psia ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. Analytical ( SI Consukhg Services Carno t 1140 Pearl Street, Suite 216 Eoulder, CO 80302 Attention: Russell Pence Laboratory No: 37960 Date Received: 11­ 18­ 93 Date Reported: 11­ 23­ 93 P 0 8 : I466 Sample: Gas Fuel Line, Project t5G100 . 6 Sample Description: Sampled y ` Russell Pence. on 11­ 16­ 93 `` it 1800 hours Total S u l f u r ( ASTM D 3246) As H, S, ppm ( v o l .) . 1.7 As S , Grains/! OO SCF* 0* 10 _. * Standard cubic f ~ t ( 60 OF, 14.7 psia) e­­,> irn Etherton Is ­ _____ ____ .­_ gl_ E_ I_ E_ r____ z_ g_ I­ ­ ­ a ­ ­ 4309 Armour Avenue Bakersfield. Celiforn'ia 93308­ DI( ZALCO LABORATORIES, INC. Analytical & Consulting Services Carno c 1140 Pearl S t r e e t , S u i t e 212 Boulder, CO 80302 Lab. No.: 037982­ 001 Received: Nov 22, 1993 Reported: Nov 2 2 , 1993 A t t e n t i o n : R u s s e l l Pence +. ­. i . * 4 Sampl'e D e s c r i p t i o n : FS­ SA . 11­ 18­ 93 * CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS [ Z 1 6 3 5 1 * C o m p o n e n t s Hole % W t % CXONS W t % O x y g e n 2 . 5 3 6 4 . 4 4 1 OXYGEN 5.39 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ H y d r o g e n o * o o o 0.000 CARBON 6 1 . 0 7 Ca rborl E l i oxi de ­ 5 4 1 1 . 3 0 3 HYDROGEN 1 9 . 8 9 N i t r o g e n 8 . 9 0 1 1 3 . 6 4 4 NITROGEN 1 3 . 6 4 C a r b o n Monoxide 0 . 0 0 0 0 ­ 000 SULFUR 0 . 0 0 H y d r o g e n S u l f i d e M e t ha ne ­ E t h a n e 3.403 5 . s99 T o t a l H/ C ­ 33 P ropa nl e .317 .764 I s o B u r a n e .032 . I O 3 ­­­­­­­ u­­­ 0 . 0 0 0 0.000 8 4 . 2 0 2 7 3 . 9 1 3 T o t a l s 99 * 99 N­ Butane ­ 013 . 1 3 8 I s o P e n t a n e ­ 010 ­ 0 3 9 N ­ P e n t a n e . 0 1 0 * 039 H e x a n e s + . 0 0 4 . 0 1 7 T o t g a l s ­ 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 SI; E(: it'IC GXAiiiiTY [ Air = i j SPECIFIC VOLUME, cu. ft./ lb GROSS CALORIFIC VALUE, GROSS CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ cu. f t ­ %* x x BTU/ cu. f t . G. ROSS CALORIFIC VALUE, BTU/ lb ** NET CALORIFIC VALUE, B T U / c u . f t . %* NET CALORIFIC VALUE, BTiJ/ lb ** D: SCF EXHAUST PER SCF FUEL [ O x Oxygen1 ERA ' F' F a c t o r @ 6 8 F: 8 6 1 1 . 5 9 1 DSCF KCAE'CD ' F' F a c t o r @ 60 F: 8482.417 DSCF COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR ' Z' I 6 0 F J l ATHI . I_ 0 . O ~ L Y 2 0 . 7 4 909.86 925.59 19192.1 8 8 3 4 . 5 0 1 7 3 0 3 . 3 3 7 . 9 5 4 4 . 9 9 8 2 / MM B t u . / JIM Btu. x Water S a t u r a t e d ** Dry Gas @ 6 0 F, 1 4 ­ 7 3 psia ZALCO; LABORATORIES, INC. Analytical & Consulting Services \ Carnot 1140 Pearl S t r e e t , S u i t e 212 Boulder, CO 8,0302. Attention: Russell Sample: Gas Sample Description: Pence F S ­ J n w e r l Line Project Sampled by on 1­ 18­ 93 Laboratory No: 37982 Date Received: 11­ 22­ 93 Date Reported: 11­ 23­ 93 P 0 51470 Total Sulfur ( ASTM D 3246) As 5, Grains/ 100 SCFi < 0.06 * Standard cubic f e e t ( 60 O F , 14.7 psia) iSir100­ 10033 . Appendix C. 7 Flow Rate Data CARNOT SAMPLE TRAIN TEST SUMMARY ClienVLocation Date Test N um b er Data By Test Method Sample Lcication Fuel Reference Temp ( F) Control Box # Unit Pitot Factor Meter Cal Ifactor Stack Area ( sqi ft) Sample Time ( Min) Bar Press ([ in tig) % l­ VELH204A RJP PA 14 STACK GAS 68 ES­ 31 ICE 0.840 1.0292 52.56 30 . 27.57 72/ 7/ 93 2­ VEL, H20­ 6A RJP EPA 1­ 4 GAS 68 ES­ 31 ICE 0.840 1.0292 52.56 30 27.55 STACK Meter Vol ( acfJ Meter Temp ( F) Sack Press ( ivvg) Stack Temp ( F) Vel Head ( liwg) 0 2 (%): from ( CEM from portable C02 (%): from CEM calculated Liquid Vol i[ ml) Meter Press ( ivvg) Sta rt/ Stop ' Tim le 21.960 37.3 0.47 926.6 0.8303 15.18 3.44 3.44 36.2 1.50 1045­ 1 11 5 15.18 20.529 38.5 0.47 926.6 15.34 . 15.34 3.37 3.37 30.1 1.50 0.8303 1 145­ 1 21 5 19.470 39.6 0.47 926.6 0.8303 15.39 15.39 3.26 3.26 28.0 1.50 131 5­ 1 345 20.653 38.5 0.47 926.6 0.8303 15.30 15.30 3.36 3.36 31.4 1.50 3­ VE1, H20­ 6A Average RJP EPA 1­ 4 STACK GAS 68 ES­ 31 ICE 0.840 1.0292 52.56 30 27.54 i a Std Sample Val1 ( SCF) Metric Sarriple Vol ( mA3) Moisture Fraction Stack Gas Mol Wt Stack Gas Vel. ( Wsec) Stack Flow Rake ( wacfm) Stack Flow Rate ( dscfm) Stack Flow Rate ( dscfh) 22.19 0.63 0.072 86.95 274.21 3 5.37E+ 06 28­ 36 89,428 20.67 0.59 0.064 28.44 86.87 273.946 5.40E+ 06 89,969 19.56 0.55 0.063 86.89 274,012 90.055 5.40E+ 06 28­ 43 I 20.81, 0.59 0.07 28.41 274,057 89,817 86.90 5.39E+ 06 . VEL­ 6A. XLS 3/ 29/ 94 1: 14 PM I CARNOT SAMPLE TRAIN TEST SUMMARY ClientRocation Date Test Number Data By . Test Method Sample Location Fuel Reference Temp ( F) Control Box # Unit Pitot Factor Meter Cal Factor Stack Area ( sq f t ) Sample Time ( Min) Bar Press ( in Hg) 4­ VEL, H20­ 6A RJP EPA 1­ 4 STACK GAS 68 ES­ 31 ICE 0.840 1.0292 52.56 30 27.54 5­ VEL. H20s6A RJP EPA 1­ 4 STACK GAS 68 ES­ 31 ICE 0.840 1.0292 52.56 40 27.56 Average ­­. Meter Vol ( acf) 19.925 23.204 21.565 Stack Press ( iwg) 0.39 0.39 0.39 Vel Head ( iwg) 0.4373 0.4373 0.4373 02 (%): from CEM 15.79 15.75 15.77 from portable 15.79 15.75 15.77 CO2 (%): from CEM 3.12 3.13 3.13 calculated 3.12 3.13 3.13 Meter Press ( i g ) 1 S O 1.50 1.50 Start/ Stop Time 1420­ 1450 1530­ 1610 Meter Temp ( F) 39.7 39.6 39.7 . Stack Temp ( F) 913.2 91 3.2 913.2 Liquid Vol ( ml) 26.2 20.6 23.4 ­ Std Sample Vol ( SCF) Metric Sample Val ( rnA3) Moisture Fraction Stack Gas Mol Wt Stack Gas Vel. ( ftfsec) Stack Flow Rate ( wacfm) Stack Flow Rate ( dscfm) Stack Flow Rate ( dscfh) 20.01 0.57 0.058 28.48 62­ 70 197,739 65,965 3.96E+* 23.33 0.66 0.040 28.69 mi46 196.969 67,025 4.02E+ 06 21.67 0.61 0.05 28.58 62.58 197,354 66,495 3.99E+ 06 . VEL­ 6A. XLS .+ 2/ 21/ 94 8: 08 AM CARNOT SAMPLE TRAIN TEST SUMMARY ClientlLocatiori Date Test Number Data By Test Method Sample Location Fuel Reference Temp ( F) Control Box # Unit Pitot Factor Meter Cat Factor Stack Area ( sq ft) Sample Time ( Min) Bar Press ( in Hg) ­­ 1 2819 3 12/ 8/ 93 6­ VEL, H20­ 6A RJP EPA 1­ 4 STACK GAS 68 ES­ 31 ICE 0.840 1.0292 52.56 27.44 30 . 7­ VEL. H20­ 6A RJP STACK GAS 68 ICE 0.840 1.0292 52.56 40 27.40 EPA I ­' ES­ 31 Average Meter Vol ( acf) Meter Temp ( F) Stack Press ( i i g ) Stack Temp ( F) Vel Head ( hwg) 0 2 (%): f r o m C: EM from portable C02 i%): from CEM calculated Liquid Vol ( iml) Meter Press, ( ikg) StaNStop Time 21.077 ­ . 43.5 . a. 10 920.1 0.2012 15.75 15.75 2.95 2.95 28.3 1.50 1000­ 1 030 27.813 47.9 ­ 0.10 920.1 0.2012 15.89 15.89 2.92 2.92 33.3 1.50 1040­ 1 120 24.445 45.7 ­ 0.10 920.1 0.1341 15.82 15.82 2.94 2.94 , 30.8 1.50 Std Sample Vol ( SCF) Metric Sample Vol ( m" 3) Moisture Fraction Stack Gas Mol Wt Stack Gas Vel. ( Wsec) Stack Flow Rate ( wacfm) Stack Flow Rate ( dscfm) Stack Flow Rate ( dscfh) 20.93 0.59 0.060 28.44 42.78 134,908 44,474 2.67E+ 06 27.34 ­ 0.77 0.054 28.50 42.76 134,856 44,658 2.68E+ 06 24.14 0.68 0.06 28.47 134,882 44.566 2.67E+ 06 . 42.77 5 VEL­ 6A. XLS 2/ 21/ 94 8: 12 AM CARNOT SAMPLE TRAIN TEST SUMMARY ClientLocation Date Test Number Data By Test Method Sample Location Fuel Reference Temp ( F) Control Box # unit Pitot Factor Meter Cal Factor Stack Area ( sq ft) Sample Time ( Min) Ear Press ( in Hg) 12/ 8/ 93 RJP EPA 1­ 4 STACK GAS 68 ES­ 3 1 ICE 0.840 1.0292 52.56 30 27.35 8­ VEL. HZ0­ 6A ­ ILIUIYJ 9­ VE/ H20­ 6A RJP EPA 1­ 4 STACK GAS 68 ES­ 31 ICE 0.840 1 ­ 0292 52.56 35 27.35 Average .­ . . .­ i . . Meter Vol ( acr) Meter Temp ( F) . Stack Press ( ` i g ) Stack Temp ( F) Vel Head ( iwg) 0 2 (%): from CEM from portable C02 (%): from CEM calculated Liquid Vol ( mi) Meter Press ( iwg) StaNStop Time 18.824 48.8 4­ 10 731.5 0.1796 16.96 16.96 2.15 2.15 21.5 1.50 1235­ 1305 20.968 45.9 ­ 0.1 0 731.5 0.1 796 16.96 16.96 2.21 2.21 33.3 1 s o 13351 41 0 19.896 47.4 ­ 0.10 731.5 0.1197 ' ' 16.96 16.96 2.18 2.1 8 27.4 1.50 .­. .. , Std Sample Vol ( SCF) Metric Sample Vol ( rn" 3) Moisture Fraction Stack Gas Mol Wt Stack Gas Vel. ( Wsec) Stack Flow Rate ( wacfm) Stack Flow Rate ( dscfm) Stack Flow Rate ( dscfh) 18.44 0.52 0.052 28.45 37.61 4551 5 2.73E+ 06 i 18,603 20.66 0.59 0.071 28.25 37.74 119,012 44,778 269E+ 06 19.55 0.55 0.06 28.35 37.67 45,147 ­ 1 i 8, a07 2.71 E+ 06 CARNOT SAMF'LE LOCATION: * I L UNITNO.: fk TESTNO.:, [,&­­­ de\­ ­ EARO. PRESS. ( in. Hg): m­ soi A3S. STATIC PFIESS. IN STACK ( in. Hg) oty> ps I ­ DATA TAKEN BY: TEST DESCRIPTION: I de\ c\ Ls\ V CJr ­ t o 2 PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT Cp I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I .­ ­ s. .­ L I I I I ­ ­ e ­ i i 1 r i I ­ 4 c u. ­ . . 1 1 1 1 1 . . . . . t \ I ­ I L; CARNOT .. 2 +: i I I I I I ­ tz C L' 1 8 1 1 8 e . s . . . \ . . ii . ­ ­­ . .. ~ .. _. ._.... ... .­ N I m ­ i I­ : a ' 0 ­ CARNOT TRAVERSE DATA CLI ENTLOCATlO SAMPLE LOCATION: s­ h&­­ UNIT NO.: L TEST NO.: ' 7 ­\ fELCi/> A BARO. PRESS. ( in. Hg): A S . STATIC PRESS. IN STACK ( in. Hg) ­­ D, lO ps DATA TAKEN BY: W&+ cJ+ PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT 0 Cp I .* '. m I . . . . . t i I : I f I . . . . z c l c r .... ~­ ­ CLIEN'TROCATIO BARO. PRESS. ( in. Hg): 7­ 1 ­ ­ ­ 35 ' ABS. STATIC PRESS. IN STACK ( in. Hg) ­ 0 1 ID P, . . b I ~ DATA TAKEN BY: &$? &­­ cbLs TEST DESCRIPTION: k PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT 0 * v Cp . . c I I I ­ I , I I ' I I .­ 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1.1 1 f. . _. ­ ­ .­ .. A i . .­ 1 5 Appendix C. 8 Ambient Wind Speed and Directiori Data GRI 1 E­ 125 IS­ 1 971 5/ R 120D755. T .. ~ ­ . . , c:. .. . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . , . . .__ . . . . . . . . .... . . . . , . . . . . ­ . . .. . . .. . . . . . . ­ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I­ . Bc X' c c c 7 / . ! : . . I . . * : " . . . . . , / I . . .., . . . ­ . _ . . . . ­* ­ .... . . . . . ._. . . . . . . i t .. : :., . : . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . _ . . ._ .­ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . I . . . . : . _ . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . : '._ __. ' .......... ........... . . . . ­ . ___ II___ i­ . _­ .. . . . ­ . . . . . . ,:. $ <: . . . . . . . . . .­. ..? . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . I . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . i: . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . _ . . ­_ . . . c c c c,! , . . r . . . ­ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . .......... . . . . . . . . . .... _ * . . . . ' . : . ­ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . : . ...... ..' _: ' I . . . . . . . a.. . . . . . : . ...... .: .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . _ . . . . _.. . :.. . : ­ _ . . . .. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . ­. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... ­ IC______=_ . . ­­­ . . . . . APPENDIX D CALCULATIONS . . . GFU I E­ 12.5 15­ 1!? 7 15/ R 120D755. T D­ 1 Appendix D. 1 General Emissions Calculations GIUl E­ 125 115­ 19715/ R120D755. T Page 1 of 4 EMISSION CALCULATIONS 1. $ mule Volume and Isokinetics . ... a. Sample gas volume, dscf V, = 0.03342 V, Pb+­ 5 ( Y) ( I q . . ) b. Water vapor voIume, scf V,, = a 0.0472 V' ­ [ 5 2 k ! ] C SI Moisture content, nondimensional d. Stack gas molecular weight, Ibhb mole Mw,, = 0.44 ( XCOJ + 0.32 (% OJ + 028 (% NJ M w , = MW,, ( 1 ­ BJ + 18 ( I33 e. Absolute stack pressure, in Hg P, = Pb + ­ % 13.6 f. Stack velocity, ftJsec ~ . " g. Actual stack flow rate, wach Q = ( VJ( AJ( W I­ h. Standard stack gas flow rate, dscfin Qd = Q ( 1 ­ B , J [ s ) ( L ) T, 29.92 1. Percent isokinetic ­ 10020F136C219. T Page 2 of 4 2. ]) articulate Emissions a. Grain loading, gddsd C = 0.01543 [ 2) ti. Grain loading at 12% COz, gr/ dscf C. Mass emissions, I b h 3. ­­ Gaseous Emissions. lbhr where, SY = Jpeciific molar volume of an ideat gar;: SV = 385.3 fr3/ lb moIe for qd = 528 " R SV = 3795 fr3] lb mole for Trd = 520 " R 4. ­­ Emissions Rates. lb/ 106 Btu a. Fuel factor at 68 OF, dscf/ 106 BN at 0% O2 106[ 3.64(% H) + 1.53(% C) + 0.14 ( X R ) + 057(% S) ­ 0.46(% U2fLeo] H m , Bzuilb Fa = b ., Fuel factor at 60 OF 520 " R F60 = Fa ( e) C. Gaseous Emissions factor 20.9 d . I Particulate emission factor Nomeincla ture: ­ ­ 4 3, = 12* w2 ­ ­ ­ stack area, ft' flue gas moisture content particulate grain loading, gr/ dscf corrected to 12% CO, particulate grain loading, gddscf pitot calibration factor, dimensionless nozzle diameter, in. fuel F factor, dscf/ 106 Btu at 0% 0, orifice pressure differential, iwg % isokinetics mass of collected particulate, mg mass emissions of species i, lbhr molecular weight of flue gas molecular weight of species i: NO, : 46 so, : 64 co : 28 HC : 16 sample time, min. Page 3 of 4 average velocity heaL, iwg = ( barometric pressure, in. Hg stack absolute pressure, in. Hg stack static pressure, iwg p Nommdature ( Continued): = wet stack gas flow rate at actual conditions, wacfm dry stack gas flow rate at standard conditions, dsch specific molar volume of an ideal gas at standard conditions, ffAb mole meter temperature, OR reference temperature, . OR stack temperature, " R stack velocity, ft/ sec voIume of liquid collected in impingers, ml dry meter volume uncorrected, dcf dry meter volume at standard conditions, dscf volume of water vapor at standard conditions, scf meter calibration coefficient Page 4 of 4 Appendix D. 2 Specific Emissions Calculations . . ­ d z .. . . . SHEET HO. ­ Q f , COMPUTED BY ,­ DATE 1 0 / 5 C H t H E C K E D BY OAT E ­ . . b ­­. 11 50 Burnerr, Suite C, Concord, CA 94596 APPENDIX E STRIP CHARTS . . . _ ­ I ... . Inn n I ._ . I i ­­ I_ 2­­ ' 1 i I I i i i i 1 ! I 1 i .. I i I : i c I i ­ I I i I i­ i I t I I i I T i L 1 1 3 I . . I . . 1 j ! I ; ! I . I .. : I . ­ ..­ 4 . . 1" ­ , ­. A .... . . '. . ­ *. ... ... I . . : . . . , .. * . . . . . . ,­ . . . . . . . . . :. .:._ . . . . . . . $, '­%.. i . 7 : . _. . ­ 9. ... .:'... . . . t;: i ! r.. ;> . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;.. . . . . . . . . . .. a ­>­ , . Is­. ­­ ­­ _­ I . ~ .. . . .. I.. . . .. .. . . I . : I . . .. ) ­ I . . ... I l l ' 1 : . ... ; ii j4 I . ! I . I ! ; ­ :; . I 1 m . ­ ­.­. ,­ \ 3 . . . ... . . . ­ . . . ­ i i . o. r ..... b" r * r, l?*" I ..­' ( I.,., ......... 1b. 129 I l I 3 " l . I 1.0." itn ....... ­ i I 1 i I 1 1 1 i i i 1 t I f i 1 ? i d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. * ­ i : . %. . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . _ .. . . . s i . . . . . . . . . . : _._ . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? : . . . . . . . . x . ­ _ . . ;. . . . . . . . . . . ... >.*. . . . . . : . 7.:. . . . . . . . . . . ...: . . . . . _ ? . ­ i ­: .... .... . . 1 .: A ... APPENDIX F CHAIN OF CUSTODY II GRl1 E­ 125 15­ 197CSIR120D755 . T F­ 1 * CERTIFICATION OF SAMPLE RECEIPT 1 F R o x c T * JO s I 3­ 197 4 OUTSIDE LAB REWIRED ( Y f l ) SAM? LEDATE fZ 17­ 81 93 CUENTROCATlCN PROJECTMANAGER & P ­ SAMPLE LOCATION SALV METHOD($) q% TECHNICIAN ch' COMPLIANCE TEST ( YN) d DATE DUE / 2jZ3/ q3 RECIPIENT k­ 6 CERTIFICATION OF SAMPLE RECEIPT PFICJECT'S lOsI7 19 OUTSIDE IAB REOUIFIED ( Y;" J , SAMPLE DATE / z / 7­ g/ q3 SAMPLE LOCATION Ah.&­ g. N­ J METHOO( S) 6 p A TO­ ll TECHNICIAN / mz CUENTICOCATION PROJECT MANAGER kf Gwnl 0Jh'PLc DATE DUE COMPLIANCE TEST ( YM) AI , RECIPIENT COMPANY 3ATE B/ 4/ 43 . I­ ­ CERTIFICATION OF SAMPLE RECEIPT PROJECT # ­ d l 6 I 4 OUTSIDE LAB REQUIRED ( Y N ) 9 SAMPLE DATE lLPf 4 .­,* r. 4 * . . I CUENTROCATIO N PROJECTMANAGER # . SAMPLE LOCATlON METHOD( S) @­ flo L id/ TECHNlClAM . F A CHAIN OF CUSTODY PRIOR TO SHIPMEW: DATE ) t/ r­ 193 t CERTIFlCATlON OF SAMPLE RECEiPT CUENTROCAnON PROJECT MANAGER ... . d CHAIN OF CUSTODY PRIOR TO SHIPMENT: . . CARNOT TEDLAR BAG SAMPLE DATA . ­. .,+ ­ ! I I­ ­ _ UNIT 3: DATE: ­ ­ ­ 1 I BAG ID I BAGID 1 BAGID I I I I i I I I i I STOP TIME SAL! PLE LOCATION I I li ! C3MPhNY DATE I I . ­ 4­ . . ;.: . CHAIN OF CUSTODY ­ DATE UNR BY: r I BAGID I BAGlD TEST NO. 1 I BAG ID 1 SdhAPE ?. ATE STAFlT TIME I 1 I I I ­­.. 1 NOTES: I I b' I CERTlFlCATiON OF SAMPLE R E C W T COMPUANlCE ' TEST ( Ym) 9 SAMPES SHIP? RECIPE.. . CHAIN OF CUSTODY

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.280198

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0065-0001

Rule

Control of Emissions From Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-Based); Final Rule [A-2000-01-V-A-03]

Friday, November 8, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 89 et al. Control of Emissions From Nonroad Large Spark­ Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines ( Marine and Land­ Based); Final Rule VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68242 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 89, 90, 91, 94, 1048, 1051, 1065, and 1068 [ AMS FRL 7380 2] RIN 2060 AI11 Control of Emissions From Nonroad Large Spark­ Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines ( Marine and Land­ Based) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this action, we are adopting emission standards for several groups of nonroad engines that have not been subject to EPA emission standards. These engines are large spark­ ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and airport ground­ service equipment; recreational vehicles using sparkignition engines such as off­ highway motorcycles, all­ terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. Nationwide, these engines and vehicles cause or contribute to ozone, carbon­ monoxide, and particulate­ matter nonattainment, as well as other types of pollution impacting human health and welfare. We expect that manufacturers will be able to maintain or even improve the performance of their products when producing engines and equipment meeting the new standards. Many engines will substantially reduce their fuel consumption, partially or completely offsetting any costs associated with the emission standards. Overall, the gasoline­ equivalent fuel savings associated with the anticipated changes in technology resulting from this rule are estimated to be about 800 million gallons per year once the program is fully phased in. Health and environmental benefits from the controls included in today's rule are estimated to be approximately $ 8 billion per year once the controls are fully phased in. There are also several provisions to address the unique limitations of small­ volume manufacturers. DATES: This final rule is effective January 7, 2003. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 7, 2003. ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Public Docket Numbers A 98 01 and A 2000 01 at the following address: EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Reading Room by telephone at ( 202) 566 1742, and by facsimile at ( 202) 566 1741. The telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. You may be charged a reasonable fee for photocopying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2. For further information on electronic availability of this action, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U. S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division hotline, ( 734) 214 4636, asdinfo@ epa. gov; Alan Staut, ( 734) 214 4805. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities This action will affect companies that manufacture or introduce into commerce any of the engines or vehicles subject to emission standards. These include: spark­ ignition industrial engines such as those used in forklifts and compressors; recreational vehicles such as off­ highway motorcycles, allterrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. This action will also affect companies buying engines for installation in nonroad equipment. There are also requirements that apply to those who rebuild any of the affected nonroad engines. Regulated categories and entities include: Category NAICS Codes a SIC Codes b Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry ................... 333618 3519 Manufacturers of new nonroad spark­ ignition engines, new marine engines. Industry ................... 333111 3523 Manufacturers of farm equipment. Industry ................... 333112 3531 Manufacturers of construction equipment, recreational marine vessels. Industry ................... 333924 3537 Manufacturers of industrial trucks. Industry ................... 811310 7699 Engine repair and maintenance. Industry ................... 336991 .................... Motorcycle manufacturers. Industry ................... 336999 .................... Snowmobiles and all­ terrain vehicle manufacturers. Industry ................... 421110 .................... Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Parts. a North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) b Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) system code. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether this action regulates particular activities, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Obtaining Electronic Copies of the Regulatory Documents The preamble, regulatory language, Final Regulatory Support Document, and other rule documents are also available electronically from the EPA Internet web site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost incurred for internet connectivity. The electronic version of this final rule is made available on the day of publication on the primary web site listed below. The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality also publishes Federal Register notices and related documents on the secondary web site listed below. 1. http:// www. epa. gov/ docs/ fedrgstr/ EPA­ AIR/ ( either select desired date or use Search feature) 2. http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ ( look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic) Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the document may be downloaded, format changes may occur. Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Overview B. How Is This Document Organized? C. What Categories of Vehicles and Engines Are Covered in This Final Rule? D. What Requirements Are We Adopting? E. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68243 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 1 Diesel­ cycle engines, referred to simply as `` diesel engines'' in this document, may also be referred to as compression­ ignition ( or CI) engines. These engines typically operate on diesel fuel, but other fuels may also be used. Otto­ cycle engines ( referred to here as spark­ ignition or SI engines) typically operate on gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, or natural gas. 2 This rule also found that PM emissions from marine diesel engines contribute to PM nonattainment. II. Nonroad: General Provisions A. Scope of Application B. Emission Standards and Testing C. Demonstrating Compliance D. Other Concepts III. Recreational Vehicles and Engines A. Overview B. Engines Covered by This Rule C. Emission Standards D. Testing Requirements E. Special Compliance Provisions F. Technological Feasibility of the Standards IV. Permeation Emission Control A. Overview B. Vehicles Covered by This Provision C. Permeation Emission Standards D. Testing Requirements E. Special Compliance Provisions F. Technological Feasibility V. Large Spark­ ignition ( SI) Engines A. Overview B. Large SI Engines Covered by This Rule C. Emission Standards D. Testing Requirements and Supplemental Emission Standards E. Special Compliance Provisions F. Technological Feasibility of the Standards VI. Recreational Marine Diesel Engines A. Overview B. Engines Covered by This Rule C. Emission Standards for Recreational Marine Diesel Engines D. Testing Equipment and Procedures E. Special Compliance Provisions F. Technical Amendments G. Technological Feasibility VII. General Nonroad Compliance Provisions A. Miscellaneous Provisions ( Part 1068, Subpart A) B. Prohibited Acts and Related Requirements ( Part 1068, Subpart B) C. Exemptions ( Part 1068, Subpart C) D. Imports ( Part 1068, Subpart D) E. Selective Enforcement Audit ( Part 1068, Subpart E) F. Defect Reporting and Recall ( Part 1068, Subpart F) G. Hearings ( Part 1068, Subpart G) VIII. General Test Procedures A. General Provisions B. Laboratory Testing Equipment C. Laboratory Testing Procedures D. Other Testing Procedures IX. Projected Impacts A. Environmental Impact B. Cost Estimates C. Cost Per Ton of Emissions Reduced D. Economic Impact Analysis E. Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs of the Standards? X. Public Participation XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Congressional Review Act K. Plain Language I. Introduction A. Overview Emissions from the engines regulated in this rule contribute to serious airpollution problems, and will continue to do so in the future absent regulation. These air pollution problems include exposure to carbon monoxide ( CO), ground­ level ozone, and particulate matter ( PM), which can cause serious health problems, including premature mortality and respiratory problems. Fine PM has also been associated with cardiovascular problems, such as heart rate variability and changes in fibrinogen ( a blood clotting factor) levels, and hospital admissions and mortality related to cardiovascular diseases. These emissions also contribute to other serious environmental problems, including visibility impairment and ecosystem damage. In addition, many of the hydrocarbon ( HC) pollutants emitted by these engines are air toxics. This rule addresses these air­ pollution concerns by adopting national emission standards for several types of nonroad engines and vehicles that are currently unregulated. These include large sparkignition engines used in industrial and commercial applications such as those used in forklifts and airport equipment; recreational spark­ ignition vehicles such as off­ highway motorcycles, all­ terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. 1 These new standards are a continuation of the process of establishing emission standards for nonroad engines and vehicles, under Clean Air Act section 213( a). We conducted a study of emissions from nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment in 1991, as directed by the Clean Air Act, section 213( a) ( 42 U. S. C. 7547( a)). Based on the results of that study, we determined that emissions of oxides of nitrogen ( NOX), volatile organic compounds, and CO from nonroad engines and equipment contribute significantly to ozone and CO concentrations in more than one nonattainment area ( 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994). Given this determination, section 213( a)( 3) of the Act requires us to establish ( and from time to time revise) emission standards for those classes or categories of new nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment that in our judgment cause or contribute to such air pollution. We have determined that the engines covered by this final rule cause or contribute to such air pollution ( see the final finding for recreational vehicles and nonroad spark­ ignition engines over 19 kW published on December 7, 2000 ( 65 FR 76790), the final rule for marine diesel engines published on December 29, 1999 ( 64 FR 73301) 2, Section II of the preamble to the proposed rule ( 66 FR 51098, October 5, 2001), this preamble, and the Final Regulatory Support Document). Where we determine that other emissions from new nonroad engines, vehicles, or equipment significantly contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, section 213( a)( 4) of the Act authorizes EPA to establish ( and from time to time revise) emission standards from those classes or categories of new nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment that cause or contribute to such air pollution. Pursuant to section 213( a)( 4) of the Act, we are finalizing a finding that emissions from new nonroad engines, including construction equipment, farm tractors, boats, locomotives, marine engines, nonroad spark­ ignition engines over 19 kW, recreational vehicles ( including off­ highway motorcycles, allterrain vehicles, and snowmobiles), significantly contribute to regional haze and visibility impairment in federal Class I areas and where people live, work and recreate. These engines, particularly recreational vehicles such as snowmobiles, are significant emitters of pollutants that are known to impair visibility in federal Class I areas ( see Section I. E of this preamble and the Final Regulatory Support Document). We have also determined that engines covered by this final rule, particularly recreational vehicles including snowmobiles, contribute to such pollution. Thus, we are finalizing HC standards for snowmobiles to reduce PM­ related visibility impairment. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68244 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 3 For this final rule, we consider the United States to include the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. B. How Is This Document Organized? This final rule covers engines and vehicles that vary in design and use, and many readers may be interested in only one or two of the applications. We have grouped engines by common application ( for example, recreational land­ based engines, marine diesel recreational engines, large sparkignition engines used in commercial applications). This document is organized in a way that allows each reader to focus on the applications of particular interest. Section II describes general provisions that are relevant to all of the nonroad engines covered by this rulemaking. Section III through VI present information specific to each of the affected nonroad applications, including standards, effective dates, testing information, and other specific requirements. Sections VII and VIII describe a wide range of compliance and testing provisions that apply generally to engines and vehicles from all the nonroad engine and vehicle categories included in this rulemaking. Several of these provisions apply not only to manufacturers, but also to equipment manufacturers installing certified engines, remanufacturing facilities, operators, and others. Therefore, all affected parties should read the information contained in these sections. Section IX summarizes the projected impacts and a discussion of the benefits of this rule. Finally, Sections X and XI contain information about public participation and various administrative requirements. The remainder of this section summarizes the new requirements and the air quality need for the rulemaking. C. What Categories of Vehicles and Engines Are Covered in This Final Rule? This final rule establishes regulatory programs for new nonroad vehicles and engines not yet subject to EPA emission standards, including the following engines: Land­ based spark­ ignition recreational engines, including those used in snowmobiles, off­ highway motorcycles, and all­ terrain vehicles. For the purpose of this rule, we are calling this group of engines `` recreational vehicles,'' even though allterrain vehicles can be used for commercial purposes. Land­ based spark­ ignition engines rated over 19 kW, including engines used in forklifts, generators, airport baggage tow trucks, and various farm, construction, and industrial equipment. This category also includes auxiliary marine engines, but does not include propulsion marine engines or engines used in recreational vehicles. For purposes of this rule, we refer to this category as `` Large SI engines.'' Recreational marine diesel engines. This final rule covers new engines that are used in the United States, whether they are made domestically or imported. 3 A more detailed discussion of the meaning of the terms `` new'' and `` imported'' that help define the scope of application of this rule is in Section II of this preamble. D. What Requirements Are We Adopting? The fundamental requirement for nonroad engines and vehicles is meeting EPA's emission standards. Section 213( a)( 3) of the Act requires that standards to control emissions related to ozone or CO achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology that will be available, giving appropriate consideration to cost, noise, energy, and safety factors. Section 213 ( a)( 4) of the Act requires that standards for emissions related to other air pollution problems be appropriate and take into account costs, noise, safety, and energy impacts of applying technology that will be available. Other requirements such as applying for certification, labeling engines, and meeting warranty requirements define a process for implementing the program in an effective way. With regard to Large SI engines, we are adopting a two­ phase program. The first phase of the standards go into effect in 2004 and are the same as those adopted in October 1998 by the California Air Resources Board for 2004. These standards will reduce combined HC and NOX emissions by nearly 75 percent, based on emission measurements during steady­ state operation. In 2007, we supplement these standards by setting limits that will require optimizing the same technologies and will base emission measurements on a transient test cycle. New requirements for evaporative emissions and engine diagnostics also start in 2007. For recreational vehicles, we are adopting separate emission standards for snowmobiles, off­ highway motorcycles, and all­ terrain vehicles. For snowmobiles, we are adopting a first phase of standards for HC and CO emissions based on a mixture of technologies ranging from clean carburetion and engine modifications to direct fuel injection two­ stroke technology and some conversion to four­ stroke engines, and second and third phases of emission standards for snowmobiles that will involve significant use of direct fuel injection two­ stroke technology and conversion to four­ stroke engines. For off highway motorcycles and all­ terrain vehicles, we are adopting standards based mainly on moving these engines from two­ stroke to four­ stroke technology with the use of some secondary air injection. We are also adopting requirements to address permeation emissions from all three types of recreational vehicles. The emission standards for recreational marine diesel engines are comparable to those already established for commercial marine diesel engines. Manufacturers generally have additional time to meet emission standards for the recreational models and several specific rulemaking provisions are tailored to the unique characteristics of these engines. We are also adopting more stringent voluntary Blue Sky Series emission standards for recreational marine diesel engines and Large SI engines. Blue Sky Series emission standards are more stringent than the mandatory emission standards and are intended to encourage the introduction and more widespread use of low­ emission technologies. Manufacturers may be motivated to exceed emission requirements either to gain early experience with certain technologies or as a response to market demand or local government programs. For recreational vehicles, we are not adopting voluntary standards but rather providing consumers with consumer labeling, which will provide information and opportunity to buy lower­ emissions models. We have also conducted extensive analysis on the costs and benefits of this rulemaking effort, with specific details found in Section IX below and in the Final Regulatory Support Document. In summary, we estimate that annually, the cost to manufacturers is approximately $ 210 million, the social gain is approximately $ 550 million, and the quantified benefits are approximately $ 8 billion. Social gain is defined as the economic cost of the rule minus the estimated fuels savings. Quantified benefits reflect the health benefits primarily associated with particulate matter controls. E. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? There are important public health and welfare reasons supporting the new VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68245 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 4 U. S. EPA Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA 452/ R 96 007. June 1996. A copy of this document can be found in Docket A 99 06, Document II A 22. 5 U. S. EPA Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA 452/ R 96 013. 1996. Docket Number A 99 06, Documents Nos. II A 18, 19, 20, and 23. The particulate matter air quality criteria documents are also available at http:// www. epa. gov/ ncea/ partmatt. htm. emission standards. As described below and in the Final Regulatory Support Document, these engines contribute to air pollution that causes public health and welfare problems. Nationwide, these engines and vehicles are a significant source of mobile source air pollution. As described below, of all mobile source emissions in 2000 they accounted for about 9 percent of HC emissions, 4 percent of CO emissions, 3 percent of NOX emissions, and 2 percent of direct PM emissions. The emissions from Large SI engines contributed 2 to 3 percent of the HC, NOX, and CO emissions from mobile sources in 2000. Recreational vehicles by themselves account for about 6 percent of national mobile source HC emissions and about 2 percent of national mobile source CO emissions. By reducing these emissions, the standards will aid states facing ozone and CO air quality problems, which can cause a range of adverse health effects, especially in terms of respiratory disease and related illnesses. The engine categories subject to this rule contribute to regional haze and visibility impairment in Class I areas and near where people live, work and recreate. Within national parks, emissions from snowmobiles in particular contribute to ambient concentrations of fine PM, a leading cause of visibility impairment. States are required to develop plans to address visibility impairment in national parks, and the reductions required in this rule would assist states in those efforts. The standards will also help reduce acute exposure to CO and air toxics for forklift operators, equipment users or riders, national and state park attendants, and other people who may be at particular risk because they operate or work or are otherwise in close proximity to this equipment due to their occupation or as riders. Emissions from these vehicles and equipment can be very high on a perengine basis. In addition, the equipment using these engines ( especially forklifts) is often operated in enclosed areas. Similarly, exposure to CO and air toxics can be intensified for snowmobile riders who follow a group of other riders along a trail, since those riders are exposed to the emissions of all the other snowmobiles riding ahead. When the emission standards are fully implemented in 2030, we expect a 75­ percent reduction in HC emissions, 82­ percent reduction in NOX emissions, and 61­ percent reduction in CO emissions, and a 60­ percent reduction in direct PM emissions from these engines, equipment, and vehicles ( see Section IX below). These emission reductions will reduce ambient concentrations of CO, ozone, and PM fine; fine particles are a public health concern and contributes to visibility impairment. The standards will also reduce exposure for people who operate or who work with or are otherwise in close proximity to these engines and vehicles. We believe technology can be applied to these engines that will reduce emissions of these harmful pollutants. Manufacturers can reduce two­ stroke engine emissions by improving fuel management and calibration. This can be achieved by making improvements to carbureted fuel systems and/ or converting to electronic and direct fuel injection. In addition, many of the existing two­ stroke engines in these categories can be converted to fourstroke technology. Finally, there are modifications that can be made to fourstroke engines, often short of requiring catalysts, that can reduce emissions even further. 1. Health and Welfare Effects Exposure to CO, ground­ level ozone, and PM can cause serious respiratory problems, including premature mortality and respiratory problems. Fine PM has also been associated with cardiovascular problems, such as heart rate variability and fibrinogen ( a blood clotting factor) levels, and hospital admissions and mortality related to cardiovascular diseases. These emissions also contribute to other serious environmental problems, including visibility impairment and ecosystem damage. In addition, some of the HC pollutants emitted by these engines are air toxics. ( The health and welfare effects are described in more detail in the Final Regulatory Support Document.) CO enters the bloodstream through the lungs and reduces the delivery of oxygen to the body's organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly those with angina or peripheral vascular disease. Healthy individuals also are affected, but only at higher CO levels. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with impairment of visual perception, work capacity, manual dexterity, learning ability and performance of complex tasks. Exposures to ozone has been linked to increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems. 4 Repeated exposure to ozone can increase susceptibility to respiratory infection and lung inflammation. It can aggravate preexisting respiratory diseases, such as asthma. Prolonged ( 6 to 8 hours), repeated exposure to ozone can cause inflammation of the lung, impairment of lung defense mechanisms, and possibly irreversible changes in lung structure, which over time could lead to premature aging of the lungs and/ or chronic respiratory illnesses such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Children, the elderly, asthmatics and outdoor workers are most at risk from ozone exposure. Evidence also exists of a possible relationship between daily increases in ozone levels and increases in daily mortality levels. In addition to human health effects, ozone adversely affects crop yield, vegetation and forest growth, and the durability of materials. PM, like ozone, has been linked to a range of serious respiratory health problems. 5 The key health effects associated with ambient particulate matter include premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease ( as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, work loss days, and restricted activity days), aggravated asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult or painful breathing, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function that can be experienced as shortness of breath. Observable human non­ cancer health effects associated with exposure to diesel PM include some of the same health effects reported for ambient PM such as respiratory symptoms ( cough, labored breathing, chest tightness, wheezing), and chronic respiratory disease ( cough, phlegm, chronic bronchitis and suggestive evidence for decreases in pulmonary function). Symptoms of immunological effects such as wheezing and increased allergenicity are also seen. PM also causes adverse impacts to the environment. Fine PM is the major cause of reduced visibility in parts of the United States, including many of our national parks and in places where people live and work. Visibility effects are manifest in two principal ways: ( 1) as local impairment ( for example, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68246 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations localized hazes and plumes) and ( 2) as regional haze. The emissions from engines covered by this rule can contribute to both types of visibility impairment. The engines covered by this rule also emit air toxics that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or have serious non­ cancer health effects. These include benzene, 1,3­ butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein. 2. What Is the Inventory Contribution From the Nonroad Engines and Vehicles That Would Be Subject to This Rule? The contribution of emissions from the nonroad engines and vehicles that will be subject to this final rule to the national inventories of pollutants is considerable. To estimate nonroad engine and vehicle emission contributions, we used the latest version of our NONROAD emissions model, updated with information received during the public comment period. This model computes nationwide, state, and county emission levels for a wide variety of nonroad engines, and uses information on emission rates, operating data, and population to determine annual emission levels of various pollutants. A more detailed description of the model and our estimation methodology can be found in the Chapter 6 of the Final Regulatory Support Document. Baseline emission inventory estimates for the year 2000 for the categories of engines and vehicles covered by this rule are summarized in Table I. E 1. This table shows the relative contributions of the different mobile source categories to the overall national mobile source inventory. Of the total emissions from mobile sources, the categories of engines and vehicles covered by this rule contribute about 9 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent, and 2 percent of HC, NOX, CO, and PM emissions, respectively, in the year 2000. The results for Large SI engines indicate they contribute approximately 2 to 3 percent to HC, NOX, and CO emissions from mobile sources. The results for land­ based recreational engines reflect the impact of the significantly different emissions characteristics of two­ stroke engines. These engines are estimated to contribute about 6 percent of HC emissions and 2 percent of CO from mobile sources. Recreational marine diesel engines contribute less than 1 percent to NOX mobile source inventories. When only nonroad emissions are considered, the engines and vehicles that will be subject to the standards account for a larger share. Our draft emission projections for 2020 and 2030 for the nonroad engines and vehicles subject to this rule show that emissions from these categories are expected to increase over time if left uncontrolled. The projections for 2020 and 2030 are summarized in Tables I. E 2 and I. E 3, respectively. The projections for 2020 and 2030 indicate that the categories of engines and vehicles covered by this rule are expected to contribute approximately 25 percent, 10 percent, 5 percent, and 5 percent of mobile source HC, NOX, CO, and PM emissions, respectively, if left uncontrolled. Engine population growth and the effects of other regulatory control programs are factored into these projections. The relative importance of uncontrolled nonroad engines in 2020 and 2030 is higher than the projections for 2000 because there are already emission­ control programs in place for the other categories of mobile sources which are expected to reduce their emission levels. The effectiveness of all control programs is offset by the anticipated growth in engine populations. Regarding PM specifically, this information and information in Section I. 3( ii) below show that the engines being regulated in this rule, snowmobiles and other recreational vehicles in particular, contribute to PM concentrations that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare both because of the health effects associated with PM and because of the effects on visibility discussed below. TABLE I. E 1. MODELED ANNUAL EMISSION LEVELS FOR MOBILE SOURCE CATEGORIES IN 2000 [ Thousand short tons] Category NOX HC CO PM 1000 tons Percent of mobile source 1000 tons Percent of mobile source 1000 tons Percent of mobile source 1000 tons Percent of mobile source Total for engines subject to this final rule * ...... 351 2.6 645 8.8 2,860 3.8 14.6 2.1 Highway Motorcycles ....................................... 8 0.1 84 1.2 331 0.4 0.4 0.1 Nonroad Industrial SI > 19 kW* ........................ 308 2.3 226 3.1 1,734 2.3 1.6 0.2 Recreational SI* ............................................... 5 0.0 418 5.7 1,120 1.5 12.0 1.7 Recreational Marine Diesel* ............................ 38 0.3 1 0.0 6 0.0 1 0.1 Marine SI Evap ................................................ 0 0.0 100 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marine SI Exhaust ........................................... 32 0.2 708 9.7 2,144 2.8 38 5.4 Nonroad SI < 19 kW ......................................... 106 0.8 1,460 20.0 18,359 24.3 50 7.1 Nonroad diesel ................................................. 2,625 19.5 316 4.3 1,217 1.6 253 35.9 Commercial Marine Diesel ............................... 963 7.2 30 0.4 127 0.2 41 5.8 Locomotive ....................................................... 1,192 8.9 47 0.6 119 0.2 30 4.3 Total Nonroad .................................................. 5,269 39 3,305 45 24,826 33 427 60 Total Highway .................................................. 7,981 59 3,811 52 49,813 66 240 34 Aircraft .............................................................. 178 1 183 3 1,017 1 39 6 Total Mobile Sources ....................................... 13,428 100 7,300 100 75,656 100 706 100 Total Man­ Made Sources ................................ 24,532 ................ 18,246 ................ 97,735 ................ 3,102 ................ Mobile Source percent of Total Man­ Made Sources ........................................................ 55 ................ 40 ................ 77 ................ 23 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68247 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE I. E 2. MODELED ANNUAL BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS FOR MOBILE SOURCE CATEGORIES IN 2020 [ thousand short tons] Category NOX HC CO PM 1000 tons Percent of mobile source 1000 tons Percent of mobile source 1000 tons Percent of mobile source 1000 tons Percent of mobile source Total for engines subject to this final rule* ...... 547 8.8 1,305 24.1 4,866 5.6 34.1 5.2 Highway Motorcycles ....................................... 14 0.2 142 2.6 572 0.7 0.8 0.1 Nonroad Industrial SI > 19 kW* ....................... 472 7.6 318 5.9 2,336 2.7 2.3 0.4 Recreational SI* ............................................... 14 0.2 985 18.2 2,521 2.9 30.2 4.6 Recreational Marine Diesel* ............................ 61 1.0 2 0.0 9 0.0 1.6 0.2 Marine SI Evap ................................................ 0 0.0 114 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marine SI Exhaust ........................................... 58 0.9 284 5.2 1,985 2.3 28 4.3 Nonroad SI < 19 Kw ........................................ 106 1.7 986 18.2 27,352 31.7 77 11.8 Nonroad Diesel ................................................ 1,791 28.8 142 2.6 1,462 1.7 261 40.0 Commercial Marine Diesel ............................... 819 13.2 35 0.6 160 0.2 46 7.0 Locomotive ....................................................... 611 9.8 35 0.6 119 0.1 21 3.2 Total Nonroad .................................................. 3,932 63 2,901 54 35,944 42 467 71 Total Highway .................................................. 2,050 33 2,276 42 48,906 56 145 22 Aircraft .............................................................. 232 4 238 4 1,387 2 43 7 Total Mobile Sources ....................................... 6,214 100 5,415 100 86,237 100 655 100 Total Man­ Made Sources ................................ 16,190 ................ 15,475 ................ 109,905 ................ 3,039 ................ Mobile Source percent of Total Man­ Made Sources ........................................................ 38 ................ 35 ................ 79 ................ 22 ................ TABLE I. E 3. MODELED ANNUAL EMISSION LEVELS FOR MOBILE SOURCE CATEGORIES IN 2030 [ Thousand short tons] Category NOX HC CO PM 1000 tons Percent of mobile source 1000 tons Percent of mobile source 1000 tons Percent of mobile source 1000 tons Percent of mobile source Total for engines subject to this final rule* ...... 640 10.0 1,411 23.5 5,363 5.4 36.5 4.8 Highway Motorcycles ....................................... 17 0.3 172 2.9 693 0.7 1.0 0.1 Nonroad Industrial SI > 19 kW* ....................... 553 8.6 371 6.2 2,703 2.7 2.7 0.4 Recreational SI* ............................................... 15 0.2 1,038 17.3 2,649 2.7 31.9 4.2 Recreational Marine Diesel* ............................ 72 1.1 2 0.0 11 0.0 1.9 0.3 Marine SI Evap ................................................ 0 0.0 122 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Marine SI Exhaust ........................................... 64 1.0 269 4.5 2,083 2.1 29 3.8 Nonroad SI < 19 kW ........................................ 126 2.0 1,200 20.0 32,310 32.4 93 12.3 Nonroad Diesel ................................................ 1,994 31.0 158 2.6 1,727 1.7 306 40.4 Commercial Marine Diesel ............................... 1,166 18.1 52 0.9 198 0.2 74 9.8 Locomotive ....................................................... 531 8.3 30 0.5 119 0.1 18 2.4 Total Nonroad .................................................. 4,521 70 3,242 54 41,800 42 557 74 Total Highway .................................................. 1,648 26 2,496 42 56,303 56 158 21 Aircraft .............................................................. 262 4 262 4 1,502 2 43 6 Total Mobile Sources ....................................... 6,431 100 6,000 100 99,605 100 758 100 Total Man­ Made Sources ................................ 16,639 17,020 123,983 3,319 Mobile Source percent of Total Man­ Made Sources ........................................................ 39 35 80 23 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68248 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 6 Likewise, Large SI equipment and recreational marine diesel engines also contribute to CO in nonattainment areas. 7 There are important reasons to focus on redesignation status, as compared to just current air quality. Areas with a few years of attainment data can and often do have exceedances following such years of attainment because of several factors including different climatic events during the later years, increases in inventories, etc. Control of emissions from nonroad engines can help to avoid potential future air quality problems. 8 Draft Anchorage Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventory and Year 2000 Attainment Projections, Air Quality Program, May 2001, Docket Number A 2000 01, Document II A 40; Draft Fairbanks 1995 2001 Carbon Monoxide Emissions Inventory, June 1, 2001, Docket Number A 2000 01, Document II A 39. 9 National Research Council. The Ongoing Challenge of Managing Carbon Monoxide Pollution in Fairbanks, AK. May 2002. Docket A 2000 01, Document No. IV A 115. 10 National Research Council. The Ongoing Challenge of Managing Carbon Monoxide Pollution in Fairbanks, AK. May 2002. Docket A 2000 01, Document IV A 115. 3. Why are Controls to Protect against CO Nonattainment and to Protect Visibility Needed From the Nonroad Engines and Vehicles That Would Be Subject to This Rule? i. Why are We Controlling CO Emissions from Nonroad Engines and Vehicles that Would be Subject to this Rule? Engines subject to this rule contributed about 3.8 percent of CO from mobile sources in 2000. Over 22.4 million people currently live in the 13 nonattainment areas for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS). Industry association comments questioned the need for CO control and snowmobile contribution, in particular. First, the statute envisions that categories should be considered in determining contribution because otherwise, it would be possible to continue to arbitrarily divide subcategories until the contribution from any subcategory becomes minimal while the cumulative effect of the air pollution remains. EPA previously determined that the category of Large SI engines and recreational vehicles cause or contribute to ambient CO and ozone in more than one nonattainment area ( 65 FR 76790, December 7, 2000). EPA also examined recreational vehicles separately and found that recreational vehicles subject to this rule contribute to CO nonattainment in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Anchorage, and Las Vegas ( see RSD chapter 2). Thus, if considered as a category, recreational vehicles contribute to CO nonattainment. 6 Moreover, when we examined snowmobiles separately, they met the contribution criteria. The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association ( ISMA) stated in its public comments that snowmobiles in particular are not operated in many of the CO nonattainment areas because of lack of snow ( although they may be stored in those areas). The commenters also contended that northern areas have experienced improved CO air quality. Many areas are making progress in improving their air quality. However, an area cannot be redesignated to attainment until it can show EPA that it has had air quality levels within the level required for attainment and that it has a plan in place to maintain such levels. Until areas have been redesignated, they remain nonattainment areas. 7 Snowmobiles contribute to CO nonattainment in more than one of these areas. Snowmobiles have relatively high per­ engine CO emissions, and they can be a significant source of ambient CO levels in CO nonattainment areas. Despite the fact that snowmobiles are largely banned in CO nonattainment areas by the state of Alaska, the state estimated ( and a National Research Council study confirmed) that snowmobiles contributed 0.3 tons/ day in 2001 to Fairbanks' CO nonattainment area or 1.2 percent of a total inventory of 23.3 tons per day in 2001.8,9 While Fairbanks has made significant progress in reducing ambient CO concentrations, existing climate conditions make achieving and maintaining attainment challenging. Anchorage, AK, reports a similar contribution of snowmobiles to their emissions inventories ( 0.34 tons per day in 2000). Furthermore, a recent National Academy of Sciences report concludes that `` Fairbanks will be susceptible to violating the CO health standards for many years because of its severe meteorological conditions. That point is underscored by a December 2001 exceedance of the standard in Anchorage which had no violations over the last 3 years.'' 10 ISMA commented that it agreed with EPA that there is a snowmobile trail within the Spokane, WA, CO nonattainment area, although they noted that snowmobile operation alone would not result in CO nonattainment. However, emissions from regulated categories need only contribute to, not themselves cause, nonattainment. Concentrations of NAAQS­ related pollutants are by definition a result of multiple sources of pollution. Several states that contain CO nonattainment areas also have large populations of registered snowmobiles and nearby snowmobile trails in adjoining counties, which are an indication of where they are operated ( see Table I. E 4). EPA requested comment on the volume and nature of snowmobile use in these and other CO nonattainment areas. ISMA commented on the proximity of trails to northern CO nonattainment areas, assuming that snowmobiles are operated only on trails. A search of the available literature indicates that snowmobiles are ridden in areas other than trails. For example, a 1998 report by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources indicates that from 1993 to 1997, of the 146 snowmobile fatalities studied, 46 percent occurred on a state or county roadway ( another 2 percent on roadway shoulders) and 27 percent occurred on private lands. Furthermore, accident reports in CO nonattainment area Fairbanks, AK, demonstrate that snowmobiles driven on streets have collided with motor vehicles. On certain days there may be concentrations of snowmobiles operated in nonattainment areas due to public events such as snowmachine races ( such as the Iron Dog Gold Rush Classic, which finishes in Fairbanks, AK), during which snowmobiles will be present and operated. TABLE I. E 4. SNOWMOBILE USE IN SELECTED CO NONATTAINMENT AREAS City and state CO nonattainment classification 2001 State snowmobile populationa Anchorage, AK Fairbanks, AK ........................................................................................... Serious ................................................................... b 35576 Spokane, WA ............................................................................................ Serious ................................................................... 31532 Fort Collins, CO ........................................................................................ Moderate ................................................................ 32500 Medford, OR ............................................................................................. Moderate ................................................................ 16809 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68249 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 11 Technical Memorandum to Docket A 2000 01 from Drew Kodjak, Attorney­ Advisor, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, `` Air Quality Information for Selected CO Nonattainment Areas,'' July 27, 2001, Docket Number A 2000 01, Document Number II B 18. 12 Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide, U. S. EPA, EPA 600/ P 99/ 001F, June 2000, at 3 38, Figure 3 32 ( Federal Bldg, AIRS Site 020900002). Air Docket A 2000 01, Document Number II A 29. This document is also available at http:// www. epa. gov/ ncea/ coabstract. htm. 13 National Research Council, 1993. Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. This document is available on the internet at http:// www. nap. edu/ books/ 0309048443/ html/. See also U. S. EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter ( 1996) and Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. These documents can be found in Docket A 99 06, Documents No. II A 23 and IV A 130 32. 14 Visual range can be defined as the maximum distance at which one can identify a black object against the horizon sky. It is typically described in miles or kilometers. Light extinction is the sum of light scattering and absorption by particles and gases in the atmosphere. It is typically expressed in terms of inverse megameters ( Mm­ 1), with larger values representing worse visibility. The deciview metric describes perceived visual changes in a linear fashion over its entire range, analogous to the decibel scale for sound. A deciview of 0 represents pristine conditions. Under many scenic conditions, a change of 1 deciview is considered perceptible by the average person. TABLE I. E 4. SNOWMOBILE USE IN SELECTED CO NONATTAINMENT AREAS Continued City and state CO nonattainment classification 2001 State snowmobile populationa Missoula, MT ............................................................................................ Moderate ................................................................ 23440 a Source: ISMA U. S. Snowmobile Registration History, May 15, 2001; various studies prepared for state snowmobile associations included in Docket A 2000 01. b Point of sale registration was not mandatory in Alaska prior to 1998, so the statewide registered population is likely to underestimate the total population. Exceedances of the 8­ hour CO standard were recorded in three of seven CO nonattainment areas located in the northern portion of the country over the five year period from 1994 to 1999: Fairbanks, AK; Medford, OR; and Spokane, WA. 11 Given the variability in CO ambient concentrations due to weather patterns such as inversions, the absence of recent exceedances for some of these nonattainment areas should not be viewed as eliminating the need for further reductions to consistently attain and maintain the standard. A review of CO monitor data in Fairbanks from 1986 to 1995 shows that while median concentrations have declined steadily, unusual combinations of weather and emissions have resulted in elevated ambient CO concentrations well above the 8­ hour standard of 9 ppm. Specifically, a Fairbanks monitor recorded average 8­ hour ambient concentrations at 16 ppm in 1988, around 9 ppm from 1990 to 1992, and then a steady increase in CO ambient concentrations at 12, 14 and 16 ppm during some extreme cases in 1993, 1994 and 1995, respectively. 12 In addition, there are 6 areas that have not been classified as nonattainment where air quality monitoring indicated a need for CO control. For example, CO monitors in northern locations such as Des Moines, IA, and Weirton, WV/ Steubenville, OH, registered levels above the level of the CO standards in 1998. ii. Why are Controls Needed From the Nonroad Engines and Vehicles That Would Be Subject to this Rule to Protect Visibility? ( 1) Visibility is Impaired by Fine PM and Precursor Emissions From Nonroad Engines and Vehicles That Would Be Subject to This Rule. Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is transparent to visible light. 13 Visibility degradation is an easily noticeable effect of fine PM present in the atmosphere, and fine PM is the major cause of reduced visibility in parts of the United States, including many of our national parks and in places across the country where people live, work, and recreate. Fine particles with significant light­ extinction efficiencies include organic matter, sulfates, nitrates, elemental carbon ( soot), and soil. Visibility is an important effect because it has direct significance to people's enjoyment of daily activities in all parts of the country. Individuals value good visibility for the well­ being it provides them directly, both in where they live and work, and in places where they enjoy recreational opportunities. Visibility is highly valued in significant natural areas such as national parks and wilderness areas, because of the special emphasis given to protecting these lands now and for future generations. To quantify changes in visibility, we compute a light­ extinction coefficient, which shows the total fraction of light that is decreased per unit distance. Visibility can be described in terms of PM concentrations, visual range, light extinction or deciview. 14 In addition to limiting the distance that one can see, the scattering and absorption of light caused by air pollution can also degrade the color, clarity, and contrast of scenes. Visibility effects are manifest in two main ways: as local impairment ( for example, localized hazes and plumes) and as regional haze. In addition, visibility impairment has a time dimension in that it might relate to a short­ term excursion or to longer periods ( for example, worst 20 percent of days or annual average levels). Local­ scale visibility degradation is commonly seen as a plume resulting from the emissions of a specific source or small group of sources, or it is in the form of a localized haze such as an urban `` brown cloud.'' Plumes are comprised of smoke, dust, or colored gas that obscure the sky or horizon relatively near sources. Impairment caused by a specific source or small group of sources has been generally termed as `` reasonably attributable.'' The second type of impairment, regional haze, results from pollutant emissions from a multitude of sources located across a broad geographic region. It impairs visibility in every direction over a large area, in some cases over multi­ state regions. Regional haze masks objects on the horizon and reduces the contrast of nearby objects. The formation, extent, and intensity of regional haze is a function of meteorological and chemical processes, which sometimes cause fine particulate loadings to remain suspended in the atmosphere for several days and to be transported hundreds of kilometers from their sources. On an annual average basis, the concentrations of non­ anthropogenic fine PM are generally small when compared with concentrations of fine particles from anthropogenic sources. Anthropogenic contributions account for about one­ third of the average extinction coefficient in the rural West and more than 80 percent in the rural East. Because of significant differences related to visibility conditions in the eastern and western U. S., we present information about visibility by region. Furthermore, it is important to note that even in those areas with relatively low VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68250 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 15 Memorandum to Docket A 99 06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, `` Summary of 1999 Ambient Concentrations of Fine Particulate Matter,'' November 15, 2000. Air Docket A 2000 01, Document No. II B 12. 16 These populations would obviously also be exposed to PM concentrations associated with the adverse health impacts related to PM2.5. 17 Additional information about the Regulatory Model System for Aerosols and Deposition ( REMSAD) and our modeling protocols can be found in our Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy­ Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, document EPA420 R 00 026, December 2000. Docket No. A 2000 01, Document No. A II 13. This document is also available at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ disel. htm# documents. 18 Technical Memorandum, EPA Air Docket A 99 06, Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, OAQPS, Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model­ Adjusted Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years, December 6, 2000, Table P 2. Docket Number 2000 01, Document Number II B 14. concentrations of anthropogenic fine particles, such as the Colorado plateau, small increases in anthropogenic fine particle concentrations can lead to significant decreases in visual range. This is one of the reasons Class I areas have been given special consideration under the Clean Air Act. Nonroad engines that are subject to this final rule contribute to ambient fine PM levels in two ways. First, they contribute through direct emissions of fine PM. As shown in Table I. E 1, these engines emitted 14,600 tons of PM ( over 2 percent of all mobile source PM) in 2000. Second, these engines contribute to indirect formation of PM through their emissions of gaseous precursors which are then transformed in the atmosphere into particles. For example, these engines emitted over 8 percent of the HC tons from mobile sources. Furthermore, recreational vehicles, such as snowmobiles and all­ terrain vehicles emit high levels of organic carbon ( as HC) on a per­ engine basis. Some organic emissions are transformed into particles in the atmosphere and other volatile organics can condense if emitted in cold temperatures, as is the case for emissions from snowmobiles, for example. Organic carbon accounts for between 27 and 36 percent of ambient fine particle mass depending on the area of the country. ( A) Visibility Impairment Where People Live, Work and Recreate The secondary PM NAAQS is designed to protect against adverse welfare effects such as visibility impairment. In 1997, the secondary PM NAAQS was set as equal to the primary ( health­ based) PM NAAQS ( 62 Federal Register No. 138, July 18, 1997). EPA concluded that PM can and does produce adverse effects on visibility in various locations, depending on PM concentrations and factors such as chemical composition and average relative humidity. In 1997, EPA demonstrated that visibility impairment is an important effect on public welfare and that visibility impairment is experienced throughout the U. S., in multi­ state regions, urban areas, and remote Federal Class I areas. In many cities having annual mean PM2.5 concentrations exceeding 17 µ g/ m3, improvements in annual average visibility resulting from the attainment of the annual PM2.5 standard are expected to be perceptible to the general population ( e. g., to exceed 1 deciview). Based on annual mean monitored PM2.5 data, many cities in the Northeast, Midwest, and Southeast as well as Los Angeles would be expected to experience perceptible improvements in visibility if the PM2.5 annual standard were attained. For example, in Washington, DC, where the IMPROVE monitoring network shows annual mean PM2.5 concentrations at about 19 µ g/ m3 during the period of 1992 to 1995, approximate annual average visibility would be expected to improve from 21 km ( 29 deciview) to 27 km ( 27 deciview), a change of 2 deciviews. The PM2.5 annual average in Washington, DC, was 18.9 µ g/ m3 in 2000. The updated monitored data and air quality modeling presented in the RSD confirm that the visibility situation identified during the NAAQS review in 1997 is still likely to exist. Thus, the determination in the NAAQS rulemaking about broad visibility impairment and related benefits from NAAQS compliance are still relevant. Levels above the fine PM NAAQS cause adverse welfare impacts, such as visibility impairment ( both regional and localized impairment). Furthermore, in setting the PM NAAQS, EPA acknowledged that levels of fine particles below the NAAQS may also contribute to unacceptable visibility impairment and regional haze problems in some areas, and Clean Air Act Section 169 provides additional authorities to remedy existing impairment and prevent future impairment in the 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas labeled as Class I areas. In making determinations about the level of protection afforded by the secondary PM NAAQS, EPA considered how the Section 169 regional haze program and the secondary NAAQS would function together. Regional strategies are expected to improve visibility in many urban and non­ Class I areas as well. The following recommendation for the National Research Council, Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas ( 1993), addresses this point: Efforts to improve visibility in Class I areas also would benefit visibility outside these areas. Because most visibility impairment is regional in scale, the same haze that degrades visibility within or looking out from a national park also degrade visibility outside it. The 1999 2000 PM2.5 monitored values, which cover about a third of the nation's counties, indicate that at least 82 million people live in areas where long­ term ambient fine particulate matter levels are at or above 15 µ g/ m3.15 Thus, these populations ( plus those who travel to those areas) could be experiencing visibility impairment that is unacceptable, and emissions of PM and its precursors from engines in these categories contribute to this unacceptable impairment. 16 Because the chemical composition of the PM affects visibility impairment, we used EPA's Regulatory Model System for Aerosols and Deposition ( REMSAD) 17 model to project visibility conditions in 2030 accounting for the chemical composition of the particles and to estimate visibility impairment directly as changes in deciview. Our projections included anticipated emissions from the engines subject to this rule, and although our emission predictions reflected our best estimates of emissions projections at the time the modeling was conducted, we now have new estimates, as discussed in the RSD Chapter 1. Based on public comment for this rule and new information, we have revised our emissions estimates in some categories downwards and other categories upwards; however, on net, we believe the modeling underestimates the PM air quality levels that would have been predicted if new inventories were used. The most reliable information about the future visibility levels would be in areas for which monitoring data are available to evaluate model performance for a base year ( e. g., 1996). Accordingly, we predicted that in 2030, 49 percent of the population will be living in areas where fine PM levels are above 15 µ g/ m3 and monitors are available. 18 This can be compared with the 1996 level of 37 percent of the population living in areas where fine PM levels are above 15 µ g/ m3 and monitors are available. Thus, a substantial percent of the population would experience unacceptable visibility impairment in areas where they live, work and recreate. As shown in Table I. E 5, in 2030, we expect visibility in the East to be about VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68251 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 19 Memo to file from Terence Fitz­ Simons, OAQPS, Scott Mathias, OAQPS, Mike Rizzo, Region 5, `` Analyses of 1999 PM Data for the PM NAAQS Review,'' November 17, 2000, with attachment B, 1999 PM2.5 Annual Mean and 98th Percentile 24­ Hour Average Concentrations. Docket No. A 2000 01, Document No. II B 17. 20 This information also shows that snowmobiles contribute to concentrations of fine PM that are above the primary health­ related NAAQS, which indicates that emissions from snowmobiles also contribute to primary and secondary PM pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. 21 Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment for Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA 452\ R 96 013, July, 1996, at IV 7. This document is available from Docket A 99 06, Document II A 23. 19 deciviews ( or visual range of 60 kilometers) on average, with poorer visibility in urban areas, compared to the visibility conditions without manmade pollution of 9.5 deciviews ( or visual range of 150 kilometers). Likewise, we expect visibility in the West to be about 9.5 deciviews ( or visual range of 150 kilometers) in 2030, compared to the visibility conditions without man­ made pollution of 5.3 deciviews ( or visual range of 230 kilometers). Nonroad engines contribute significantly to these effects. As shown in Tables I. E 1 through I. E 3, nonroad engines emissions contribute a large portion of the total PM emissions from mobile sources and anthropogenic sources, in general. These emissions occur in and around areas with PM levels above the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The engines subject to the final rule will contribute to these effects. They are estimated to emit 36,500 tons of direct PM in 2030, which is 1.1 percent of the total anthropogenic PM emissions in 2030. Similarly, for PM precursors, the engines subject to this rule will emit 640,000 tons of NOX and 1,411,000 tons HC in 2030, which are 3.8 and 8.3 percent of the total anthropogenic NOX and HC emissions, respectively, in 2030. Recreational vehicles in particular contribute to these levels. In Table I. E 1 through I. E 3, we show that recreational vehicles emitted about 1.7 percent of mobile source PM emissions in 2000. Similarly, recreational vehicles are modeled to emit over 4 percent of mobile source PM in 2020 and 2030. Thus, the emissions from these sources contribute to the visibility impairment modeled for 2030 summarized in the table. Furthermore, for 20 counties across nine states, snowmobile trails are found within or near counties that registered ambient PM2.5 concentrations at or above 15 µ g/ m3, the level of the PM2.5 NAAQS. 19 Fine particles may remain suspended for days or weeks and travel hundreds to thousands of kilometers, and thus fine particles emitted or created in one county may contribute to ambient concentrations in a neighboring county. 20, 21 TABLE I. E 5 SUMMARY OF 2030 NATIONAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS BASED ON REMSAD MODELING [ Deciviews] Regions a Predicted 2030 visibility b ( annual average Natural background visibility Eastern U. S. ....... 18.98 9.5 Urban 20.48 Rural .. 18.38 Western U. S. ....... 9.54 5.3 Urban 10.21 Rural .. 9.39 a Eastern and Western Regions are separated by 100 degrees north longitude. Background visibility conditions differ by region. b The results incorporate earlier emissions estimates from the engines subject to this rule, as discussed in the Final Regulatory Support Document. We have revised our estimates both upwards for some categories and downwards for others based on public comment and updated information; however, we believe that the net results would underestimate future PM emissions. ( B) Visibility Impairment in Class I Areas The Clean Air Act establishes special goals for improving visibility in many national parks, wilderness areas, and international parks. In the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress set as a national goal for visibility the `` prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution'' ( CAA section 169A( a)( 1)). The Amendments called for EPA to issue regulations requiring States to develop implementation plans that assure `` reasonable progress'' toward meeting the national goal ( CAA Section 169A( a)( 4)). EPA issued regulations in 1980 to address visibility problems that are `` reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, but deferred action on regulations related to regional haze, a type of visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants by numerous emission sources located across a broad geographic region. At that time, EPA acknowledged that the regulations were only the first phase for addressing visibility impairment. Regulations dealing with regional haze were deferred until improved techniques were developed for monitoring, for air quality modeling, and for understanding the specific pollutants contributing to regional haze. In the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, Congress provided additional emphasis on regional haze issues ( see CAA section 169B). In 1999 EPA finalized a rule that calls for States to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility in all 156 mandatory Class I national parks and wilderness areas. In this rule, EPA established a `` natural visibility'' goal. In that rule, EPA also encouraged the States to work together in developing and implementing their air quality plans. The regional haze program is focused on long­ term emissions decreases from the entire regional emissions inventory comprised of major and minor stationary sources, area sources and mobile sources. The regional haze program is designed to improve visibility and air quality in our most treasured natural areas from these broad sources. At the same time, control strategies designed to improve visibility in the national parks and wilderness areas will improve visibility over broad geographic areas. In the 1997 PM NAAQS rulemaking, EPA also anticipated the need in addition to the NAAQS and Section 169 regional haze program to continue to address localized impairment that may relate to unique circumstances in some Western areas. For mobile sources, there is a need for a Federal role in reduction of those emissions, particularly because mobile source vehicles are regulated primarily at the federal level. Visibility impairment is caused by pollutants ( mostly fine particles and precursor gases) directly emitted to the atmosphere by several activities ( such as electric power generation, various industry and manufacturing processes, truck and auto emissions, construction activities, etc.). These gases and particles scatter and absorb light, removing it from the sight path and creating a hazy condition. Visibility impairment is caused by both regional haze and localized impairment. As described above, regional haze is caused VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 10 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68252 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 22 U. S. EPA Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA 452/ R 96 013. 1996. Docket Number A 99 06, Documents Nos. II A 18, 19, 20, and 23. The particulate matter air quality criteria documents are also available at http:// www. epa. gov/ ncea/ partmatt. htm. 23 In a recent case, American Corn Growers Association v. EPA, 291 F. 3d 1 ( D. C. Cir 2002), the court vacated the BART provisions of the Regional Haze rule, but the court denied industry's challenge to EPA's requirement that state's SIPs provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions in national parks and wilderness areas and the `` no degradation'' requirement. Industry did not challenge requirements to improve visibility on the haziest 20 percent of days. A copy of this decision can be found in Docket A 2000 01, Document IV A 113. 24 The results incorporate earlier emissions estimates from the engines subject to this rule, as discussed in the Final Regulatory Support Document. We have revised our estimates both upwards for some categories and downwards for others based on public comment and updated information; however, we believe that the net results would underestimate future PM emissions. 25 No data were available at five additional parks where snowmobiles are also commonly used: Black Canyon of the Gunnison, CO, Grand Teton, WY, Northern Cascades, WA, Theodore Roosevelt, ND, and Zion, UT. 26 Letter from Debra C. Miller, Data Analyst, National Park Service, to Drew Kodjak, August 22, 2001. Docket No. A 2000 01, Document Number II B 28. by the emission from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area. 22 Because of evidence that fine particles are frequently transported hundreds of miles, all 50 states, including those that do not have Class I areas, participate in planning, analysis, and, in many cases, emission control programs under the regional haze regulations. Even though a given State may not have any Class I areas, pollution that occurs in that State may contribute to impairment in Class I areas elsewhere. The rule encourages states to work together to determine whether or how much emissions from sources in a given state affect visibility in a downwind Class I area. The regional haze program calls for states to establish goals for improving visibility in national parks and wilderness areas to improve visibility on the haziest 20 percent of days and to ensure that no degradation occurs on the clearest 20 percent of days ( 64 FR 35722. July 1, 1999). The rule requires states to develop long­ term strategies including enforceable measures designed to meet reasonable progress goals toward natural visibility conditions. Under the regional haze program, States can take credit for improvements in air quality achieved as a result of other Clean Air Act programs, including national mobile source programs. 23 In the PM air quality modeling described above, we also modeled visibility conditions in the Class I areas, and we summarize the results by region in Table I. E 6. TABLE I. E 6 SUMMARY OF 2030 VISIBILITY CONDITIONS IN CLASS I AREAS BASED ON REMSAD MODELING [ Annual Average Deciview] Region a Predicted 2030 visibility b Natural background visibility Eastern ........................ 9.5 Southeast ................................................................................................................................................................. 25.02 ........................ Northeast/ Midwest ................................................................................................................................................... 21.00 ........................ Western ........................ 5.3 Southwest ................................................................................................................................................................ 8.69 ........................ California .................................................................................................................................................................. 11.61 ........................ Rocky Mountain ....................................................................................................................................................... 12.30 ........................ Northwest ................................................................................................................................................................. 15.44 ........................ National Class I Area Average ......................................................................................................................... 14.04 ........................ a Regions are depicted in Figure VI 5 in the Regulatory Support Document for the highway Heavy Duty Engine/ Diesel Fuel RIA ( EPA 420 R 00 026, December 2000.) Background visibility conditions differ by region: Eastern natural background is 9.5 deciviews ( or visual range of 150 kilometers) and in the West natural background is 5.3 deciviews ( or visual range of 230 kilometers). b The results incorporate earlier emissions estimates from the engines subject to this rule, as discussed in the Final Regulatory Support Document We have revised our estimates both upwards for some categories and downwards for others based on public comment and updated information however, we believe that the net results underestimate future PM emissions. Nonroad engines represent a sizeable portion of the total inventory of anthropogenic emissions related to PM2.5, as shown in the tables above. Numerous types of nonroad engines may operate near Class I areas ( e. g., mining equipment, recreational vehicles, and agricultural equipment). We have reviewed contributions from snowmobile in particular. Emissions from nonroad engines, in particular snowmobiles, contribute significantly to visibility impairment in Class I areas. 24 Visibility and PM monitoring data are available for eight Class I areas where snowmobiles are commonly used. These are: Acadia, Boundary Waters, Denali, Mount Rainier, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Voyageurs, and Yellowstone. 25 Fine particle monitoring data for these parks are set out in Table I. E 7. This table shows the number of monitored days in the winter that fell within the 20­ percent worst visibility days for each of these eight parks. Monitors collect data 2 days a week for a total of about 104 days of monitored values. Thus, for a particular site, a maximum of 21 worst possible days of these 104 days with monitored values constitute the set of 20­ percent worst visibility days during a year which are tracked as the primary focus of regulatory efforts. 26 With the exception of Denali in Alaska, we defined the snowmobile season as January 1 through March 15 and December 15 through December 31 of the same calendar year, consistent with the methodology used in the Regional Haze Rule, which is calendar­ year based. For Denali in Alaska, the snowmobile season is October 1 to April 30. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68253 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 27 Letter from Debra C. Miller, Data Analyst, National Park Service, to Drew Kodjak, August 22, 2001. Docket No. A 2000 01, Document Number II B 28. 28 See Chapter 1 in the RSD for a discussion or U. S. EPA Technical Support Document for Heavyduty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements Air Quality Modeling Analyses December 2000. Docket No. A 2000 01, Docket Number IV A 218. This document is also avaiable at www. epa. gov/ otaq/ hdmodels. htm. TABLE I. E 7 WINTER DAYS THAT FALL WITHIN THE 20 PERCENT WORST VISIBILITY DAYS AT NATIONAL PARKS USED BY SNOWMOBILES NPS unit States Number of sampled wintertime days within 20 percent worst visibility days ( maximum of 21 out of 104 monitored days) 1996 1997 1998 1999 Acadia NP .................................................................................. ME ........................................... 4 4 2 1 Denali NP and Preserve ............................................................ AK ............................................ 10 10 12 9 Mount Rainier NP ...................................................................... WA ........................................... 1 3 1 1 Rocky Mountain NP ................................................................... CO ........................................... 2 1 2 1 Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP ................................................. CA ............................................ 4 9 1 8 Voyageurs NP ( 1989 1992) ...................................................... MN ........................................... 1989 1990 1991 1992 3 4 6 8 Boundary Waters USFS Wilderness Area ( close to Voyaguers with recent data). MN ........................................... 2 5 1 5 Yellowstone NP ......................................................................... ID, MT, WY .............................. 0 2 0 0 Source: Letter from Debra C. Miller, Data Analyst, National Park Service, to Drew Kodjak, August 22, 2001. Docket No. A 2000 01, Document Number II B 28. According to the National Park Service, ``[ s] ignificant differences in haziness occur at all eight sites between the averages of the clearest and haziest days. Differences in mean standard visual range on the clearest and haziest days fall in the approximate range of 115 170 km.'' 27 We examined future air quality predictions to whether the emissions from recreational vehicles, such as snowmobiles, contribute to regional visibility impairment in Class I areas. We present results from the future air quality modeling described above for these Class I areas in addition to inventory and air quality measurements. Specifically, in Table I. E 8, we summarize the expected future visibility conditions in these areas without these regulations. TABLE I. E 8 ESTIMATED 2030 VISIBILITY IN SELECTED CLASS I AREAS a, b Class I area County State Predicted 2030 visibility ( annual average deciview) Natural background visibility ( annual average deciview) Eastern areas .......................................... .......................................... ........................ 9.5 Acadia ......................................................................... Hancock Co ..................... ME .................................... 23.42 ........................ Boundary Waters ........................................................ St. Louis Co ..................... MN ................................... 22.07 ........................ Voyageurs ................................................................... St. Louis Co ..................... MN ................................... 22.07 ........................ Western areas .......................................... .......................................... ........................ 5.3 Grand Teton NP ......................................................... Teton Co .......................... WY ................................... 11.97 ........................ Kings Canyon ............................................................. Fresno Co ........................ CA .................................... 10.39 ........................ Mount Rainier ............................................................. Lewis Co .......................... WA ................................... 16.19 ........................ Rocky Mountain .......................................................... Larimer Co ....................... CO .................................... 8.11 ........................ Sequoia­ Kings ............................................................. Tulare Co ......................... CA .................................... 9.36 ........................ Yellowstone ................................................................. Teton Co .......................... WY ................................... 11.97 ........................ a Natural background visibility conditions differ by region because of differences in factors such as relative humidity: Eastern natural background is 9.5 deciviews ( or visual range of 150 kilometers) and in the West natural background is 5.3 deciviews ( or visual range of 230 kilometers b The results incorporate earlier emissions estimates from the engines subject to this rule. We have revised our estimates both upwards for some categories and downwards for others based on public comment and updated information; however, on net, we believe that HD07 analyses would underestimate future PM emissions from these categories. The information presented in Table I. E 7 shows that visibility data support a conclusion that there are at least 8 Class I Areas ( 7 national parks and one wilderness area) frequented by snowmobiles with one or more wintertime days within the 20­ percent worst visibility days of the year, and in many cases several days. For example, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado was frequented by about 27,000 snowmobiles during the 1998 1999 winter. Of the monitored days characterized as within the 20­ percent worst visibility monitored days, 2 of those days occurred during the wintertime when snowmobile emissions such as hydrocarbons contributed to visibility impairment. The information in Table I. E 8 shows that these areas also are predicted to have high annual average deciview levels in the future. Emissions from snowmobiles and other recreational vehicles, as well as other nonroad engines contributed to these levels. 28 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68254 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 29 Letter from Debra C. Miller, Data Analyst, National Park Service, to Drew Kodjak, August 22, 2001. Docket No. A 2000 01, Document Number II B 28. 30 Emissions of NOX from snowmobiles contribute to the total amount of particulate nitrate, although the total NOX emissions from snowmobiles are considerably less than HC or direct PM emissions from these engines. 31 Technical Memorandum, Aaron Worstell, Environmental Engineer, National Park Service, Air Resources Division, Denver, Colorado, particularly Table 1. Docket No. A 2000 01, Document Number II G 178. 32 Memo to Docket, Mike Samulski. `` Hydrocarbon Measurements as an Indicator for Particulate Matter Emissions in Snowmobiles,'' with attachments. September 6, 2002, Docket A 2000 01; Document No. IV B 42. Ambient concentrations of fine particles are the primary pollutant responsible for visibility impairment. The classes of fine particles principally responsible for visibility impairment are sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon particles, elemental carbon, and crustal material. Hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles, trucks, snowmobiles, and other industrial processes are common sources of organic carbon. The organic carbon fraction of fine particles ranges from 47 percent in Western areas such as Denali National Park, to 28 percent in Rocky Mountain National Park, to 13 percent in Acadia National Park. 29 In the winter months, HC emissions from snowmobiles can be significant, and these HC emissions can be more than half of the organic carbon fraction of fine particles which are largely responsible for visibility impairment. In Yellowstone, a park with high snowmobile usage during the winter months, snowmobile HC emissions can exceed 500 tons per year, as much as several large stationary sources. 30 Other parks with less snowmobile traffic are also impacted although to a lesser extent by these HC emissions. 31 Table I. E 9 shows estimated tons of four pollutants during the winter season in five Class I national parks for which we have estimates of snowmobile use. The national park areas outside of Denali in Alaska are open to snowmobile operation in accordance with special regulations ( 36 CFR part 7). Denali National Park permits snowmobile operation by local rural residents engaged in subsistence uses ( 36 CFR part 13). TABLE I. E 9. WINTER SEASON SNOWMOBILE EMISSIONS [ tons; 1999 Winter Season] NPS unit HC CO NOX PM Denali NP & Preserve ............................................................................................................................. > 9.8 > 26.1 > 0.08 > 0.24 Grand Teton NP ...................................................................................................................................... 13.7 36.6 0.1 0.3 Rocky Mountain NP ................................................................................................................................. 106.7 284.7 0.8 2.6 Voyageurs NP .......................................................................................................................................... 138.5 369.4 1.1 3.4 Yellowstone NP ....................................................................................................................................... 492 1311.9 3.8 12 Source: Letter from Aaron J. Worstell, Environmental Engineer, National Park Service, Air Resources Division, to Drew Kodjak, August 21, 2001, particularly Table 1. Docket No. A 2000 01, Document No. II G 178. Inventory analysis performed by the National Park Service for Yellowstone National Park suggests that snowmobile emissions are a significant source of total annual mobile source emissions for the park year round. The proportion of snowmobile emissions to emissions from other sources affecting air quality in these parks is likely to be similar to that in Yellowstone. Furthermore, public comments from an industry­ initiated study contained modeling showing a 4 to 8 percent contribution to perceptible impairment from snowmobile exhaust in Yellowstone National Park. Although we believe the modeling technique may not be fully appropriate, the study still indicates a significant contribution from snowmobiles. EPA conducted independent modeling using a more appropriate visibility model, and we confirmed that snowmobiles would be creating perceptible plumes at all park entrances, impairing visibility. This evidence shows that snowmobiles contribute significantly to visibility impairment in several Class I areas. ( C) Regulation of HC Is a Good Proxy for Regulation of Fine PM Emissions From Current Snowmobile Engines We believe the best way to regulate the contribution to ambient concentrations of fine PM from current snowmobile engines is to set standards to control HC emissions. The current fleet of snowmobiles consists almost exclusively of two­ stroke engines. Twostroke engines inject lubricating oil into the air intake system where it is combusted with the air and fuel mixture in the combustion chamber. This is done to provide lubrication to the piston and crankshaft, since the crankcase is used as part of the fuel delivery system and cannot be used as a sump for oil storage as in four­ stroke engines. As a result, in addition to products of incomplete combustion, two­ stroke engines also emit a mixture of uncombusted fuel and lubricant oil. HCrelated emissions from snowmobiles increase PM concentrations in two ways. Snowmobile engines emit HC directly as particles ( such as droplets of lubricant oil). Snowmobile engines also emit HC gases, as well as raw unburned HC from the fuel which either condenses in cold temperatures to particles or reacts chemically to transform into particles as it moves in the atmosphere. As discussed above, fine particles can cause a variety of adverse health and welfare effects, including visibility impairment. We believe measurements of HC emissions will serve as a reasonable surrogate for measurement of fine particles for snowmobiles for several reasons. First, emissions of PM and HC from these engines are related. Test data show that over 70 percent of the average volatile organic fraction of PM from a typical two­ stroke snowmobile engine is organic hydrocarbons, largely from lubricating oil components. 32 The HC measurements ( which use a 191 ° C heated flame­ ionization detector ( FID)) would capture the volatile component, which in ambient temperatures would be particles ( as droplets). Second, many of the technologies that will be employed to reduce HC emissions are expected to reduce PM ( four­ stroke engines, pulse air, and direct fuel injection techniques for example). The organic emissions are a mixture of fuel and oil, and reductions in the organic emissions will likely yield both HC and PM reductions. HC measurements would capture the reduction from both the gas and particle ( at ambient temperature) phases. For example, the HC emission factor for a VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68255 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 33 For recreational vehicles, we are adopting vehicle­ based standards. For these applications, the term `` engine'' in this document applies equally to the vehicles. 34 The term `` manufacturer'' includes any individual or company that manufactures any new engine for sale or otherwise introduces a new engine into commerce in the United States. It also includes importers for resale. typical two­ stroke snowmobile is 111 g/ hp­ hr. The HC emission factor for a direct fuel injection engine is 21.8, and for a four­ stroke is 7.8 g/ hp­ hr, representing a 80­ percent and 99­ percent reduction, respectively. Similarly, the PM emission factor for a typical two­ stroke snowmobile is 2.7 g/ hp­ hr. The corresponding PM emission factor for a direct fuel injection engine is 0.57, and for a four­ stroke is 0.15 g/ hp­ hr, representing a 75 percent and 93 percent reduction, respectively. Thus, manufacturers will generally reduce PM emissions as a result of reducing HC emissions, making separate PM standards less necessary. Moreover, PM standards would cover only the PM directly emitted at the tailpipe. It would not measure the gaseous or semi­ volatile organic emissions which would condense or be converted into PM in the atmosphere. The HC measurements would also include the gaseous HC which would condense or be converted into PM in the atmosphere. Consequently, the HC measurement would be a more comprehensive measurement. Also, HC standards actually will reduce secondary PM emissions that would not necessarily be reduced by PM standards. Finally, from an implementation point of view, PM is not routinely measured in snowmobiles. There is no currently established protocol for measuring PM and substantial technical issues would need to be overcome to create a new method. Establishing additional PM test procedures would also entail additional costs for manufacturers. HC measurements are more routinely performed on these types of engines, and these measurements currently serve as a more reliable basis for setting a numeric standard. Thus, we believe that regulation of HC is the best way to reduce PM emissions and PM contributions from current snowmobile engines. We included a NOX standard for snowmobiles. This standard will essentially cap NOX emissions from these engines to prevent backsliding. We are not promulgating standards that would require substantial reductions in NOX because we believe that standards which force substantial NOX reductions would likely not lead to reductions in PM and may in fact increase PM levels. NOX emissions from snowmobiles are very small, particularly compared to levels of HC. In fact, technologies that reduce HC and CO are likely to increase levels of NOX and vice versa, because technologies to reduce HC and CO emissions would result in leaner operation. A lean air and fuel mixture causes NOX emissions to increase. These increases are minor, however, compared to the reductions of HC ( and therefore PM) that result from these techniques. On the other hand, substantial control of NOX emissions may have the countereffect of increasing HC emissions and the greater PM emissions associated with those HC emissions. The only way to reduce NOX emissions from fourstroke engines ( at the same time as reducing HC and CO levels) would be to use a three­ way catalytic converter. We do not have enough information at this time on the durability or safety implications of using a three­ way catalyst with a four­ stroke engine in snowmobile applications. Three­ way catalyst technology is well beyond the technology reviewed for this rule and would need substantial additional review before being contemplated for snowmobiles. Thus, given the overwhelming level of HC compared to NOX, and the secondary PM expected to result from these levels, it would be premature and possibly counterproductive to promulgate NOX standards that require significant NOX reductions from snowmobiles at this time. We have therefore decided to structure our long term HC+ NOX standard for 2012 and later model year snowmobiles to require only a cap on NOX emissions from the advanced technology engines which will be the dominant technology in the new snowmobiles certified at that time. II. Nonroad: General Provisions This section describes general provisions concerning the emission standards adopted in this final rule and the ways in which a manufacturer shows compliance with these standards. Clean Air Act section 213( a)( 3) requires us to set standards that achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology that will be available, giving appropriate consideration to cost, noise, energy, and safety factors. Section 202( a)( 4) provides further authority to adopt standards for pollution beyond that regulated under section 202( a)( 3). In addition to emission standards, this document describes a variety of other provisions necessary for implementing the proposed emission­ control program in an effective way, such as applying for certification, labeling engines, and meeting warranty requirements. The discussions in this section are general and are meant to cover all the nonroad engines and vehicles subject to the new standards. In this Section II, the term engine is sometimes used to include both nonroad engines and nonroad vehicles. Refer to the discussions of specific programs, contained in Sections III through VI, to determine whether the regulations are being applied to the entire vehicle or just the engine, as well as for more information about specific requirements for different categories of nonroad engines and vehicles. This section describes general nonroad provisions related to certification prior to sale or introduction into commerce. Section VII describes several compliance provisions that apply generally to nonroad engines, and Section VIII similarly describes general testing provisions. A. Scope of Application This final rule covers recreational marine diesel engines, nonroad sparkignition engines rated over 19 kW, and recreational spark­ ignition vehicles introduced into commerce in the United States. The following sections describe generally when emission standards apply to these products. These provisions are generally consistent with prior nonroad and motor­ vehicle rulemakings. Refer to the specific program discussion below for more information about the scope of application and timing of new standards. 1. What Engines and Vehicles Are Subject to the Standards? The scope of this rule is broadly set by Clean Air Act section 213( a), which instructs us to set emission standards for new nonroad engines and new nonroad vehicles. Generally speaking, this rule is intended to cover all new engines and vehicles in the categories listed above ( including any associated equipment or vessels) for their entire useful lives, as defined in the regulations. 33 Once the emission standards apply to a group of engines or vehicles, manufacturers of a new engine must have an approved certificate of conformity from us before selling them in the United States. 34 This also applies to importation by any person and any other means of introducing new engines and vehicles into commerce. We also require equipment manufacturers that install engines from other companies to install only certified engines into new equipment once emission standards VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68256 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 35 The definition in Clean Air Act section 216 applies specifically to `` new motor vehicles,'' but we have interpreted `` new nonroad engine'' consistently with the definition in section 216. apply. The information we require of manufacturers applying for certification ( with the corresponding engine labels) provides assurance that manufacturers have met their obligation to make engines that meet emission standards over the useful life we specify in the regulations. 2. How Do I Know if My Engine or Equipment Is New? We are defining `` new'' consistent with previous rulemakings. We will consider a nonroad engine ( or nonroad equipment) to be new until its title has been transferred to the ultimate purchaser or the engine has been placed into service. This definition applies to both engines and equipment, so the nonroad equipment using these engines, including all­ terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, off­ highway motorcycles, and other land­ based nonroad equipment will be considered new until their title has been transferred to an ultimate buyer. In Section II. B. 1 we describe how to determine the model year of individual engines and vehicles. To further clarify the definition of new nonroad engine, we specify that a nonroad engine, vehicle, or equipment is placed into service when it is used for its intended purpose. An engine subject to emission standards is used for its functional purpose when it is installed in an all­ terrain vehicle, snowmobile, off­ highway motorcycle, marine vessel, or other piece of nonroad equipment. We need to make this clarification because some engines are made by modifying a highway or land­ based nonroad engine that has already been installed on a vehicle or other piece of equipment. For example, someone can install an engine in a recreational marine vessel after it has been used for its functional purpose as a land­ based highway or nonroad engine. We believe our approach is reasonable because the practice of adapting used highway or land­ based nonroad engines may become more common if these engines are not subject to emission standards. In summary, an engine may be subject to emission standards if it is: Freshly manufactured, whether domestic or imported; this may include engines produced from engine block cores Installed for the first time in nonroad equipment after having powered an automobile or a category of nonroad equipment subject to different emission standards Installed in new nonroad equipment, regardless of the age of the engine Imported ( freshly manufactured or used) and was originally manufactured after the effective date of our standards 3. When Do Imported Engines Need To Meet Emission Standards? The emission standards apply to all new engines sold in the United States. Consistent with Clean Air Act section 216, engines that are imported by any person, whether freshly manufactured or used are considered `` new'' engines. 35 Thus, we include engines that are imported for use in the United States, whether they are imported as loose engines or if they are already installed on a marine vessel, recreational vehicle, or other piece of nonroad equipment, built elsewhere. All imported engines manufactured after our standards begin to apply need an EPA­ issued certificate of conformity to clear customs, with limited exemptions ( as described below). An engine or marine vessel, recreational vehicle, or other piece of nonroad equipment that was built after emission standards take effect cannot be imported without a currently valid certificate of conformity. We would consider it to be a new engine, vehicle, or vessel, which would trigger a requirement to comply with the applicable emission standards. Thus, for example, a marine vessel manufactured in a foreign country in 2007, then imported into the United States in 2010, would be considered `` new.'' The engines on that vessel would have to comply with the requirements for the 2007 model year, assuming no other exemptions apply. This provision is important to prevent manufacturers from avoiding emission standards by building vessels or vehicles abroad, transferring their title, and then importing them as used vessels or vehicles. Imported engines are generally subject to emission standards. However, we are not adopting a definition of `` import'' in this regulation. We will defer to the U. S. Customs Service for determinations of when an engine or vehicle is imported into the U. S. 4. Do the Standards Apply to Exported Engines or Vehicles? Engines or vehicles intended for export are generally not required to meet the emission standards or other requirements adopted in this rule. However, engines that will be exported and subsequently re­ imported into the United States must be covered by a certificate of conformity. For example, this would occur when a foreign company purchases engines manufactured in the United States for installation on a marine vessel, recreational vehicle, or other nonroad equipment for export back to the United States. Those engines would be subject to the emission standards that apply on the date the engine was originally manufactured. If the engine is later modified and certified ( or recertified), the engine is subject to emission standards that apply on the date the modification is complete. So, for example, foreign boat builders buying U. S.­ made engines without recertifying the engines will need to make sure they purchase complying engines for the products they sell in the U. S. We also do not exempt engines exported to countries that share our emission standards. 5. Are Any New Engines or Vehicles in the Applicable Categories Not Subject to Emission Standards of This Rule? We are extending our basic nonroad exemptions to the engines and vehicles covered by this rulemaking. These include the testing exemption, the manufacturer­ owned exemption, the display exemption, and the nationalsecurity exemption. These exemptions are described in more detail in Section VII. C. In addition, the Clean Air Act does not consider stationary engines or engines used solely for competition to be nonroad engines, so the emission standards do not apply to them. Refer to the program discussions below for a description of how these exclusions or exemptions apply for different categories of engines. B. Emission Standards and Testing 1. Which Pollutants Are Covered by Emission Standards? Engines subject to the exhaust emission standards must meet standards based on measured levels of specified pollutants, such as NOX, HC, or CO, though not all engines have standards for each pollutant. Diesel engines generally must also meet a PM emission standard. In addition, there may be standards or other requirements for crankcase, evaporative, or permeation emissions, as described below. The emission standards are effective on a model­ year basis. We define model year much like we do for passenger cars. It generally means either the calendar year or some other annual production period based on the manufacturer's production practices. A model year may include January 1 from only one year. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68257 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations For example, manufacturers could start selling 2006 model year engines as early as January 2, 2005, as long as the production period extends until at least January 1, 2006. All of a manufacturer's engines from a given model year must meet emission standards for that model year. For example, manufacturers producing new engines in the 2006 model year need to comply with the 2006 standards. The model year of a particular engine is determined based on the date that the engine is fully assembled. In the case of recreational vehicles, this generally applies to the final assembly of the whole vehicle, since the emission standards apply to the vehicle. Refer to the individual program discussions below or the regulations for additional information about model year periods, including how to define what model year means in less common scenarios, such as installing used engines in new equipment. 2. What Standards Apply to Crankcase, Evaporative, Permeation, and Other Emissions? Blow­ by of combustion gases and the reciprocating action of the piston can cause exhaust emissions to accumulate in the crankcase of four­ stroke engines. Uncontrolled engine designs route these vapors directly to the atmosphere, where they contribute to ambient levels of hydrocarbons. We have long required that automotive engines prevent emissions from their crankcases. Manufacturers typically do this by routing crankcase vapors through a valve into the engine's air intake system. We generally require in this rulemaking that engines control crankcase emissions. Vehicles with spark­ ignition engines use fuel that is volatile and the unburned fuel can be released into the ambient air. We are adopting standards to limit evaporative emissions from the fuel. Evaporative emissions result from heating gasoline or other volatile fuels in a tank that is vented to the atmosphere or from permeation through plastic fuel tanks and rubber hoses. Section IV describes the permeation standards for recreational vehicles. Section V provides additional information on the evaporative emission standards for Large SI engines. We are also adopting a general requirement that all engines subject to this final rule may not cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety, especially with respect to noxious or toxic emissions that may increase as a result of emission­ control technologies. The regulatory language has been modified consistent with the alternate language suggested in the proposal. This alternate language implements sections 202( a)( 4) and 206( a)( 3) of the Act and clarifies that the purpose of this requirement is to prevent control technologies that would cause unreasonable risks, rather than to prevent trace emissions of any noxious compounds. For example, this requirement would prevent the use of emission­ control technologies that produce high levels of pollutants for which we have not set emission standards, but nevertheless pose a risk to the public. However, it should be noted that this would generally not apply to exhaust gas recirculation systems on gasoline­ or diesel­ fueled engines. 3. What Duty Cycles Is EPA Adopting for Emission Testing? Testing an engine for exhaust emissions typically consists of exercising it over a prescribed duty cycle of speeds and loads, typically using an engine or chassis dynamometer. The duty cycle used to measure emissions for certification, which is generally derived from typical operation from the field, is critical in evaluating the likely emissions performance of engines designed to emission standards. Testing for recreational marine diesel engines and Large SI engines may also include additional operation not included in the specific duty cycles. Steady­ state testing consists of engine operation for an extended period at several speed­ load combinations. Associated with these test points are weighting factors that allow calculation of a single weighted­ average steady­ state emission level in g/ kW. Transient testing involves a continuous trace of specified engine or vehicle operation; emissions are collected over the whole testing period for a single mass measurement. See Section VIII. C for a discussion of how we define maximum test speed and intermediate speed for engine testing. Refer to the program discussions below for more information about the type of duty cycle required for testing the various engines and vehicles. Those sections also include information regarding testing provisions that do not rely on specific operating cycles ( i. e., field­ testing, not­ to exceed testing, and evaporative testing). 4. How Do Adjustable Engine Parameters Affect Emission Testing? Many engines are designed with components that can be adjusted for optimum performance under changing conditions, such as varying fuel quality, high altitude, or engine wear. Examples of adjustable parameters include spark timing, idle­ speed setting, and fuelinjection timing. While we recognize the need for this practice, we are also concerned that engines maintain an appropriate level of emission control for the whole range of adjustability. Manufacturers must therefore show that their engines meet emission standards over the full adjustment range. Manufacturers must also provide a physical stop to prevent adjustment outside the established range. Operators are then prohibited by the antitampering provisions from adjusting engines outside this range. 5. What Are Voluntary Low­ Emission Engines and Blue Sky Standards? Several state and environmental groups and manufacturers of emission controls have supported our efforts to develop incentive programs to encourage engine technologies that go beyond federal emission standards. Some companies have already significantly developed these technologies. In the final rule for landbased nonroad diesel engines, we included a program of voluntary standards for low­ emitting engines, referring to these as `` Blue Sky Series'' engines ( 63 FR 56967, October 23, 1998). We included similar programs for commercial marine diesel engines. The general purposes of such programs are to provide incentives to manufacturers to produce clean products, as well as to create market choices and opportunities for environmental information for consumers regarding such products. We are adopting voluntary Blue Sky Series standards for some of the engines subject to this final rule. Creating a program of voluntary standards for lowemitting engines, including testing and durability provisions to help ensure adequate in­ use performance, will be a step forward in advancing emissioncontrol technologies. While these are voluntary standards, they become binding once a manufacturer chooses to participate. EPA certification will therefore provide protection against false claims of environmentally beneficial products. C. Demonstrating Compliance We are adopting a compliance program to accompany the final emission standards. This consists first of a process for demonstrating that new engine models comply with the emission standards. In addition to newengine testing, several provisions ensure that emission­ control systems will continue to function over long­ term VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68258 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations operation in the field. Most of these certification provisions are consistent with previous rulemakings for other nonroad engines. Refer to the discussion of the specific programs below for additional information about these requirements for each engine category. 1. How Do I Certify My Engines? We are adopting a certification process similar to that already established for other nonroad engines. Manufacturers generally test representative prototype engines and submit the emission data along with other information to EPA in an application for a Certificate of Conformity. If we approve the application, EPA issues a Certificate of Conformity which allows the manufacturer to produce and sell the engines described in the application in the U. S. Manufacturers certify their engine models by grouping them into engine families that have similar emission characteristics. The engine family definition is fundamental to the certification process and to a large degree determines the amount of testing required for certification. The regulations include specific engine characteristics for grouping engine families for each category of engines. To address a manufacturer's unique product mix, we may approve using broader or narrower engine families. Engine manufacturers are responsible to build engines that meet the emission standards over each engine's useful life. The useful life we adopt by regulation is intended to reflect the period during which engines are designed to properly function without being remanufactured or the average service life. Useful life values, which are expressed in terms of years or amount of operation ( in hours or kilometers), vary by engine category, as described in the following sections. Consistent with other recent EPA programs, we generally consider this useful life value in amount of operation to be a minimum value, requiring manufacturers to comply for a longer period in those cases where their engines operate longer than the minimum useful life. The emission­ data engine is the engine from an engine family that will be used for certification testing. To ensure that all engines in the family meet the standards, manufacturers must select the engine most likely to exceed emission standards in a family for certification testing. In selecting this `` worst­ case'' engine, the manufacturer uses good engineering judgment. Manufacturers consider, for example, all engine configurations and power ratings within the engine family and the range of installed options allowed. Requiring the worst­ case engine to be tested helps the manufacturer be sure that all engines within the engine family are complying with emission standards. Manufacturers estimate the rate of deterioration for each engine family over its useful life and show that engines continue to meet standards after incorporating the estimated deterioration. We may also test the engines ourselves. Manufacturers must include in their application for certification the results of emission tests showing that the engine family meets emission standards. In addition, we may ask the manufacturer to include any additional data from their emission­ data engines, including any diagnostic­ type measurements ( such as ppm testing) and invalidated tests. This complete set of test data ensures that the valid tests forming the basis of the manufacturer's application are a robust indicator of emission­ control performance, rather than a spurious or incidental test result. We are adopting test­ fuel specifications intended to represent inuse fuels. Engines must be able to meet the standards on fuels with properties anywhere in the specified ranges. The test fuel is generally to be used for all testing associated with the regulations, including certification, production­ line testing, and in­ use testing. Refer to the program discussions below related to test fuel specifications. We require engine manufacturers to give engine buyers instructions for properly maintaining their engines. We are including limitations on the frequency of scheduled maintenance that a manufacturer may specify for emission­ related components to help ensure that emission­ control systems don't depend on an unreasonable expectation of maintenance in the field. These maintenance limits also apply during any service accumulation that a manufacturer may do to establish deterioration factors. This approach is common to all our engine programs. It is important to note, however, that these provisions don't limit the maintenance an operator may perform; it merely limits the maintenance that operators can be expected to perform on a regularly scheduled basis. Refer to the discussion of the specific programs below for additional information about the allowable maintenance intervals for each category of engines. Once an engine family is certified, we require every engine a manufacturer produces from the engine family to have a label with basic identifying information. The design and content of engine labels is specified in the regulations. 2. What Warranty Requirements Apply to Certified Engines? Consistent with our current emissioncontrol programs, manufacturers must provide a design and defect warranty covering emission­ related components for a minimum period specified in the regulations. This minimum period is generally half of the useful life period. The regulations also provide that the manufacturer's emission warranty period could be adjusted to a value higher than the minimum period for those cases where the manufacturer provides a longer mechanical warranty for the engine or any of its components; this includes extended warranties that are available for an extra price. Any such adjustment would be dependent on the average service life of the vehicle as well. The manufacturer generally does not need to include scheduled maintenance or other routine maintenance under the emission warranty. See the regulation language for a detailed description of the components that are considered to be emission­ related. If an operator makes a valid warranty claim for an emission­ related component during the warranty period, the engine manufacturer is generally obligated to replace the component at no charge to the operator. The engine manufacturer may deny warranty claims, however, if the operator caused the component failure by misusing the engine or failing to do necessary maintenance. We are also adopting a defect reporting requirement that applies separate from the emission­ related warranty ( see Section VII. F). In general, defect reporting applies when a manufacturer discovers a pattern of component failures, whether that information comes from warranty claims, voluntary investigation of product quality, or other sources. 3. Can I Use Emission Averaging To Show That I Meet Emission Standards? Many of our mobile source emissioncontrol programs include voluntary use of emission credits to facilitate implementation of emission controls. An emission­ credit program is an important factor we take into consideration in setting emission standards that are appropriate under Clean Air Act section 213. An emissioncredit program can improve the technological feasibility and reduce the cost of achieving standards, allowing us to consider a more stringent emission standard than might otherwise be VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68259 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 36 We consider an engine to be randomly selected if it undergoes normal assembly and manufacturing procedures. An engine is not randomly selected if it has been built with any kind of special components or procedures. appropriate, including a compliance date for the standards earlier than would otherwise be appropriate. Manufacturers gain flexibility in product planning and introduction of product lines meeting a new standard. Emission­ credit programs also create an incentive for the early introduction of new technology, which allows certain engine families to act as trailblazers for new technology. This can help provide valuable information to manufacturers on the technology before they apply the technology throughout their product line. This early introduction of clean technology improves the feasibility of achieving the standards and can provide valuable information for use in other regulatory programs that may benefit from similar technologies. Emission­ credit programs may involve averaging, banking, or trading. Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify one or more engine families at emission levels above the applicable emission standards, as long as the increased emissions from that engine family are offset by one or more engine families certified below the applicable standards. The over­ complying engine families generate credits that are used by the under­ complying engine families. Compliance is determined taking into account differences in production volume, power and useful life among engine families. The average of all the engine families for a particular manufacturer's production must be at or below the level of the applicable emission standards. This calculation generally factors in sales­ weighted average power, production volume, and useful life. Banking allows a manufacturer to generate emission credits and bank them for future use in its own averaging program in later years. Trading allows transfer of credits to another company. In general, a manufacturer choosing to participate in an emission­ credit program certifies each participating engine family to a Family Emission Limit. In its certification application, a manufacturer determines a separate Family Emission Limit for each pollutant included in the emissioncredit program. The Family Emission Limit selected by the manufacturer becomes the emission standard for each engine in that engine family. Emission credits are based on the difference between the emission standard that applies to the family and the Family Emission Limit. Manufacturers must meet the Family Emission Limit for all emission testing of any engine in that family. At the end of the model year, manufacturers must show that the net effect of all their engine families participating in the emission­ credit program is a zero balance or a net positive balance of credits. A manufacturer may generally choose to include only a single pollutant from an engine family in the emission­ credit program or, alternatively, to establish a Family Emission Limit for each of the regulated pollutants. Refer to the program discussions below for more information about emission­ credit provisions for individual engine categories. 4. What Are the Production­ Line Testing Requirements? We are adopting production­ line testing requirements for recreational marine diesel engines, recreational vehicles, and Large SI engines. Manufacturers must routinely test production­ line engines to help ensure that newly assembled engines control emissions at least as well as the emission­ data engines tested for certification. Production­ line testing serves as a quality­ control step, providing information to allow early detection of any problems with the design or assembly of freshly manufactured engines. This is different than selective enforcement auditing, in which we would give a test order for more rigorous testing for a small subset of production­ line engines in a particular engine family ( see Section VII. E). Production­ line testing requirements are already common to several categories of nonroad engines as part of their emission­ control program. If an engine fails to meet an emission standard, the manufacturer must modify it to bring that specific engine into compliance. Manufacturers may adjust the engine family's Family Emission Limit to take into account the results from production­ line testing ( if applicable). If too many engines exceed emission standards, this indicates it is more of a family­ wide problem and the manufacturer must correct the problem for all affected engines. The remedy may involve changes to assembly procedures or engine design, but the manufacturer must, in any case, do sufficient testing to show that the engine family complies with emission standards before producing more engines. The remedy may also need to address engines already produced since the last showing that production­ line engines met emission standards. The production­ line testing programs for Large SI engines and for recreational vehicles depend on the Cumulative Sum ( CumSum) statistical process for determining the number of engines a manufacturer needs to test ( see the regulations for the specific calculation methodology). Each manufacturer generally selects engines randomly at the beginning of each new quarter. 36 If engines must be tested at a facility where final assembly is not yet completed, manufacturers must randomly select engine components and assemble the test engine according to their established assembly instructions. The Cumulative Sum program uses the emission results to calculate the number of tests required for the remainder of the year to reach a pass or fail determination for production­ line testing. If tested engines have emissions close to the standard, the statistical sampling method calls for an increased number of tests to show whether to make a pass or fail determination for the engine family. The remaining number of tests is recalculated after the manufacturer tests each engine. Engines selected should cover the broadest range of production configurations possible. Tests should also be distributed evenly throughout the sampling period to the extent possible. If an engine family fails the production­ line testing criteria, we may suspend the Certificate of Conformity. Under the CumSum approach, individual engines can exceed the emission standards without causing the whole engine family to exceed the production­ line testing criteria. The production­ line testing criteria are designed to determine if there is a problem that applies broadly across the engine family. Whether or not the production­ line testing criteria are met, manufacturers must adjust or repair every failing engine and retest it to show that it meets the emission standards. Note also that all production­ line emission measurements must be included in the periodic reports to us. This includes any type of screening or surveillance tests ( including ppm measurements), all data points for evaluating whether an engine controls emissions `` off­ cycle,'' and any engine tests that exceed the minimum required level of testing. The regulations allow us to reduce testing requirements for engine families that consistently pass the productionline testing criteria. For engine families that pass all of the production­ line test requirements for two consecutive years, the manufacturer may request a reduced testing rate. The minimum testing rate is one test per engine family for one year. Our approval for a reduced testing rate may be limited to a single model year, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68260 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 37 Almost all recreational vehicles are equipped with spark­ ignition engines. Any diesel engines used in these applications must meet our emission standards for nonroad diesel engines. but manufacturers may continue to request reduced testing rates. As we have concluded in other engine programs, some manufacturers may have unique circumstances that call for different methods to show that production engines comply with emission standards. A manufacturer may therefore suggest an alternate plan for testing production­ line engines, as long as the alternate program is as effective at ensuring that the engines will comply. A manufacturer's petition to use an alternate plan should address the need for the alternative and should justify any changes from the regular testing program. The petition must also describe in detail the equivalent thresholds and failure rates for the alternate plan. If we approve the plan, we will use these criteria to determine when an engine family passes or fails the production­ line testing criteria. It is important to note that this allowance is intended only as a flexibility, and is not intended to affect the stringency of the standards or the production­ line testing program. Refer to the specific program discussions below for additional information about production­ line testing for different types of engines. D. Other Concepts 1. What Are Emission­ Related Installation Instructions? Manufacturers selling loose engines to equipment manufacturers must develop a set of emission­ related installation instructions. These instructions include anything the installer needs to know to ensure that the engine operates within its certified design configuration. For example, the installation instructions could specify a total capacity needed from the engine cooling system, placement of catalysts after final assembly, or specification of parts needed to control evaporative or permeation emissions. We approve emission­ related installation instructions as part of the certification process. If equipment manufacturers fail to follow the established emissionrelated installation instructions, we will consider this tampering, which may subject them to significant civil penalties. Refer to the program discussions below for more information about specific provisions related to installation instructions. 2. Are There Special Provisions for Small Manufacturers of These Engines and Vehicles? The scope of this rule includes many engine and vehicle manufacturers that have previously not been subject to our mobile source regulations or certification process. Some of these manufacturers are small businesses, with unique concerns relating to the compliance burden from the general regulating program. The sections describing the emission­ control program include discussion of special compliance provisions designed to address this for the different engine categories. III. Recreational Vehicles and Engines A. Overview We are adopting new exhaust emission standards for snowmobiles, off­ highway motorcycles, and all­ terrain vehicles ( ATVs). The engines used in these vehicles are a subset of nonroad SI engines. 37 In our program to set exhaust emission standards for nonroad sparkignition engines below 19 kW ( Small SI), we excluded recreational vehicles because they have different design characteristics and usage patterns than certain other engines in the Small SI category. For example, engines typically found in the Small SI category are used in lawn mowers, chainsaws, trimmers, and other lawn and garden applications. These engines tend to have low power outputs and operate at constant loads and speeds, whereas recreational vehicles can have high power outputs with highly variable engine loads and speeds. This suggests that these engines should be regulated differently than Small SI engines. In the same way, we treat snowmobiles, off­ highway motorcycles, and ATVs separately from our Large SI engine program, which is described in Section V. Recreational vehicles that are not snowmobiles, offhighway motorcycles, or ATVs, will be subject to the standards that otherwise apply to small nonroad spark­ ignition engines ( see Section III. B. 2). We are adopting exhaust emission standards for HC and CO from all recreational vehicles. We are adopting an additional requirement to control NOX from off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs. We believe that vehicle and engine manufacturers will be able to use technology already established for other types of engines, such as highway motorcycles, small spark­ ignition engines, and marine engines, to meet these standards. We recognize that some small businesses manufacture recreational vehicles; we are therefore adopting several special compliance provisions to reduce the burden of emission regulations on small businesses. 1. What Are Recreational Vehicles and Who Makes Them? We are adopting new exhaust emission standards for off­ highway motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles. Eight large manufacturers dominate the sales of these recreational vehicles. Of these eight manufacturers, seven of them manufacture two or more of the three main types of recreational vehicles. For example, there are four companies that manufacture both offhighway motorcycles and ATVs. There are three companies that manufacture ATVs and snowmobiles; one company manufactures all three. These eight companies represent approximately 95 percent of all domestic sales of recreational vehicles. a. Off­ highway motorcycles. Motorcycles are two­ wheeled, selfpowered vehicles that come in a variety of configurations and styles. Offhighway motorcycles are similar in appearance to highway motorcycles, but there are several important distinctions between the two types of machines. Offhighway motorcycles are not street­ legal and are primarily operated on public and private lands over trails and open areas. A significant number are used in competition events. Off­ highway motorcycles tend to be much smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than their larger highway counterparts. They are equipped with relatively smalldisplacement single­ cylinder two­ or four­ stroke engines ranging from 48 to 650 cubic centimeters ( cc) in size. The exhaust systems for off­ highway motorcycles are distinctively routed high on the frame to prevent damage from brush, rocks, and water. Offhighway motorcycles are designed to be operated over varying surfaces, such as dirt, sand, or mud, and are equipped with knobby tires to give better traction in off­ road conditions. Unlike highway motorcycles, off­ highway motorcycles have fenders mounted far from the wheels and closer to the rider to keep dirt and mud from spraying the rider and clogging between the fender and tire. Off­ highway motorcycles are also equipped with more advanced suspension systems than those for highway motorcycles. This allows the operator to ride over obstacles and make jumps safely. Five companies dominate sales of offhighway motorcycles. They are longestablished large corporations that manufacture several different products including highway and off­ highway motorcycles. These five companies account for 90 to 95 percent of all VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68261 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 38 Notice to Off­ Highway Recreational Vehicle Manufacturers and All Other Interested Parties Regarding Alternate Emission Standards for All­ Terrain Vehicles, Mail Out # 95 16, April 28, 1995, California ARB ( Docket A 2000 01, document II D 06). domestic sales of off­ highway motorcycles. There are also several relatively small companies that manufacture off­ highway motorcycles, many of which specialize in competition machines. b. All­ terrain vehicles. The earliest ATVs were three­ wheeled off­ highway models with large balloon tires that existed in the early 1970' s. Due to safety concerns, the three­ wheeled ATVs were phased­ out in the mid­ 1980s and replaced by the current and more popular four­ wheeled vehicle known as `` quad runners'' or simply `` quads.'' Quads resemble the earlier threewheeled ATVs except that the single front wheel was replaced with two wheels. The ATV steering system uses motorcycle handlebars, rather than a steering wheel. The operator sits on and rides the quad much like a motorcycle. The engines used in quads tend to be very similar to those used in offhighway motorcycles relatively small, single­ cylinder two­ or four­ stroke engines. Quads are typically divided into utility and sport models. The utility quads are designed for multi­ function use and have the ability to perform many utility functions, such as plowing snow, tilling gardens, and mowing lawns in addition to use for recreational riding. They are typically heavier and equipped with relatively large fourstroke engines and automatic transmissions with a reverse gear. Sport quads are smaller and lighter and designed primarily for recreational purposes. They are equipped with two­ or four­ stroke engines and manual transmissions. Presently utility ATVs comprise about 75 percent of the market and sport models about 25 percent. Of all of the types of recreational vehicles, ATVs have the largest number of major manufacturers. All but one of the companies noted above for offhighway motorcycles and below for snowmobiles are significant ATV producers. These seven companies represent over 95 percent of total domestic ATV sales. The remaining 5 percent of sales come from importers, which tend to import less expensive, youth­ oriented ATVs. As discussed below, we are requiring utility vehicles capable of speeds above 25 mph to comply the regulations for ATVs. c. Snowmobiles. Snowmobiles, also referred to as `` sleds,'' are tracked vehicles designed to operate over snow. Snowmobiles have some similarities to off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs. A snowmobile rider sits on and rides a snowmobile similar to an ATV. Snowmobiles use high­ powered two­ and three­ cylinder two­ stroke engines that look similar to off­ highway motorcycle engines. Rather than wheels, snowmobiles are propelled by a track system similar to what is used on a bulldozer. The snowmobile is steered by two skis at the front of the sled. Snowmobiles use handlebars similar to off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs. The typical snowmobile seats two riders comfortably. Over the years, snowmobile performance has steadily increased to the point that many snowmobiles currently have engines over 100 horsepower and are capable of exceeding 100 miles per hour. The definition for snowmobiles includes a limit of 1.5­ meter width to differentiate conventional snowmobiles from icegrooming machines and snow coaches, which use very different engines. There are four major snowmobile manufacturers, accounting for more than 99 percent of all domestic sales. The remaining sales come from very small manufacturers who tend to specialize in high­ performance designs. d. Other recreational vehicles. Currently, our Small SI nonroad engine regulations cover all recreational engines that are under 19 kW ( 25 hp) and have either an installed speed governor or a maximum engine speed less than 5,000 revolutions per minute ( rpm). Recreational vehicles currently covered by the Small SI standards include go­ carts, golf carts, and small mini­ bikes. Although some off­ highway motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles have engines with rated horsepower less than 19 kW, they all have maximum engine speeds greater than 5,000 rpm. Thus they have not been included in the Small SI regulations. The only other types of small recreational engines not covered by the Small SI rule are those engines under 19 kW that aren't governed and have maximum engine speed of at least 5,000 rpm. There are relatively few such vehicles with recreational engines not covered by the Small SI regulations. The best example of vehicles that fit in this category are stand­ on scooters and skateboards that have been equipped with very small gasoline spark­ ignition engines. The engines used on these vehicles are typically the same as those used in string trimmers or other lawn and garden equipment, which are covered under the Small SI regulations. Because these engines are generally already covered by the Small SI regulations and are the same as, or very similar to, engines as those used in lawn and garden applications, we are revising the Small SI rules to cover these engines under the Small SI regulations. To avoid any problems in transitioning to meet emission standards, we are applying these standards beginning in 2006. We did not receive any comments on this approach. 2. What Is the Regulatory History for Recreational Vehicles? The California Air Resources Board ( California ARB) established standards for off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs, which took effect in January 1997 ( 1999 for vehicles with engines of 90 cc or less). California has not adopted standards for snowmobiles. The standards, shown in Table III. A 1, are based on the highway motorcycle chassis test procedures. Manufacturers may certify ATVs to optional standards, also shown in Table III. A 1, which are based on the utility engine test procedure. 38 This is the test procedure over which Small SI engines are tested. The stringency level of the standards was based on the emission performance of small four­ stroke engines and advanced two­ stroke engines with a catalytic converter. California ARB anticipated that the standards would be met initially by using high­ performance four­ stroke engines. III. A 1 CALIFORNIA OFF­ HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE AND ATV STANDARDS FOR MODEL YEAR 1997 AND LATER [ 1999 and later for engines at or below 90 cc] HC NOX CO PM Off­ highway motorcycle and ATV standards ( g/ km) ........................................ a 1.2 ........................ 15 ........................ VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68262 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 39 Initial Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the California Regulations for New 1997 and Later Off­ highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines, California ARB, October 23, 1998 ( Docket A 2000 01, document II D 08). 40 Otto­ cycle is another name for a reciprocating, internal­ combustion engine that uses a spark to ignite a homogeneous air and fuel mixture, in which air­ fuel mixing may occur inside or outside the combustion chamber. 41 Snowmobiles use continuously variable transmissions, which tend to operate like torque converters. HC + NOX CO PM Optional standards for ATV engines below 225 cc ( g/ bhp hr) ................................................... a12.0 300 ........................ Optional standards for ATV engines at or above 225 cc ( g/ bhp hr) .......................................... a10.0 300 ........................ a Corporate­ average standard. California revisited the program because a lack of certified off­ highway motorcycles from manufacturers was reportedly creating economic hardship for dealerships. The number of certified off­ highway motorcycle models was particularly inadequate. 39 In 1998, California revised the program, allowing the uncertified products in off­ highway vehicle recreation areas with regional/ seasonal use restrictions. Currently, noncomplying vehicles may be sold in California and used in attainment areas year­ round and in nonattainment areas during months when exceedances of the state ozone standard are not expected. For enforcement purposes, certified and uncertified products are identified with green and red stickers, respectively. Only about one­ third of off­ highway motorcycles selling in California are certified. All certified products have four­ stroke engines. B. Engines Covered by This Rule We are adopting new emission standards for new off­ highway motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles. ( We are also applying existing Small SI emission standards to other recreational equipment, as described above.) The engines used in recreational vehicles tend to be small, air­ or liquid­ cooled, reciprocating Otto­ cycle engines that operate on gasoline. 40 Engines used in vehicle applications experience engine performance that is characterized by highly transient operation, with a wide range of engine speed and load capability. Maximum engine speed are typically well above 5,000 rpm. Also, with the exception of snowmobiles, the vehicles are typically equipped with transmissions rather than torque converters to ensure performance under a variety of operating conditions. 41 1. Two­ Stroke vs. Four­ Stroke Engines The engines used by recreational vehicles can be separated into two distinct designs: two­ stroke and fourstroke The distinction between twostroke and four­ stroke engines is important for emissions because twostroke engines tend to emit much greater amounts of unburned HC and PM than four­ stroke engines of similar size and power. Two­ stroke engines have lower NOX emissions than do four­ stroke engines because they experience a significant amount of internal exhaust gas recirculation resulting from exhaust gases being drawn back into the combustion chamber on the piston's downward stroke while the exhaust port is uncovered. Exhaust gas is inert and displaces fresh fuel and air that could otherwise be combusted, which creates lower in­ cylinder temperatures and thus less NOX. Two­ stroke engines also have greater fuel consumption than fourstroke engines, but they also tend to have higher power output per­ unit displacement, lighter weight, and better cold­ starting performance. These, and other characteristics, tend to make twostroke engines popular as a power unit for recreational vehicles. With the exception of a few youth and touring models, almost all snowmobiles use two­ stroke engines. Currently, about 63 percent of all off­ highway motorcycles ( predominantly in high­ performance, youth, and entry­ level bikes) and 20 percent of all ATVs sold in the United States use two­ stroke engines. The basis for the differences in engine performance and exhaust emissions between two­ stroke and four­ stroke engines can be found in the fundamental differences in how twostroke and four­ stroke engines operate. Four­ stroke operation takes place in four distinct steps: intake, compression, power, and exhaust. Each step corresponds to one up or down stroke of the piston or 180 ° of crankshaft rotation. The first step of the cycle is for an intake valve in the combustion chamber to open during the intake stroke, allowing a mixture of air and fuel to be drawn into the cylinder while the piston moves down the cylinder. The intake valve then closes and the momentum of the crankshaft causes the piston to move back up the cylinder, compressing the air and fuel mixture. At the very end of the compression stroke, the air and fuel mixture is ignited by a spark from a spark plug and begins to burn. As the air and fuel mixture burns, increasing temperature and pressure cause the piston to move back down the cylinder. This is referred to as the `` power'' stroke. At the bottom of the power stroke, an exhaust valve opens in the combustion chamber and as the piston moves back up the cylinder, the burnt gases are pushed out through the exhaust valve to the exhaust manifold, and the cycle is complete. In a four­ stroke engine, combustion and the resulting power stroke occur only once every two revolutions of the crankshaft. In a two­ stroke engine, combustion occurs every revolution of the crankshaft. Two­ stroke engines eliminate the intake and exhaust strokes, leaving only compression and power strokes. This is due to the fact that two­ stroke engines do not use intake and exhaust valves. Instead, they have intake and exhaust ports in the sides of the cylinder walls. With a twostroke engine, as the piston approaches the bottom of the power stroke, it uncovers exhaust ports in the wall of the cylinder. The high pressure combustion gases blow into the exhaust manifold. As the piston gets closer to the bottom of the power stroke, the intake ports are uncovered, and fresh mixture of air and fuel are forced into the cylinder while the exhaust ports are still open. Exhaust gas is `` scavenged'' or forced into the exhaust by the pressure of the incoming charge of fresh air and fuel. In the process, however, some mixing between the exhaust gas and the fresh charge of air and fuel takes place, so that some of the fresh charge is also emitted in the exhaust. Losing part of the fuel out of the exhaust during scavenging causes very high hydrocarbon emission characteristics of two­ stroke engines. The other major reason for high HC emissions from twostroke engines is their tendency to misfire under low­ load conditions due to greater combustion instability. 2. Applicability of Small SI Regulations In our regulations for Small SI engines, we established criteria, such as rated engine speed at or above 5,000 rpm and the use of a speed governor, that excluded engines used in certain types of recreational vehicles ( see 40 CFR 90.1( b)( 5)). Engines used in some other types of recreational vehicles may be covered by the Small SI standards, depending on the characteristics of the engines. For example, lawnmower­ type VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68263 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations engines used in go carts are typically covered by the Small SI standards because they don't operate above 5000 rpm. Similarly, engines used in golf carts are included in the Small SI program. As discussed above, we are revising the Small SI regulations to include all recreational engines except those in off­ highway motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles, and hobby engines. Golf cart and go­ cart engines will remain in the Small SI program because the vehicles are not designed for operation over rough terrain and do not meet the definition of ATV. We are accordingly removing the 5,000 rpm and speed governor criteria from the applicability provisions of the Small SI regulations. 3. Utility Vehicles We proposed to define ATV as a `` nonroad vehicle with three or more wheels and a seat designed for operation over rough terrain and intended primarily for transportation'', and that it would include `` both land­ based and amphibious vehicles''. We requested comment on the proposed definition and based on comments, we are modifying the definition to clearly exclude utility vehicles not capable of reaching 25 mph. Utility vehicles differ from ATVs in several ways. As stated earlier, an ATV is operated and ridden very similar to a motorcycle, with the rider straddling the seat and using handlebars to steer the vehicle. The throttle and brakes are located on the handle bars, similar to a motorcycle and snowmobile. Utility vehicles look and operate very similarly to golf carts. The operator sits on a bench seat with a back support that holds two or more passengers. Rather than handlebars, utility vehicles use a steering wheel and have throttle and brake pedals on the floor, similar to an automobile. Utility vehicles also typically have a cargo box or bed ( similar to that found on a pickup truck) used for hauling cargo. We define an off­ highway utility vehicle as a `` nonroad vehicle that has four or more wheels, seating for two or more persons, is designed for operation over rough terrain, and has either a rear payload of 350 pounds or more or seating for six or more passengers.'' We are requiring utility vehicles capable of high speed operation ( speeds greater than 25 mph) to meet ATV standards. For utility vehicles that are permanently governed and not capable of reaching 25 mph, manufacturers must either continue to certify them to the Small SI standards ( or Large SI standards, if applicable) or optionally certify them to the new ATV standards. We received comments from the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute ( OPEI) that the definition should be clarified to exclude utility vehicles. Most utility vehicles are equipped with engines that are currently required to meet EPA Small SI standards. OPEI commented that utility vehicles are designed specifically for work related tasks and are equipped with seating for passengers, a bed for cargo, and ridingmower style controls. The industry differentiates between utility vehicles based on vehicle speed. The vast majority of utility vehicles are considered `` low­ speed utility vehicles'' ( LUVs) and are vehicle speed governed with maximum speed of less than 25 mph. The engines used in such vehicles are generally below 25 hp and are typically used in other lawn and garden or utility applications such as generators or lawn tractors. The engines differ significantly from those used in recreational products which are designed for higher rpm operation with an emphasis on higher performance. OPEI also provided comment on a newer type of utility vehicle, which uses a more powerful ( over 19kW) ATVbased engine and is capable of speeds of up to 40 mph. We are finalizing the approach described. The engines used in lowspeed utility vehicles are more similar in design and use to utility engines than ATVs. The engines used to power these vehicles are often used in other utility applications, such as lawn and garden tractors and generators and are typically produced by companies that specialize in utility and lawn equipment rather than power sport vehicles. These products are already certified to the Small SI standards. However, we have some concerns with continuing to use the Small SI program test cycle for engines used in applications that operate at broad engine speeds. The cycle was developed primarily for push lawnmowers and other equipment that operates in a narrow band of engine speeds. The Small SI test cycle measures emissions only at a single high engine speed. We are concerned that the Small SI test cycle may not achieve the same emission reductions for off­ highway utility vehicles in use as it would for lawnmowers, especially as more stringent standards go into effect. The concern also applies to other large rideon equipment in the Small SI program, such as riding lawn mowers, where engine speed is inherently variable. While the ATV program may not be appropriate for these low­ speed utility applications due to operating and design differences, the Small SI program as it is currently designed may not be completely appropriate either. Since we did not propose changes for the Small SI program which currently applies to utility vehicles and need to further study the issues, we are not finalizing such changes to the Small SI program in this Final Rule. We plan to continue to study the issue and, if necessary, address it through a future rulemaking for the Small SI program. In addition to test cycle, there are other reasons we plan to continue to examine the appropriateness of the Small SI program for large ride­ on equipment. With respect to useful life, we are concerned that off­ highway utility vehicles may be designed to last significantly longer than the typical lawnmower. 40 CFR 90.105 specifies useful life values that vary by application with the longest useful life being 1000 hours. It is not clear that this maximum value is high enough to address the expected life of in­ use offhighway utility vehicles, especially those that are used commercially. Finally, with respect to the level of the standards, we are concerned about the relative stringency of the Small SI standards relative to the long­ term standards for ATVs and other nonroad vehicles. Nevertheless, given the lowspeed operation of these vehicles, and other differences, we do not believe that they should be treated the same as higher speed ATVs. We did not propose changes for the Small SI program to address the above issues and need to study them further. However, these vehicles are unique in many ways, and should be addressed in a future rulemaking. Given the utility nature of the lowspeed vehicles, we believe that at least for now, it is appropriate to continue to certify them under 40 CFR part 90. For vehicles capable of higher speeds ( e. g., greater than 25 mph), the engine designs and vehicle in­ use operation is likely to be more like ATVs. The test procedures and standards for ATVs will better fit these high speed vehicles than those in the Small SI program. For regulatory purposes, we are defining an offhighway utility vehicle as a nonroad vehicle that has four or more wheels, seating for two or more persons, is designed for operation over rough terrain, and has either a rear payload capacity of 350 pounds or more or total seating for six or more passengers. 4. Hobby Engines The Small SI rule categorized sparkignition engines used in model cars, boats, and airplanes as recreational engines and exempted them from the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68264 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 42 80 FR 24292, April 25, 2000. 43 Comments submitted by Hobbico on behalf of Great Plains Model Distributors and Radio Control Hobby Trade Association, February 5, 2001, Docket A 2000 01, document II D 58. 44 Hobby engines with glow plugs are considered compression­ ignition ( diesel) engines because they lack a spark­ ignition system and a throttle ( see the definition of compression­ ignition, 40 CFR 89.2). The nonroad diesel engine regulations 40 CFR part 89 generally do not apply to hobby engines, so these engines are unregulated. 45 Comments submitted by Hobbico on behalf of Great Plains Model Distributors and Radio Control Hobby Trade Association, February 5, 2001, Docket A 2000 01, document II D 58. 46 E­ mail from Carl Maroney of the Academy of Model Aeronautics to Christopher Lieske, of EPA, June 4, 2001, Docket A 2000 01, document II G 144. 47 Comments submitted by Hobbico on Behalf of Great Plains Model Distributors and Radio Control Hobby Trade Association, February 5, 2001, Docket A 2000 01, document II D 58. 48 For further information on the feasibility, emission inventories, and costs, see `` Analysis of Spark Ignition Hobby Engines'', Memorandum from Chris Lieske to Docket A 2000 01, document II G 144. 49 A motocross bike is typically a highperformance off­ highway motorcycle that is designed to be operated in motocross competition. Motocross competition is defined as a circuit race around an off­ highway closed­ course. The course contains numerous jumps, hills, flat sections, and bermed or banked turns. The course surface usually consists of dirt, gravel, sand, and mud. Motocross bikes are designed to be very light for quick handling and easy maneuverability. They also come with large knobby tires for traction, high fenders to protect the rider from flying dirt and rocks, aggressive suspension systems that allow the bike to absorb large amounts of shock, and are powered by high­ performance engines. They are not equipped with lights. 50 An enduro bike is very similar in design and appearance to a motocross bike. The primary difference is that enduros are equipped with lights and have slightly different engine performance that is more geared towards a broader variety of operation than a motocross bike. An enduro bike Small SI program. 42 We are continuing to exclude hobby engines from the Small SI program because of significant engine design and use differences. We also believe that hobby engines are substantially different than engines used in recreational vehicles and, as proposed, we are not including sparkignition hobby engines in this final rule. We received no comment on our proposed treatment of hobby engines or any additional information on their design or use. There are about 8,000 spark­ ignition engines sold per year for use in scalemodel aircraft, cars, and boats. 43 This is a very small subsection of the overall model engine market, most of which are glow­ plug engines that run on a mix of castor oil, methyl alcohol, and nitro methane. 44 A typical spark­ ignition hobby engine is approximately 25 cc with a horsepower rating of about 1 3 hp, though larger engines are available. These spark­ ignition engines are specialty products sold in very low volumes, usually not more than a few hundred units per engine line annually. Many of the engines are used in model airplanes, but they are also used in other types of models such as cars and boats. These engines, especially the larger displacement models, are frequently used in competitive events by experienced operators. The racing engines sometimes run on methanol instead of gasoline. In addition, the engines are usually installed and adjusted by the hobbyist who selects an engine that best fits the particular model being constructed. The average annual hours of operation has been estimated to be about 12.2 hours per year. 45 The usage rate is very low compared to other recreational or utility engine applications due to the nature of their use. Much of the hobby revolves around building the model and preparing the model for operation. The engine and model must be adjusted, maintained, and repaired between uses. Spark­ ignition model engines are highly specialized and differ significantly in design compared to engines used in other recreational or utility engine applications. While some of the basic components such as pistons may be similar, the materials, airflow, cooling, and fuel delivery systems are considerably different. 46 47 Some sparkignition model engines are scale replicas of multi­ cylinder aircraft or automobile engines and are fundamentally different than spark­ ignition engines used in other applications. Model­ engine manufacturers often select lighterweight materials and simplified designs to keep engine weight down, often at the expense of engine longevity. Hobby engines use special ignition systems designed specifically for the application to be lighter than those used in other applications. To save weight, hobby engines typically lack pull starters that are found on other engines. Hobby engines must be started by spinning the propeller. In addition, the models themselves vary significantly in their design, introducing packaging issues for engine manufacturers. We are not including spark­ ignition hobby engines in the recreational vehicles program. The engines differ significantly from other recreational engines in their design and use, as noted above. Emission­ control strategies envisioned for other recreational vehicles may not be well suited for hobby engines because of their design, weight constraints, and packaging limitations. Approaches such as using a four­ stroke engine, a catalyst, or fuel injection all would involve increases in weight, which would be particularly problematic for model airplanes. The feasibility of these approaches for these engines is questionable. Reducing emissions, even if feasible, would likely involve fundamental engine redesign and substantial R& D efforts. The costs of achieving emission reductions are likely to be much higher per engine than for other recreational applications because the R& D costs would be spread over very low sales volumes. The cost of fundamentally redesigning the engines could double the cost of some engines. By contrast, because of their very low sales volumes, annual usage rates, and relatively short engine life cycle, sparkignition hobby engine emission contributions are extremely small compared to recreational vehicles. The emission reductions possible from regulating such engines would be minuscule ( we estimate that sparkignition hobby engines as a whole account for less than 30 tons of HC nationally per year, much less than 0.01 percent of mobile source HC emissions). 48 In addition, hobby engines differ significantly in their in­ use operating characteristics compared to small utility engines and other recreational vehicle engines. It is unclear if the test procedures developed and used for other types of spark­ ignition engine applications would be sufficiently representative or even technically practical for hobby engines. We are not aware of any efforts to develop an emission test cycle or conduct any emission testing of these engines. Also, because installing, optimizing, maintaining, and repairing the engines are as much a part of the hobby as operating the engine, emission standards could fundamentally alter the hobby itself. Engines with emissioncontrol systems would be more complex and the operator would need to be careful not to make changes that would cause the engine to exceed emission standards. EPA will continue to review these issues, as necessary, in the future and reconsider adoption of regulations if appropriate. 5. Competition Exemptions a. Off­ Highway motorcycles. Currently, a large portion of off­ highway motorcycles are designed as competition/ racing motorcycles. These models often represent a manufacturer's high­ performance offerings in the offhighway market. Most such motorcycles are of the motocross variety, although some high­ performance enduro models are marketed for competition use. 49 50 These high­ performance motorcycles are VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68265 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations needs to be able to cruise at high speeds as well as operate through tight woods or deep mud. 51 A spark arrester is a device located in the end of the tailpipe that catches carbon sparks coming from the engine before they get out of the exhaust system. This is important when a bike is used offhighway where hot carbon sparks falling in grassy or wooded areas could result in fires. 52 Most manufacturers of motocross racing motorcycles do not offer a warranty. Some manufacturers do, however, offer very limited ( 1 to 3 months) warranties under special conditions. 53 `` Characterization of Off­ Road Motorcycle Use,'' ICF Consulting, September 2001, A 2000 1 document II A 81. largely powered by two­ stroke engines, though some four­ stroke models have been introduced in recent years. Competition events for motocross motorcycles mostly involve closedcourse or track racing. Other types of off­ highway motorcycles, such as enduros and trials bikes, are usually marketed for trail or open­ area use. When used for competition, these models are likely to be involved in point­ to­ point competition events over trails or stretches of open land. There are also specialized off­ highway motorcycles that are designed for competitions such as ice racing, drag racing, and observed trials competition. A few races involve professional manufacturer­ sponsored racing teams. Amateur competition events for offhighway motorcycles are also held frequently in many areas of the U. S. Clean Air Act subsections 216 ( 10) and ( 11) exclude engines and vehicles `` used solely for competition'' from nonroad engine and nonroad vehicle regulations. In the proposal we stated that in previous nonroad engine emission­ control programs, we have generally defined the term as follows: Used solely for competition means exhibiting features that are not easily removed and that would render its use other than in competition unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely. Most motorcycles marketed for competition do not appear to have obvious physical characteristics that constrain their use solely to competition. In fact, they are usually sold by dealers from the showroom floor. Upon closer inspection, however, there are several features and characteristics for many competition motorcycles that make recreational use unlikely. For example, motocross bikes are not equipped with lights or a spark arrester, which prohibits them from legally operating on public lands ( such as roads, parks, state land, and federal land). 51 Vehicle performance of modern motocross bikes is so advanced ( for example, with extremely high power­ toweight ratios and advanced suspension systems) that it is highly unlikely that these machines will be used for recreational purposes. In addition, motocross and other competition offhighway motorcycles typically do not come with a warranty, which further deters purchasing and using competition bikes for recreational operation. 52 We believe these features are sufficient in distinguishing competition motorcycles from recreational motorcycles. Therefore, we are specifically adopting the following features as indicative of motorcycles used solely for competition: absence of a headlight or other lights; the absence of a spark arrester; suspension travel greater than 10 inches; an engine displacement greater than 50 cc; absence of a manufacturer warranty; and the absence of a functional seat. Manufacturers must specifically request and receive an exemption from EPA to sell off­ highway motorcycles without a certificate under the competition exemption. Vehicles not meeting the applicable criteria listed above will be exempted only in cases where the manufacturer has clear and convincing evidence that the vehicles for which the exemption is being sought will be used solely for competition. Examples of this type of evidence may be technical rationale explaining the differences between a competition and non­ competition motorcycle, marketing and sales information indicating the intent of the motorcycle for competition purposes, and survey data from users indicating the competitive nature of the motorcycle. Although there are several features that generally distinguish competition motorcycles from recreational motorcycles, several parties have commented that they believe motorcycles designed for competition use are also used for recreational purposes, rather than solely for competition. This is of particular concern because competition motorcycles represent about 29 percent of total off­ highway motorcycle sales or approximately 43,000 units per year. However, a study on the characterization of off­ highway motorcycle usage found that there are numerous and increasingly popular amateur off­ highway motorcycle competitions across the country, especially motocross. 53 The estimated number of off­ highway motorcycle competitors is as high as 80,000. Since it is very common for competitive riders to replace their machines every one to two years, the sale of 43,000 offhighway competition motorcycles appears to be a reasonable number, considering the number of competitive participants. We are therefore confident that, although we are excluding a high percentage of off­ highway motorcycles as being competition machines, the criteria laid out above are indicative of motorcycles used solely for competition. However, we do recognize that it is possible that some competition motorcycles will be used for recreational purposes. We are therefore adopting a provision within the regulations that allows the Agency to deny a manufacturer's claim for exemption from the standards for any models, including models that meet the six specified criteria, where other information is available that indicates these off­ highway motorcycle models are not used solely for competition. This same provision allows the Agency to deny claims for exemptions in later years even if they had been granted previously. Examples of this type of information can be state registration data that indicate a significant number of competition exempt models being registered to operate on public lands. Off­ highway competition motorcycles designed for motocross competition are not typically required to be registered with states, since most motocross competitions occur on closed­ circuit courses on private, not public land, and motocross machines lack spark arresters which are required to operate on public land. We believe the possibility of losing an exemption for competition motorcycles will encourage manufacturers to take proper actions in promoting, marketing, and guaranteeing that competition machines are sold to those individuals who will use them solely for competition. b. Snowmobiles and ATVs. Snowmobiles and ATVs are also used in competition events; however, the percentage of snowmobiles or ATVs used solely for competition is not nearly as large as that for off­ highway motorcycles. Since snowmobile and ATV competition have typically not been as popular as off­ highway motorcycle competitions, there has not been the demand for competition machines that exists with off­ highway motorcycles. As a result, manufacturers have not manufactured and sold directly from their dealers competition snowmobiles and ATVs like they have off­ highway motorcycles. Most snowmobiles and ATVs used in competition events are modified recreational vehicles, rather than stock racing machines bought directly from the dealer, as is the case with offhighway motorcycles. As a result, there isn't the same concern over potential misuse of competition snowmobiles and ATVs for recreational purposes. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68266 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Competition snowmobiles and ATVs aren't currently sold directly at the dealership. Therefore, manufacturers can receive a competition exemption from EPA for snowmobiles and ATVs meeting all of the following criteria: the vehicle or engine may not be displayed for sale in any public dealership; sale of the vehicle must be limited to professional racers or other qualified racers; and the vehicle must have performance characteristics that are substantially superior to noncompetitive models. As with off­ highway motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATVs not meeting the applicable criteria listed above will be exempted only in cases where the manufacturer has clear and convincing evidence that the vehicles for which the exemption is being sought will be used solely for competition. We are also adopting the same provision as for offhighway motorcycles within the regulations that allows the Agency to deny a manufacturer's claim for exemption from the standards for any models where other information is available that indicates these snowmobiles and ATVs models are not used solely for competition. As with offhighway motorcycles, this same provision allows the Agency to deny claims for exemptions in later years even if they had been granted previously. C. Emission Standards 1. What Are the Emission Standards and Compliance Dates? a. Off­ highway motorcycles. We are adopting HC plus NOX and CO standards for off­ highway motorcycles. We expect the largest benefit to come from reducing HC emissions from twostroke engines. Two­ stroke engines have very high HC emission levels. Baseline NOX levels are relatively low for engines used in these applications and therefore including NOX in the standard serves only to cap NOX emissions for these engines. Comparable CO reductions can be expected from both two­ stroke and four­ stroke engines, as CO levels are similar for the two engine types. We are also adopting averaging, banking and trading provisions for off­ highway motorcycles, as discussed below. In the current off­ highway motorcycle market, consumers can choose between two­ stroke and four­ stroke models in most sizes. Each engine type offers unique performance characteristics. Some manufacturers specialize in twostroke or four­ stroke models, while others offer a mix of models. The HC standard is likely to be a primary determining factor for what technology manufacturers choose to employ to meet emission standards overall. HC emissions can be reduced substantially by switching from two­ stroke to fourstroke engines. Four­ stroke engines are very common in off­ highway motorcycle applications. Approximately 55 percent of non­ competition off­ highway motorcycles are four­ stroke. Certification results from California ARB's emission­ control program for offhighway motorcycles, combined with our own baseline emission testing, provides ample data on the emissioncontrol capability of four­ stroke engines in off­ highway motorcycles. Offhighway motorcycles certified to California ARB standards for the 2000 model year have HC certification levels ranging from 0.4 to 1.0 g/ km. These motorcycles have engines ranging in size from 48 to 650 cc; none of these use catalysts. The emission standards for offhighway motorcycles take effect beginning in the 2006 model year. We will allow a phase­ in of 50­ percent implementation in the 2006 model year with full implementation in 2007. These standards apply to testing with the highway motorcycle Federal Test Procedure ( FTP) test cycle. For HC+ NOX emissions, the standard is 2.0 g/ km ( 3.2 g/ mi). For CO emissions, the standard is 25.0 g/ km ( 40.5 g/ mi). Both of these standards are based on averaging with a cap on the Family Emission Limit ( FEL) of 20 g/ km for HC+ NOX and 50 g/ km for CO. Banking and trading provisions are also included in the program, as described in Section III. C. 2. These emission standards allow us to set nearterm requirements to introduce the lowemission technologies for substantial emission reductions with minimal lead time. We expect manufacturers to meet these standards using four­ stroke engines with some low­ level modifications to fuel­ system calibrations. These systems are similar to those used for many years in highway motorcycle applications, but with less overall sophistication for off­ highway applications. We received comments from several states and environmental groups encouraging us to harmonize our offhighway motorcycle standards with California. The comments focused on the perceived difference in stringency between the two programs. For California, the standard is an HC­ only standard of 1.2 g/ km. Our standard is a HC+ NOX standard of 2.0 g/ km. We believe it is prudent to set a HC+ NOX standard in lieu of a HC­ only standard since the main emission­ control strategy is expected to be the use of four­ stroke engines in lieu of two­ stroke engines. Two­ stroke engines emit extremely low levels of NOX. Four­ stroke engines, on the other hand, have higher NOX emission levels, in the range of 0.3 g/ km on average. This is part of the reason why we proposed a somewhat higher numeric standard compared to California. The California standards, which were adopted in 1994, were stringent enough that manufacturers were unable to certify several models of off­ highway motorcycles, even some with four­ stroke engine technology. The result was a substantial shortage of products for dealers to sell in California. The shortage led California to change their program to allow manufacturers to sell noncompliant off­ highway motorcycles under some circumstances. As a result, approximately a third of the off­ highway motorcycles sold in California are compliant with the standards. The uncertified models being sold in California include both two­ stroke and four­ stroke machines. EPA received comments from dealers and consumers concerned that a similar shortage could arise nationwide if EPA adopted the California standards. EPA shared this concern and proposed standards that were somewhat less stringent than that of California, based on test data from high­ performance fourstroke machines. We are finalizing this approach to ensure the four­ stroke technology can be implemented broadly across the product line in the 2006 timeframe Although the approach we are finalizing contains somewhat less stringent standards than the California program, we believe it will achieve reductions beyond that of the California program because more products will be certified ( even when the competition exemption is taken into account). The vast majority of the HC reductions achieved by the program come from shifting away from conventional twostroke engines which have HC emissions levels in the range of 35 g/ km. The 2.0 g/ km standard represents about a 95­ percent reduction in emissions for these vehicles. If we were to go beyond this level of reduction, manufacturers would need to employ on a widespread basis additional technology that presents significant technical issues concerning their application to off­ highway motorcycles given their extreme usage patterns and issues such as safety, packaging, and weight. For example, technologies such as electronic fuel injection and secondary air injection raise concerns about their durability and reliability in the harsh operating environments to which off­ highway motorcycles are sometimes exposed. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68267 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations The use of catalytic converters poses concerns over packaging, durability and safety. Off­ highway motorcycles are very light and narrow. These attributes are necessary for operating through tight forest trails and other harsh conditions. This leaves little room for packaging a catalyst so that it won't be damaged from engine vibration, shock resulting from jumps and hopping logs, and falling over and hitting objects, such as trees and rocks. These technologies may become compatible for off­ highway motorcycles in the future, but we do not believe that it is appropriate to promulgate emission standards based on these technologies at this time, given the technical problems currently associated with their use. Four­ stroke engine technology has advanced considerably since the California regulations went into effect. Manufacturers are now capable of offering four­ stroke engines that provide excellent performance. This performance can be achieved only as long as manufacturers are allowed to operate four­ stroke engines with a slightly rich air and fuel mixture, which can result in somewhat higher HC and CO emissions. Although the standards we are setting are higher than those in California, we believe they will require four­ stroke engines that are well calibrated for emissions control without significantly sacrificing performance. For these reasons, we believe the standards we are establishing are appropriate. As discussed above in Section III. B. 5, the Clean Air Act requires us to exempt from emission standards off­ highway motorcycles used for competition. We expect several competition two­ stroke off­ highway motorcycle models to continue to be available. We are concerned that setting standards as stringent as California's would result in a performance penalty for some fourstroke engines that would be unacceptable to the consumers. This could encourage consumers who want performance­ oriented off­ highway motorcycles to purchase competition vehicles ( and use them recreationally) in lieu of purchasing compliant machines that don't provide the desired performance. We believe that our emission standards will allow the continued advancement of four­ stroke technology and properly considers available emission­ control technology while taking vehicle performance into consideration and avoiding significant adverse impacts on performance. As proposed, we are also finalizing an option allowing off­ highway motorcycles with an engine displacement of 50 cc or less to be certified using the Small SI emission standards for non­ handheld Class I engines. These youth­ oriented models may not be able to operate over the FTP due to the higher speeds of the test cycle. We did not receive comment on this provision. Optional Standards During the comment period, we received several comments expressing concern that our proposed standard of 2.0 g/ km HC+ NOX for off­ highway motorcycles would effectively prohibit the use of two­ stroke engines in noncompetition applications. These engines currently have typical HC+ NOX levels of about 35 g/ km. The commenters argued that two­ stroke engines possess several unique attributes, such as high power and light weight, that make two­ stroke powered off­ highway motorcycles more desirable to some operators, especially smaller, lighter riders, than heavier fourstroke powered off­ highway motorcycles. We also received comments from several states and environmental organizations expressing strong concern over the number of competition offhighway motorcycles that would be exempt from our regulations as a result of our competition exemption. They felt that people purchasing exempt competition motorcycles would use them for recreational purposes instead of solely for competition. One manufacturer indicated that they were planning on building highperformance off­ highway motorcycles equipped with direct fuel­ injection twostroke engines that would potentially be capable of meeting a HC+ NOX standard of 4.0 g/ km. To enable use of this technology, they suggested that we should adopt a standard of 4.0 g/ km instead of the proposed standard of 2.0 g/ km. The commenter believes that direct injection could be used to make clean competition machines and also argued that the technology is robust and not as susceptible to user modifications as other technologies such as catalysts. The commenter wanted an opportunity to develop and certify their product because it perceives a benefit to the purchaser not only in performance but also in the ability for the owner to resell the competition vehicle into the secondary market without concerns about potential misuse. In addition, the owner would be able to use the vehicle both for competition and recreation. It is clear that if manufacturers were able to certify and bring to market clean competition machines as described by the commenter, significant reductions in emissions would be gained over conventional two­ stroke technology. Some competition models we tested had baseline HC and CO emissions in excess of 50 g/ km and 40 g/ km, respectively. We believe it is appropriate to provide an avenue for the development and voluntary certification of clean competition motorcycles. Therefore, we are finalizing an optional set of standards for off­ highway motorcycles of 4.0 g/ km HC+ NOX and 35.0 g/ km CO. For manufacturers to utilize this option, however, they must certify all of their models, including their competition models, to the optional standards. To qualify for this option, a manufacturer must show that ten percent or more of their sales would otherwise meet the competition definition. The optional standard was derived from the fact that non­ competition fourstroke engines can meet a 2.0 g/ km level and competition two­ stroke machines with advanced direct fuel­ injection technology could meet a 8.0 g/ km level. Since approximately one­ third of the total off­ highway motorcycle fleet are competition machines and the other two­ thirds would be non­ competition four­ stroke recreational machines, the weighting of the 2.0 g/ km level by twothirds and the 8.0 g/ km level by onethird results in a weighted standard of 4.0 g/ km. This presumes that emissions from four­ stroke engines will not increase under this option and that noncompetition engines will be almost exclusively four­ stroke engines. These assumptions are discussed below. The significant reductions in otherwise unregulated competition engines means that this option should produce even greater overall reductions than the base 2.0 g/ km standard. We recognize that for some manufacturers this program will increase opportunities to make a limited number of non­ competition recreational two­ stroke machines; however, we believe that the number of two­ stroke non­ competition engines developed under this program will be limited by the fact that the required technology ( direct fuel­ injection) would be too expensive and complex for the recreational motorcycle market. The majority of non­ competition recreational off­ highway motorcycles that use twostroke engines are entry­ level and youth motorcycles, where cost and simplicity are important factors. There is also the fact that for every two stroke noncompetition engine manufactured under this program, a manufacturer must make one less competition engine or must make more four­ stroke engines. Further, we believe that any increase in the number of non­ competition two­ stroke engines is justified given the fact that this program will overall bring levels from off­ highway engines down VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68268 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations considerably and the fact that the technology needed to reduce emissions from competition machines will only be made available and used if, under this optional approach, manufacturers have an incentive to use the technologies. One major incentive in using this approach is the fact that once these machines are certified, a consumer will be able to use these machines legally for non­ competition uses, which increases the value of the competition machines. This approach thus will also reduce the incentive for manufacturers to manufacturer all of their two­ stroke machines as competition machines to avoid regulation, and thus reduce the incentive for users to circumvent the regulations. This may mean that any increase in two­ stroke non­ competition engines under this approach would not lead to an increase in total two­ stroke sales, because manufacturers will not have an incentive to increase the number of two­ stroke competition vehicles to avoid regulation. We believe this approach is responsive to all of the above comments. It directly addresses the concerns of the manufacturer developing the new competition motorcycle and also helps address the concerns of users, states, and environmental groups. The successful development and certification of clean competition models increases the choices for consumers in the marketplace. Offered the option of a certified highperformance two­ stroke off­ highway motorcycle that can be used both for competition and recreation, consumers may not feel the need to purchase exempt competition motorcycles. This option has the potential to significantly decrease the number of conventional two­ stroke competition machines sold under the competition exemption and is likely to decrease the potential for misuse of competition machines. Conventional competition two­ stroke motorcycles generate extremely high levels of HC emissions, as noted above. For every conventional two­ stroke competition machine replaced by a certified competition machine, HC emissions would be reduced by 80 percent, or more. While the 4.0 g/ km standard is higher than the 2.0 g/ km standard contained in the base program, we do not expect any loss in emissions reductions from fourstroke models. We continue to believe most off­ highway motorcycles will continue to be powered by four­ stroke engines. Most non­ competition offhighway motorcycles are already fourstroke motorcycles, and the trend towards four­ stroke is continuing even in the absence of these regulations. We are convinced that there will be no backsliding of emissions control for motorcycles using four­ stroke engines, because the dirtiest of the four­ stroke models tend to be competition machines, and our emissions testing indicates that competition four­ stroke off­ highway motorcycles have HC+ NOX emission levels below 2.0 g/ km. Since these motorcycles are optimized for power and racing conditions, there is no incentive for manufacturers to increase HC+ NOX emissions from their current levels. In fact, increasing the emission levels would mean increasing the air­ tofuel mixture, which would tend to reduce the engines performance. As with the primary program, these optional standards would take effect in 2006 with 50­ percent implementation and full implementation in 2007 and manufacturers could switch between the options from model year to model year. The HC+ NOX standard can be met through averaging with some families certified above the standards and some below. If averaging is used, the FEL cap would be 8.0 g/ km. We are retaining the averaging approach for this option because it may be a critical flexibility for manufacturers pursuing clean competition products. The commenter based its recommendation for a 4.0 g/ km standard on their projections for a single prototype model equipped with a medium sized engine. This engine is in the early stages of development and there is some uncertainty as to what emissions level the final product can achieve. Also, manufacturers may want to apply their approach to other engines that may not be able to achieve this same level of control. Manufacturers could find that they can produce competition products that are very clean relative to the baseline but with higher emissions than 4.0 g/ km. For example, larger engine sizes could have emissions levels somewhat higher than the 4.0 g/ km suggested by the commenter. We are not satisfied at this time that two­ stroke off­ highway motorcycles, particularly those used in competition could meet the 4.0 g/ km standard, especially considering the special performance needs of competition motorcycles. Therefore, rather than keeping a 2.0 g/ km standard for four­ stroke engines and having a standard higher than 4.0 g/ km for two­ stroke engines ( a standard as high as 8.0 g/ km might be appropriate), we are using a 4.0 g/ km standard that permits averaging. Averaging provides flexibility for manufacturers to bring cleaner two­ stroke, particularly cleaner competition two­ stroke, engines to market without creating a disincentive to building four­ stroke engines. One way of taking advantage of the averaging program in this way would be for a manufacturer to maximize its sales of four­ stroke models as part of its sales mix, and average the emissions from these engines against the higher emissions of the two­ stroke competition engines which still would need to be much cleaner than if they were unregulated. This approach therefore requires the substantial use of cleaner four­ stroke technologies while at the same time encouraging manufacturers to substantially reduce emissions from motorcycles that would otherwise be unregulated competition motorcycles. We have capped the emissions levels at 8.0 g/ km HC+ NOX because we want to ensure that products certified under this option provide large emissions reductions compared to baseline levels and that the option provides environmental benefits in all cases. Competition motorcycles certified to the 8.0 g/ km level would continue to provide over a 75­ percent reduction in HC emissions over baseline levels. One of the challenges facing manufacturers selecting this option is the potentially high CO emissions from competition machines. We tested competition models and found CO emissions to be in the range 25 to 50 g/ km. Although this option contains a somewhat higher CO standard ( 35 g/ km compared to 25 g/ km) than the base program, manufacturers are still expected to need to control CO emissions through tight engine calibrations. We are not including averaging for the less stringent CO standard. As noted by the manufacturer supporting the 4.0 g/ km option, direct injection technology is likely to reduce CO from two­ stroke engines. We believe that through proper calibration, the 35 g/ km standard will be achievable and will not significantly impede manufacturers in selecting this option. b. ATVs. We are adopting HC plus NOX and CO standards for ATVs. We expect the largest benefit to come from reducing HC emissions from two­ stroke engines. Two­ stroke engines have very high HC emission levels. Baseline NOX levels are relatively low for engines used in these applications and therefore including NOX in these standards serves only to cap NOX emissions for these engines. Comparable CO reductions can be expected from both two­ stroke and four­ stroke engines, as CO levels are similar for the two engine types. We are also adopting averaging, banking and trading provisions for ATVs, as discussed below. In the current ATV market, consumers can choose between two­ stroke and four­ stroke models, although the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68269 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 54 We respond to these comments in Section II of the Summary and Analysis of Comments. 55 Utility­ type ATVs, it should be noted, are not the same as utility vehicles. Utility vehicles are not Continued majority, approximately eighty­ percent of sales, are four­ stroke. Each engine type offers unique performance characteristics. Some manufacturers specialize in two­ stroke or four­ stroke models, but most manufacturers offer a mix of models. The HC standard is likely to be a primary determining factor for which technology manufacturers choose to employ to meet emission standards overall. HC emissions can be reduced substantially by switching from two­ stroke to four­ stroke engines. Certification results from California ARB's emission­ control program for ATVs, combined with our own baseline emission testing, provides ample data on the emission­ control capability of four­ stroke engines in ATVs. In the proposal we included two phases of ATV standards. The first phase of standards, 2.0 g/ km HC+ NOX and 25 g/ km CO, was proposed to be phased in at 50 percent of production in 2006 with the remainder phased­ in for 2007. We proposed a second set of standards that included a more stringent 1.0 g/ km HC+ NOX standard with no change to the CO standards. It was to be met in 2009/ 2010 using the same 50­ percent and 100­ percent phase­ in scheme as Phase 1. We proposed that both phases of HC+ NOX standards could be met through averaging. We received comments from several environmental groups stating that we should harmonize our Phase 1 standards with the California FTP­ based standards. Manufacturers did not comment on the level of our proposed Phase 1 HC+ NOX standards. However, in a letter sent to the Agency in August 6, 2001, just before we published the proposal, the Motorcycle Industry Council stated that the most costeffective approach to setting standards for ATVs would be to adopt the California HC standards of 1.2 g/ km. They did comment on the fact that almost all of the CO nonattainment areas identified in the Draft Regulatory Support Document are now in compliance and that ATV activity is typically so far removed from congested urban areas, that we should delete the proposed CO standard. 54 Manufacturers stated generally that CO standards will make it more difficult to meet the HC+ NOX standards but did not provide additional specific comments on the feasibility or costs of the CO level proposed. In subsequent meetings with manufacturers, they suggested that if we were not going to delete the CO standard, it should be set sufficiently high so that it would not be an impediment to meeting the HC+ NOX standard. They suggested a level of 50.0 g/ km. We have decided to finalize only one set of HC+ NOX emission standards for the 2006 model year that are essentially equivalent to the California standard. The emission standards for ATVs take effect beginning in the 2006 model year. We will allow a phase­ in of 50­ percent implementation in the 2006 model year with full implementation in 2007. These standards apply to testing with the highway motorcycle Class I FTP test cycle. For HC+ NOX emissions, the standard is 1.5 g/ km ( 2.4 g/ mi). The California program has a HC­ only standard of 1.2 g/ km. We have made the standard 1.5 g/ km to account for NOX emissions. For CO emissions, we agree with manufacturers that CO standards can make it more difficult to meet the HC+ NOX standard. Based on our emission test data, we feel that a standard of 35.0 g/ km ( 56.4 g/ mi) is more appropriate than the 25.0 g/ km standard we proposed or the 50.0 g/ km standard suggested by the manufacturers. A standard of 35.0 g/ km will still result in an overall reduction in CO emissions from high emitting ATVs, but will also allow manufacturers to balance CO control with the need to meet stringent NOX levels. The HC+ NOX standard may be met through averaging. Banking and trading provisions for HC+ NOX are also being included in the program, as discussed in C. 2., below. Our decision to finalize a 1.5 g/ km value rather than the 2.0 g/ km value is consistent with the manufacturers technical capability in the 2006/ 2007 time­ frame. The 1.5 g/ km HC+ NOX and 35 g/ km CO standards require the use of engine technology changes and add­ on devices such as secondary air systems, which are clearly available for ATV application in this time frame. We proposed a 1.0 g/ km HC+ NOX standard for a 2009/ 2010 phase­ in which could require use of catalytic converter technology in many models of ATVs. As discussed below, we are not finalizing that proposal now, and thus find it appropriate to finalize more stringent Phase 1 standards which are technologically feasible and otherwise consistent with statutory criteria related to cost, safety, noise, and energy considerations. Aligning our emission standards with those currently in place in California allows us to set requirements to introduce the low­ emission technologies for substantial emission reductions with reasonable lead time and will for the most part allow manufacturers to sell one model in all fifty states. This `` harmonization'' between federal and California requirements is valued by industry because it allows the development and production of one emission­ control technology per model/ family. However, in a few cases, we expect emissions reductions under the EPA program that go beyond that of the California program because California allows the sale of uncertified ATVs, including two­ stroke models, under their red sticker provisions. With the exception of competition exempt ATVs, all ATV models subject to the EPA program will need to be certified. We expect manufacturers to meet these standards using four­ stroke engines with some modifications to fuel­ system calibrations and some limited use of secondary air systems. These systems are similar to those used for many years in highway applications, but will likely require lesser sophistication than used in highway motorcycle applications. In addition to being consistent with the California standards, we feel the 1.5 g/ km HC+ NOX standard is more appropriate than the proposed 2.0 g/ km standard because our testing has shown that emission levels from four­ stroke ATVs can vary considerably. We stated in the proposed rule that a standard of 2.0 g/ km HC+ NOX would be a fourstroke enforcing standard, which would most likely result in the elimination of any two­ stroke engines, but not necessarily require any additional control from the four­ stroke engines. As stated above, a standard of 1.5 g/ km HC+ NOX will require the use of engine technology changes and add­ on devices such as secondary air systems, which are clearly available for ATV application in this time frame. At this point, we do not believe it is appropriate to promulgate Phase 2 standards. In the proposal, we projected significant use of secondary air systems and catalysts for meeting the Phase 2 standards. Since that time, we have been conducting testing on ATVs with the type of catalysts and secondary air systems we envisioned for the Phase 2 standards to demonstrate feasibility. However, the testing we have done to date has not been sufficient to reach an affirmative conclusion on the feasibility of the Phase 2 standards. Testing with secondary air systems and catalysts have not shown consistent results and we have had only partial success in demonstrating the feasibility of the proposed Phase 2 standards using these technologies. In testing on a utility­ type ATV, these technologies have provided only small emissions reductions. 55 The VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68270 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations considered ATVs due to fundamental differences in the vehicle characteristics. Most utility vehicles are currently regulated by the Small SI program, with a small subset of utility vehicles required by the Final Rule to meet ATV standards. See section III. B. 3. above, for a complete discussion of utility vehicles. When we say utility­ type ATV, we are referring to ATVs that have features that are work related such as cargo racks. These ATVs are often somewhat larger and bulkier than sport models and may have transmissions geared more for work related tasks rather than for high performance. However, they have ATV features such as four low pressure tires, a seat designed to be straddled by the operator, handlebars for steering controls, and are intended for use by a single operator. These vehicle must meet ATV requirements. 56 Comments of the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., and the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Mandatory Emission Standards for Nonroad Large Spark­ Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines ( Marine and Land­ Based), Air Docket A 2000 01, IV D 214. results of our preliminary testing are discussed further in Section III. F and in the Final Regulatory Support Document. It is unclear if the level of technology we projected in the proposal would be sufficient to meet the Phase 2 standards. We have not done enough research or testing on other potential technologies, such as electronic or direct fuel injection, to finalize a decision based on these technologies. We plan to continue to evaluate the technologies that would be needed to meet the Phase 2 levels and determine if those levels can be met with the level of technology we projected in the proposal or with other technology. We also received comments that we underestimated costs for Phase 2 and we will continue to evaluate costs as well. In addition, we received comments that the emissions inventories we projected for ATVs were too large, and that if we adjusted them appropriately, we would see that Phase 2 was not needed. This is provided in detail in the public docket. 56 We have studied and evaluated in­ depth the new and additional information provided by the commenters after we published the proposal. As is shown in our revised analysis, the emissions inventory projections for ATVs have been reduced by more than 75 percent in response to the significant new information we received after publishing the proposal. Our analysis of the appropriate standards for 2006/ 2007 described above was made using this new information, and future analysis of Phase 2 standards would also use these revised inventory numbers. However, it is important to note that the revised inventories still show that these vehicles contribute to nonattainment. Engine­ based Standards California allows ATVs to be optionally tested using the California ARB utility engine test cycle ( SAE J1088) and procedures. In California, manufacturers using the J1088 engine test cycle option must meet the California Small Off­ Road Engine emission standards. Some manufacturers do not have chassis testing facilities and at the time California finalized its program were concerned about the cost of doing FTP testing for California­ only requirements. To use this option, manufacturers were required by California to submit some emission data from the various modes of the J1088 test cycles to show that emissions from these modes were comparable to FTP emissions. Although a good correlation was not found between the two test cycles, California allowed this option because the goal of their program was to encourage fourstroke engine technology in ATVs. As described above, we are finalizing standards based on vehicle testing over the FTP that are essentially harmonized with the California FTP standards. We did not propose a permanent option of engine testing using J1088 due to strong concerns that the test cycle misses substantial portions of ATV operation because it contains test points at only one engine speed. We understand that vehicle testing would be a significant change for manufacturers who currently conduct emissions testing on the engine rather than the vehicle for California. Due to the costs and lead­ time requirements associated with switching to vehicle­ based testing, we proposed a transitional program to allow the J1088 option for models years 2006 through 2008. To facilitate the phase­ in of ATV standards, we proposed to allow manufacturers to optionally certify ATVs using the California utility cycle and standards, shown in Table III. C 1, instead of the FTP standards. TABLE III. C 1. CALIFORNIA UTILITY ENGINE EMISSION STANDARDS Engine displacement HC+ NOX CO Less than 225 cc ................................................................................. 12.0 g/ hp­ hr ................................................................... ( 16.1 g/ kW­ hr) ............................................................... 300 g/ hp­ hr ( 400 g/ kW­ hr) Greater than 225 cc ............................................................................ 10.0 g/ hp­ hr ................................................................... ( 13.4 g/ kW­ hr) ............................................................... 300 g/ hp­ hr ( 400 g/ kW­ hr) We are finalizing this approach, but will eliminate the J1088 option ( including both the test cycle and the utility engine emission standards) for certification in model year 2009. The last model year to use the J1088 cycle and emission standards is 2008. We received comments that the FTP is also not representative of ATV operation and that the J1088 option should remain available until a new test cycle and accompanying standards can be developed and made available to manufacturers. Although it may not be completely representative of ATV operation, we believe the FTP to be greatly superior to the J1088 test cycle because the cycle is transient, emissions are measured at a variety of speeds and it is more likely to result in robust emission­ control designs that reduce emissions in­ use. We continue to be very concerned that the vast majority of ATV operation is missed with the J1088 test because the engine is tested at only one engine speed. ATV operation is inherently transient in nature because the user controls the throttle position to vary vehicle speed. We believe the J1088 test is not sufficient to ensure robust emissions control development and use for ATVs. Given the choice of available test procedures for the longterm we could not justify retaining the J1088 option. For small displacement ATVs of 70 cc or less, we proposed that they would have the permanent option to certify to the proposed FTP­ based ATV standards discussed above or meet the Phase 1 Small SI emission standards for nonhandheld Class 1 engines. These standards are 16.1 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX and 610 g/ kW­ hr CO. Manufacturers argued that ATVs with engine displacements between 70 cc and 99 cc also should be allowed to certify to the Small SI standards, since the differences between a 70 cc and 99 cc engine is very small and the ATVs equipped with 99 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68271 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 57 See item IV G 114, docket A 2000 01. cc engines face the same obstacles with the FTP test cycle as the 70 cc and below ATVs. They also argued that the Phase 1 Small SI standards are too stringent for these engines and recommended that EPA adopt the Phase 2 standards for Class 1B engines of 40 g/ kW­ hr for HC+ NOX and 610 g/ kW­ hr for CO. We recognize that the vast majority of engine families, including 4­ stroke engines, below 100 cc are not certified to the California standards, which is an indication to us that the standards proposed may not be feasible for most engines in this size range given the lead time provided. However, manufacturers did not provide supporting data and we do not have data to confirm that the level recommended by the manufacturers would result in an appropriate level of control. We examined the 2002 model year certification data for non­ handheld Small SI engines certified to the Phase 2 Class I A and I B engine standards ( engines below 100 cc). We found that the five engine families certified to these standards had average emissions for HC+ NOX of about 25 g/ kW­ hr. All of these engine families had CO emissions below 500 g/ kW­ hr and well below the 610 g/ kW­ hr level recommended by manufacturers. We believe these levels are more representative of the levels that can be achieved with the lead time provided through the use of 4­ stroke engines than the standards recommended by the manufacturers. Therefore, we are finalizing a 25.0 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX standard and a 500 g/ kW­ hr CO standard for ATVs with engine displacements of 99 cc or less. These standards will be optional to the FTP­ based standards and, unlike the J 1088 standards option for larger displacement engines, the option will not expire. We are retaining averaging for the HC+ NOX standard but do not believe averaging would be appropriate for the CO standard. This is consistent with the approach outlined above for J 1088 standards for engines above 100 cc. The ATV standards are phased in at 50% of a manufacturer's production in 2006 and 100% in 2007. This phase­ in applies to a manufacturer's overall ATV production regardless engine size or which option a manufacturer chooses for standards for particular models. New Test Procedure for ATVs We are comfortable with retaining the FTP as the basis of the long­ term ATV program. However, EPA understands the manufacturers' concerns regarding the additional facility costs associated with FTP testing for ATVs. We also recognize that this approach is a significant deviation from their current practice in the California program. Throughout the development of the final rule, we have met with manufacturers and the State of California and have discussed the possibility of developing a new test cycle for ATVs. We intend to work further with all interested parties to determine whether a new test cycle and accompanying standards is appropriate. The standards, if developed for the new test cycle, would be of equivalent stringency to the FTP standards discussed above. If we do propose a new test cycle and accompanying standards for ATVs, it is likely that we would do so in concert with a decision on whether a second phase of standards is appropriate for ATVs. We are now developing a Memorandum of Understanding with manufacturers which describes in detail the steps that will be taken in furtherance of this task. 57 Other interested parties including the state of California will also be invited to participate in this process. By finalizing the temporary availability of J1088, we are providing time to develop, and if appropriate, finalize and implement an alternative to the FTP that meets both the needs of the Agency, manufacturers and other parties. This allows for our program to remain harmonized with California during the transition to the new test procedure. However, we do not support allowing the use of J1088 for a period any longer than necessary to make this transition. We expect that developing a new test cycle will be relatively straightforward and that the MOU process cited above will provide a road map of how we will proceed. We expect to initiate this effort next year and conclude the work on the new test cycle in enough time to promulgate it through rulemaking and to provide industry adequate lead time to implement it in an orderly manner ( nominally three years lead time). If we encounter unforeseen and unavoidable delays or complications in this process, we will consider extending the J1088 temporarily as part of our process of adopting changes to the ATV test cycle through rulemaking. We would expect such an extension to be at most for one model year. c. Snowmobiles. We are adopting CO and HC emission standards for snowmobiles, effective in three phases, as discussed below. As discussed below, we are also adopting an emissions averaging banking and trading program for snowmobiles which includes provisions for the early generation of credits prior to the effective date of the standards. We are not adopting PM standards for snowmobiles at this time, because limits on HC emissions will serve to simultaneously reduce PM and because there are significant complications in accurately measuring PM that make requiring PM standards difficult in this time frame. Finally, we are not adopting limits for NOX for the first two phases of standards, but manufacturers are required to measure NOX emissions and report them in the application for certification. However, we have included NOX in the Phase 3 standards to effectively cap NOX emissions from snowmobiles. The three phases of standards we are adopting will require progressively broader application of advanced technologies such as direct injection two­ stroke technology, and four stroke engines. Only about two percent of current snowmobile production utilizes these advanced technologies. We expect that about seven percent of new snowmobiles will have them by 2005. With the Phase 1 standards we expect that ten percent of snowmobiles will require advanced technologies ( in addition to less advanced emissions controls on most other snowmobiles). We project that the Phase 2 and Phase 3 standards will require the application of advanced technology on 50 and 70 percent of new snowmobiles, respectively. Phase 1 Standards We are adopting Phase 1 standards largely as proposed for snowmobiles to take effect for all models starting in the 2006 model year. However, given that the manufacturers will effectively have only three years to design and certify snowmobiles prior to the 2006 model year, as well as the fact that snowmobiles are currently unregulated, we believe that requiring 100 percent of models to certify in 2006 is not reasonable. Thus, we are including a phase in of the Phase 1 standards with 50 percent of sales required to comply with the 30 percent reduction standards in 2006 and 100 percent compliance required in 2007. The standards of 275 g/ kW­ hr ( 205 g/ hp­ hr) for CO and 100 g/ kW­ hr ( 75 g/ hp­ hr) for HC are to be met on average by each manufacturer. As described in the proposal, these standards represent a 30­ percent reduction from the baseline CO and HC emission rates for uncontrolled snowmobiles. We expect manufacturers to meet these standards using a variety of technologies and strategies across their product lines. For the reasons VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68272 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 58 http:// www. arcticcat. com, http:// www. polarisindustries. com, http:// www. skidoo. com, and http:// www. yamahamotor com. 59 See the snowmobile feasibility discussion in the Final Regulatory Support Document. described below, we believe these are the most stringent standards feasible beginning in the 2006 model year. Snowmobiles pose some unique challenges for implementing emissioncontrol technologies and strategies. Snowmobiles are very sensitive to weight, power, and packaging constraints. Current snowmobile designs have very high power­ to­ weight ratios, to address performance considerations. The desire for low weight has been stated to be a concern, since weight ( and weight distribution) affects handling and operators occasionally have to drag their sleds out of deep snow. This has especially been mentioned as a concern in the context of four­ stroke engines given that they are heavier than their two­ stroke counterparts of similar power. However, four­ stroke engines have significantly better fuel economy than two­ stroke engines, and for identical fuel tank sizes, would have significantly greater range. This of course would be a positive attribute. The size of a fuel tank on a four­ stroke powered snowmobile could be reduced to provide similar range to that of a similarly powered twostroke snowmobile, resulting in offsetting weight savings from both the smaller fuel tank and less fuel on board. However, this could still represent a change in the distribution of weight compared to current sleds. The approach used to control emissions in compliance with the Phase 1 standards will vary according to a given manufacturers product line, technological capability, long term plans, and other factors. However, we expect all manufacturers to pursue a mix of technologies. Some manufacturers may focus more on clean carburetion and associated engine modifications and apply those widely across their entire product line with more limited implementation of advanced technology such as four­ stroke and semi direct injection engines. Others may choose to be more aggressive in applying advanced technologies in their more expensive, high­ performance sleds and be less aggressive in pursuing emission reductions from their lower­ priced offerings to optimize the fit of different technologies ( and their associated costs) to the various product offerings in the near term. As can be seen on their websites58, all large manufacturers now have limited product offerings of advanced emissions technology snowmobiles. Snowmobiles must, on average and according to the phase in schedule, meet the first phase of emission standards beginning with the 2006 model year. Given the relative inexperience this industry has with designing effective snowmobile engines with advanced emissions controls and in certifying to EPA requirements, it is unlikely that any manufacturer could market enough of these advanced snowmobiles for model year 2006 to enable it to meet significantly more stringent standards. Due to the unique performance requirements for snowmobiles and the relatively short lead time to modify current engines or design new products, we believe our 2006/ 2007 standards will be technologically challenging for manufacturers and will result in cleaner snowmobiles. Phase 2 and Phase 3 Standards We believe the two most viable advanced technologies for use in snowmobiles are two­ stroke direct ( or semi­ direct) injection technology and four­ stroke engines. All four major snowmobile manufacturers either currently offer or are planning to offer in the next year or two one or more of these technologies on a limited number of snowmobile models. With sufficient resources and lead time for manufacturers, we believe it would be technologically possible to eventually apply such advanced technology broadly across most or all of the snowmobile fleet. Manufacturers have indicated that with enough investment and sufficient time to design and implement direct injection technology for snowmobile use, two­ stroke engines equipped with direct fuel injection systems can reduce HC emissions by 70 to 75 percent and reduce CO emissions by 50 to 70 percent. These projections are based largely on laboratory prototypes and generally do not account for in­ use deterioration or the need for production compliance margins in the ultimate certification levels. Certification results for 2002 model year outboard engines and personal water craft support these projections. 59 In addition to the direct injection twostroke a few four­ stroke models are currently available, and more are expected to be introduced in the next few years. Based on testing of prototypes and other low­ hour engines it appears that advanced four­ stroke snowmobiles are capable of HC reductions ranging from 70 to 95 percent relative to current technology two­ stroke snowmobile engines. However, CO reductions from four stroke engines vary quite a bit. For fourstroke engines used in low­ power applications, CO reductions of 50 to 80 percent from baseline levels have been reported. However, the majority of the snowmobile market is for higherpowered performance machines, and CO reductions from higher powered four stroke engines are lower than those from low powered four strokes, with expected reductions of 20 to 50 percent from baseline levels. As discussed further in the RSD and Summary and Analysis of Comments document, we expect that many of the four­ stroke snowmobile models offered in the future will not be current two­ stroke models which have been modified to utilize a four­ stroke engine, but rather new models designed specifically to take advantage of the unique characteristics of four­ stroke engines. Thus, we expect that the lead time associated with the conversion to fourstroke engines and optimized sleds is even longer than that needed for conversion to direct injection two­ stroke technology. It is not obvious to us that either of these advanced technologies is better than the other or more suited to broad application in the snowmobile market. Each has its strong points regarding emissions performance, power, noise, cost, etc. For example, two­ stroke engines equipped with direct fuel injection have the potential to have greater CO emission reductions than a comparably powered four­ stroke engine, although they would have less HC reductions. For those applications where a light, powerful, compact engine is desired, a direct injection two­ stroke engine may be preferred. However, for applications where pure power and speed is desired, a high­ performance four­ stroke engine may be preferred. Given the broad range of snowmobile model designs and applications it is apparent that one of these technologies could be preferable to the other in some situations. Further, given the broad range of snowmobile types offered, a mix of advanced technologies would provide the best opportunity for substantial average emission reductions while still maintaining customer satisfaction across the entire range of snowmobile types. Thus, we believe it is most appropriate to set emission standards for snowmobiles that are not based entirely on the use of either direct injection two­ stroke technology or fourstroke engines, but rather a mix of the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68273 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations two, along with some other technologies in certain applications. It is our belief that with sufficient resources and lead time, manufacturers can successfully implement technologies such as two­ stroke direct injection and four­ stroke engines in many models in their respective snowmobile fleets. The question at hand is how broadly this technology can be practically applied across the snowmobile fleet in the near term, taking into account factors such as the number of engine and snowmobile models currently available, and the capacity of the industry to perform the research and development efforts required to optimally apply advanced technology to each of these models. Currently there are only four major snowmobile manufacturers, and each has different technological capabilities. Of these four, only two currently manufacturer all of their own engines, one has limited in­ house engine manufacturing operations, the other has none. Beyond this, there are only two advanced technologies ( direct injection two­ stroke, and four stroke) that at this time appear to be feasible to provide significant reductions in snowmobile emissions. Further, given the small volume of snowmobile sales compared to other vehicles and equipment which use similar sized engines, these manufacturers may have difficulty in working with their engine suppliers to develop and optimize four­ stroke or direct injection two­ stroke technology quickly. Clearly, the nature of the relationship between these snowmobile manufacturers and their suppliers would result in a less efficient use of available lead time as compared to the manufacturers that have both technology and engine manufacturing available in­ house. Thus, there is varying capability within the snowmobile industry to develop and implement advanced technology in the next five to ten years. The amount of engine redesign or development work is another factor. While one snowmobile manufacturer currently offers four different engine models, the other three, including the two that do not manufacture their own engines, currently offer eight to twelve engine models each. Additionally, each of these engine models typically goes into more than one type of snowmobile. There are a variety of basic snowmobile types specifically designed for a variety of riding styles and terrains including high­ performance trail riding, highperformance off­ trail riding ( including designs specifically for deep snow), mountain riding, touring ( two person snowmobiles designed for use on groomed trails), and entry level snowmobiles ( lower­ powered and lower priced snowmobiles which utilize simpler technology and are specifically designed to appeal to first time buyers). Some snowmobile manufacturers also offer snowmobile models specifically for youth, and utility models for work in cold climates or to facilitate winter sports such as hauling winter camping gear, or hunting and fishing equipment. It is not surprising that some of these snowmobile models are much more popular than others. Thus, there can be quite a difference in the production volumes of the different snowmobile types, with performance models typically having large sales volumes, and more unique models such as utility and youth models selling far fewer units. Considering the number of snowmobile types, and the fact that each engine model is typically used in several different snowmobile models, each manufacturer has potentially dozens of different engine/ snowmobile combinations that it offers. An analysis of the manufacturers current product offerings shows that while one manufacturer has only about twelve unique engine/ snowmobile model combinations, the other three offer significantly more from around 30 to over 50. Each of these different snowmobile models is designed with specific power needs in mind, with the engine and clutching specifically suited for the application style for which the snowmobile was intended. This means that a given engine model may require slightly different calibrations for each different snowmobile model in which it is used. While the advanced technologies are known, they are not `` one size fits all'' technologies. These technologies need to be optimized not only for the specific engine model, but in some cases for the snowmobile the engine will be used in as well, as just described. For all of the reasons just discussed, we believe that it is necessary to allow two additional years of lead time for compliance with the proposed Phase 2 standards, and are therefore adopting the ultimate phase of snowmobile standards effective for the 2012 model year rather than the 2010 model year as proposed. However, we expect that between the 2006 and 2012 model years there can and will be substantial development and application of advanced technologies on snowmobiles beyond that required in compliance with the Phase 1 standards. We believe that it is important to capture the emission benefits that these advances present, and are therefore adopting a new set of Phase 2 standards, effective with the 2010 model year, which will require 50 percent HC reductions and 30 percent CO reductions from average baseline levels. The Phase 2 standards are 275 g/ kW­ hr ( 205 g/ hp­ hr) for CO and 75 g/ kW­ hr ( 56 g/ hp­ hr) for HC. These Phase 2 standards will be followed by Phase 3 standards in 2012 which will effectively require the equivalent of 50 percent reductions in both HC and CO as compared to average baseline levels. We believe that the 2010 and 2012 model years are appropriate for the second and third phases of snowmobile standards because they allow an additional four to six years beyond the Phase 1 standards for the further development and application of advanced emissions control technology. We expect that the manufacturers will utilize some level of advanced technology in compliance with the Phase 1 standards, and this will give the manufacturers some time to evaluate how the advanced technology they have already applied works in the field as well as give them several years to work with the certification and compliance programs before more stringent Phase 2 standards take effect in 2010. We believe that by the 2010/ 2012 time frame manufacturers could, at least in theory, apply advanced technology across essentially their entire product lines. However, the manufacturers are resource constrained, and they will need to focus their efforts on compliance with the Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards prior to the 2010 model year. There is a need for significant technology development and manufacturing learning to occur, and there is concern that in this time frame such technology could not be performance, emissions, and safety optimized for each application given the number of engine and snowmobile model combinations that would require optimization. This would be especially challenging for those manufacturers who rely on outside suppliers for their engines. Rather, we expect that by the 2012 model year the manufacturers could both apply and optimize advanced technology to their larger volume families while applying clean carburetion and electronic fuel injection technology to the rest of their production. Under this scenario we expect that the manufacturers could apply optimized advanced technology on around 50 percent of their production by the 2010 model year, and an additional 20 percent of their production by the 2012 model year. We do not believe that having only two VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68274 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations years lead time between the Phase 2 and Phase 3 standards presents any problems because compliance with the Phase 3 standards will be achieved through the broader application of technologies which will already be applied in compliance with the Phase 2 standards, rather than through the introduction of new technologies altogether. As was previously discussed, fourstroke technology has the potential to significantly reduce HC emissions, even below levels expected from direct injection two­ stroke technology. However, higher powered four­ stroke engines are not currently capable of CO reductions on the order of those expected from direct injection twostroke technology. This is significant given that a very large segment of the snowmobile market is in higher powered performance sleds. We are concerned that a straight 50 percent reduction in CO in the Phase 3 standards may deter technology development and constrain the use of four­ stroke technology in this key portion of the snowmobile market. As the emissions standards become more stringent we believe that it is important to provide additional flexibility to assure compliance in a manner which minimizes costs and is consistent with the availability of technology and the realities of the snowmobile marketplace. Thus, to allow snowmobile manufacturers the flexibility to base their future product lines on higher percentages of four­ stroke models, we are adopting a flexible Phase 3 standards scheme that will allow manufacturers to certify their production to levels which nominally represent 50 percent reductions in HC and CO. This overall reduction could be met by other combinations summing to 100 percent such as 70 percent reductions in HC and 30 percent reductions in CO, or any level between these two points ( for example, 60 percent reductions in HC and 40 percent reductions in CO). However, in no case may a manufacturer's corporate average for the individual pollutants for Phase 3 be less than 50 percent on HC and 30 percent on CO ( the Phase 2 standards). Some manufacturers have raised safety concerns regarding the use of advanced technologies on snowmobiles, particularly four­ stroke engines used in high­ performance and mountain sleds. In particular, they raised issues regarding weight and the ability to start the snowmobile in cold weather. However, we believe these issues can be overcome with sufficient time and technology. For example, as noted above, smaller fuel tanks can significantly reduce the weight of fourstroke snowmobiles. The use of new light­ weight materials can also reduce weight for four­ stroke designs. Manufacturers have raised concerns over cold starting for four­ stroke engines because the typical four­ stroke design uses an oil distribution system where the pump and oil are located in the crankcase ( referred to as a `` wet'' sump). During extremely cold temperatures, the oil becomes thick and provides an additional load the engine must overcome when starting. However, by using a `` dry'' sump, where the oil and pump are located in a separate tank ( not in the crankcase), the concern over cold temperature starting loads due to thickened oil in the crankcase are gone. The new Yamaha RX 1 four­ stroke snowmobile uses a smaller fuel tank and lighter materials to reduce weight and a dry sump to help cold starting, so clearly these issues can be addressed. We believe that, given enough resources and lead time, it is ultimately feasible at some point beyond the 2012 model year to apply advanced technology successfully to all snowmobiles and perhaps to even resolve current design and operating issues with regard to the use of aftertreatment devices such as catalytic converters. However, it is difficult to predict at this point when this would be feasible, especially given the number of smaller volume snowmobile models that would need development effort once the larger volume models were optimized in compliance with the Phase 3 standards in 2012. We did consider standards based on the full application of optimized advanced technology to all snowmobiles, for example by setting the Phase 3 standards at a level that would require the full application of advanced technology to all snowmobiles. However, we believe that such standards are not feasible by 2012 and, we are not confident that we could choose the appropriate model year beyond 2012 for such standards given how far in the future such a requirement would be. Such an approach would also serve to eliminate the benefits associated with the Phase 3 standards in 2012. There are diverse capabilities and limiting factors within the industry, and time is needed for an orderly development and prove out of this advanced technology across the various models and applications before standards are set which require its use in all models. Additionally, as these engines have never previously been regulated or used advanced emission control technologies in large numbers, we believe it is appropriate to monitor the development and use of such technologies on snowmobiles before requiring these technologies for the entire fleet. Thus, we chose not to set standards at this time based on the optimized application of advanced technology to all snowmobiles. Nevertheless, we will monitor the development and application of the advanced technology as manufacturers work to comply with the Phase 3 standards in 2012 and will consider a fourth phase of snowmobile standards to take effect sometime after the 2012 model year. We have not included a NOX standard for the first two phases of the snowmobile regulations because NOX emissions from snowmobiles, particularly two­ stroke engines, are very small compared to levels of HC, CO and PM and we believe that stringent NOX standards may require the use of technologies that will lead to increases in HC, PM and CO levels. Technologies that reduce NOX are likely to increase levels of HC, PM and CO and vice versa, because technologies to reduce HC, PM and CO emissions would result in leaner operation. A lean air and fuel mixture causes NOX emissions to increase. These increases are minor, however, compared to the reductions of HC, CO and PM that result from these techniques. On the other hand, any attempt to control the NOX emissions may have the counter­ effect of increasing HC, CO, and PM emissions, as well as causing the greater secondary PM concentrations associated with increased HC emissions. This is especially critical for HC and PM, because NOX would be regulated primarily for its effect on secondary PM levels. We are promulgating a NOX standard ( actually an HC plus NOX standard) as part of the third phase of the snowmobile standards. This standard will essentially cap NOX emissions from these engines. The reason we are including such standards in the final phase of the rule as that the third phase of the rule will result in increases in the use of four­ stroke engines. While fourstroke engines greatly reduce HC and direct PM levels, they increase levels of NOX. While NOX levels remain substantially lower than HC and CO levels, they are higher than levels for two­ stroke engines. Thus, it is appropriate to place a cap on such levels to ensure that levels do not become so high as to become a substantial concern. While we are promulgating an effective cap on such emissions, the standard will not mandate substantial reductions in NOX. This is because the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68275 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations emissions effect on reducing NOX from four­ stroke engines is the same as for two­ stroke engines; that is, technologies that substantially reduce NOX will increase levels of other pollutants of concern. The only way to reduce NOX emissions from four­ stroke engines ( at the same time as reducing HC and CO levels) would be to use a three­ way catalytic converter. We don't have enough information at this time on the durability or safety implications of using a three­ way catalyst with a fourstroke engine in snowmobile applications. Three­ way catalyst technology is well beyond the technology reviewed for this rule and would need substantial additional review before being contemplated for snowmobiles. Thus, given the overwhelming level of HC and CO compared to NOX, and the secondary PM expected to result from these levels, it would be premature and possibly counterproductive to require substantial NOX reductions from snowmobiles at this time. 2. Are There Opportunities for Averaging, Emission Credits, or Other Flexibilities? a. Averaging, banking and trading. Historically, voluntary emission­ credit programs have allowed a manufacturer to certify one or more engine families at emission levels above the applicable emission standards, provided that the increased emissions are offset by one or more engine families certified below the applicable standards. With averaging alone, the average of all engine families for a particular manufacturer's production must be at or below that level of the applicable emission standards. We are adopting separate emission­ credit programs for snowmobiles, off­ highway motorcycles, and ATVs. We are adopting an emission­ credit program for the optional ATV engine­ based standards as well as the chassis­ based standards. In addition to the averaging program just described, the emission­ credit program contains banking and trading provisions, which allow manufacturers to generate emission credits and bank them for future use in their own averaging program or sell them to another entity. We are not adopting a credit life limit or credit discounting for these credits. Unlimited credit life and no discounting increases the incentive to introduce the clean technologies needed to gain credits. To generate credits, the engine family's emissions level must be below the standard, so any credits will result from reducing emissions more than necessary to meet the standards. ATVs and Off­ highway Motorcycles Emission credits from off­ highway motorcycle and ATVs will be averaged separately because there are differing degrees of stringency in the standards for ATVs and off­ highway motorcycles long­ term and we do not want offhighway motorcycle credits to dilute the effectiveness of the ATV standards. This also avoids providing an advantage in the market to companies that offer both types of products over those that produce only one type. Also, ATVs certified to the chassis­ based standards or engine­ based standards are considered separate averaging groups with no credit exchanges between the two. We are not allowing credit exchanges between engine and chassisbased testing because there is little, if any, correlation between the two test cycles. Without a strong correlation, it is not possible to establish an exchange rate between the two programs. For the engine­ based ( J 1088) ATV standards, the standards vary by engine size ( less than 100 cc, 100 cc up to 225 cc, and 225 cc and greater). We are allowing averaging, banking, and trading for each of the separate engine­ based HC+ NOX standards with no credit exchanges or averaging between the engine size categories. We did not propose an averaging, banking, and trading program for CO for ATVs and off­ highway motorcycles because it was not clear if such provisions would be needed to implement the expected technologies or if the need would warrant the additional complexity of an averaging program. We received comments that the 25 g/ km CO standard could be technologically limiting in some instances. Manufacturers recommended that EPA drop CO the standard from the program and provided no comments regarding CO averaging. In addition, our recent testing indicates that the level of the standards may represent a significant technological challenge to the manufacturers in some cases. We are retaining CO standards in the final program, and are establishing different CO standards for off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs, as discussed in Section III. C. 1. For ATVs, we are addressing the feasibility issues by finalizing a standard of 35 g/ km. We are not including averaging or a credits program at this level. We are also adopting the 35 g/ km CO standard for the optional off­ highway motorcycle program with no averaging or credits program. At the 35 g/ km level, we believe averaging is unnecessary and would greatly reduce the need to control CO, especially for larger manufacturers who have several engine families with which to average. The engine­ based ( J 1088) standards for CO also do not represent levels of stringency where we believe averaging would be appropriate or necessary. California certification test data shows that the engine­ based ( J 1088) CO standards can be achieved with reasonable compliance margins. For the primary off­ highway motorcycle program, we are retaining the proposed 25 g/ km CO standard. We are providing the option of averaging for the 25 g/ km CO standard, to help manufacturers balance the need to control CO while meeting stringent NOX requirements. We believe that the final program with averaging for CO will enable manufacturers to develop a unified emission­ control strategy to control HC, NOX, and CO, rather than requiring them to develop unique control strategies driven by the need to meet the CO standards. We are adopting FEL caps where we are allowing averaging standards. For ATVs certified to the 1.5 g/ km FTP standard, there will be an FEL cap of 20 g/ km HC+ NOX. This cap will also apply to off­ highway motorcycles certified to the 2.0 g/ km NOX+ HC standard. For offhighway motorcycles certified to the 25 g/ km CO standard, the CO cap will be 50 g/ km. For off­ highway motorcycles, we are also finalizing an option that allows manufacturers to certify to an average HC+ NOX standard of 4.0 g/ km, if the manufacturer certifies all offhighway motorcycles including competition machines. Under this option, we are limiting FELs to 8.0 g/ km. The goal of the option is to encourage the development and certification of clean competition products. Without a reasonable FEL limit, manufacturers could certify twostroke machines at, or close to, baseline levels. This is a concern because the majority of manufacturers' product offerings are likely to be certified below the 4.0 g/ km level and significant credits could be available. We believe the 8.0 g/ km limit ensures significantly cleaner products compared to baseline levels for competition machines, while providing manufacturers with the incentive and flexibility to pursue innovative technologies for their competition products. As noted above, we have also included engine­ based J 1088 standards for ATVs. The HC+ NOX portion of the J 1088 standards can be met through averaging and we have included reasonable emissions caps for these standards as well. For engines certified to the permanent optional J 1088 standards for ATV engines below 100 cc, the emissions cap is 40.0 g/ kW­ hr. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68276 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations The NOX+ HC emissions cap is 32.2 g/ kW­ hr for engine certified to the temporary J 1088 standards which are available for all engine sizes. Snowmobiles For snowmobiles, we are adopting an emissions averaging and credit program for all three phases of standards. Averaging is available for each phase of standards. Once the program begins in 2006, manufacturers will make a demonstration of compliance with the applicable corporate average standards at the end of the model year. If a manufacturer has achieved a corporate average level below the corporate average standards, then the manufacturer may bank credits. Manufacturers may bank credits for use in a current phase of standards based on the difference between their corporate average and the standards. In order to bank credits for future use under a subsequent phase of standards, manufacturers may pull engines from their corporate average for the current phase of standards and certify them early to a future phase of standards. The credits must be generated based on the difference between the FEL for those engines and the phase of standards for which they are intended to be used. The credits may not be carried forward for use to meet a subsequent phase of standards. For example, manufacturers may bank Phase 2 credits in 2007 by removing engines from their 2007 corporate average for one or both pollutants and certifying the engines to the Phase 2 standards early. These Phase 2 credits may then be saved for Phase 2, but may not be used for Phase 3. Manufacturers may also remove only part of an engine family for purposes of banking credits. Manufacturers may bank credits after the end of the model year when they have completed their demonstration of compliance for that year. The Final Rule includes provisions for banking credits for a single pollutant, with the other pollutant remaining in the averaging program for the current model year. For Phase 3, if a manufacturer chooses to bank credits for only one pollutant, the manufacturer must use an assigned value for the other pollutant in the Phase 3 standards formula. We are specifying a value of 90 g/ kW­ hr for HC+ NOX and 275 g/ kW­ hr for CO. These levels ensure no windfall credits using the Phase 3 formula for the creditgenerating engines. Starting with Phase 3, Family Emission Limits may be set up to the current average baseline emission levels of 400 g/ kW­ hr ( 300 g/ hp­ hr) CO and 150 g/ kW­ hr ( 110 g/ hp­ hr) HC. These caps ensure a minimum level of control for each snowmobile certified under the long­ term program. We believe this is appropriate due to the potential for personal exposure to very high levels of emissions as well as the potential for high levels of emissions in areas where several snowmobiles are operated in a group. We proposed that these limits would be effective beginning in 2006. We received comments from manufacturers recommending that we drop the FEL limits because they would create a tremendous near term workload burden. They commented that manufacturers would need to modify all product lines for 2006 just to meet the FEL limit. EPA recognizes that this could be a significant issue in the early years of the program and could detract from manufacturers' efforts to develop much cleaner technologies. Thus, we are finalizing the FEL limits only for Phase 3 and later, beginning in 2012. We believe this helps resolve the leadtime and workload issues while maintaining the integrity of the longterm program. b. Early credits. We believe that allowing manufacturers to generate credits prior to 2006 has some merit in that it encourages them to produce cleaner snowmobiles earlier than they otherwise might and provides early environmental benefits. It would also allow for a smoother transition to new emission standards in a previously unregulated industry. However, in the proposal we expressed concern that an early­ credit program could result in the generation of windfall credits, especially if the credits were generated relative to the average baseline emissions rates. A manufacturer could choose those engine families that already emit below the average baseline levels and certify those families for credit generation purposes without doing anything to actually reduce their emissions. Clearly this would undermine any environmental advantages of an early­ credit program. However, we believe that it is possible to design an early­ credit program which provides incentive for the early introduction of cleaner snowmobiles and also helps ease the transition into the first ever phase of snowmobile standards while preventing the generation of windfall credits. The early­ credit program described in the following paragraphs will be available beginning with the 2003 model year. As with the standard snowmobile emissions averaging, banking and trading program, credits generated under the early­ credit program will be calculated on a power­ weighted basis. A manufacturer can choose to certify one or more engine families early for purposes of credit generation. An engine family must at least meet the Phase 1 standards for both HC and CO to qualify for early credits, and the credits will be calculated based on the difference between the certification FEL and the Phase 1 standards. Credits generated under this option can be used only in compliance with the Phase 1 standards. Thus, such early credits will expire at the end of the 2009 model year. The above discussion of early credits primarily addresses those snowmobiles that will meet the Phase 1 standards early. However, we also expect that there will be some engine families introduced prior to the 2006 model year which could meet Phase 2 standards. For such engines, a manufacturer may elect to split credits between Phase 1 and Phase 2. A manufacturer may save credits generated between the certification FELs and the actual Phase 2 standards for use in Phase 2. Credits generated between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards could be used for Phase 1 only. Credits generated prior to the start of the program in 2006 may not be used for Phase 3. EPA did not receive comments on such programs for off­ highway motorcycle or ATVs and we are not finalizing any additional provisions. The majority of products currently offered for sale are equipped with fourstroke engines which raises concerns over the potential for windfall credits. Due to this issue and the lack of suggestions or input on the part of commenters, we are not finalizing early credits or other types of flexibilities for these programs. c. Nonconformance penalties for recreational vehicles. Section 206( g) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. 7525( g), authorizes EPA to establish nonconformance penalties ( NCPs) for motorcycles and heavy­ duty engines which exceed the applicable emission standard, provided that their emissions do not exceed an appropriate upper limit. NCPs allow manufacturers that are technological laggards to temporarily sell their vehicles by payment of a penalty, rather than being forced out of the marketplace. One manufacturer suggested that we consider establishing NCPs for recreational vehicles. Section 213( d) of the Act makes nonroad standards subject to the provisions of section 206, and directs EPA to enforce nonroad standards in the same manner as highway vehicles. We therefore believe that the Act authorizes us to establish NCPs in appropriate circumstances for nonroad engines and vehicles. Recreational vehicles are VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68277 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 60 The snowmobile industry ( see docket item II G 221) and a group of public health and environmental organizations ( see docket item II G 139) have both expressed their general support for labeling programs that can provide information on the environmental performance of various products to consumers. similar technologically to highway motorcycles, and NCPs might be appropriate for recreational vehicles under certain circumstances. We will consider the need for NCPs two or three years before compliance with these standards is required. Manufacturers that determine in that time frame that they are likely to be unable to comply with the standards should notify us. If we determine that NCPs are appropriate for recreational vehicles, we would establish regulations that would specify how to calculate the penalties. While we have not determined the content of such regulations, it is likely that they would be similar to our existing NCP regulations for heavy­ duty engines, which are set forth in 40 CFR part 86, subpart L. 3. Are There Voluntary Low­ Emission Standards for These Engines? In the proposal we included a Voluntary Low­ Emission Standards program for recreational vehicles. We did this for two reasons: to encourage new emission­ control technology and to aid the consumer in choosing clean technologies. We received numerous comments on this proposed program. The environmental community was supportive of voluntary standards and encouraged us to adopt permanent labels which identify the emission performance of the vehicle in a simplistic manner that would be easily understood by the initial purchaser and any purchases of used recreational vehicles. Manufacturers of recreational vehicles ATVs, off­ highway motorcycles, and snowmobiles), on the other hand, did not support voluntary standards. They were supportive of providing initial purchasers with emission performance information via temporary consumer labeling, but were opposed to voluntary standards. Their concern was that voluntary standards or permanent labels could be used by federal, state, local or any other jurisdictions to limit the use of recreational vehicles from public lands by allowing access only to recreational vehicles that meet certain emission criteria. Manufacturers further argued that our proposed mandatory emission standards were stringent enough that they would encourage and result in the use of advanced emission­ control technology and that the voluntary standards would provide no additional incentives. As stated above, the general purpose of the Voluntary Low­ Emission Standards program is to provide incentives to manufacturers to produce clean products and thus create market choices for consumers to purchase these products. 60 For all three recreational vehicle categories, but especially for snowmobiles, we are expecting a variety of emission­ control technologies to be used to meet the standards. In all three categories we expect consumers to have a choice of which technologies to purchase and that they will base that purchase on an understanding of key attributes such as cost, performance, noise levels, safety, and emissions. Thus, an important factor for informing consumer decision is to provide them information on the relative emissions attributes of a given model. We believe this can be achieved through a temporary consumer labeling program without voluntary standards. Therefore, we are not finalizing a voluntary standard program for recreational vehicles at this time. We will consider this issue again in the future, once experience is gained under this program. In addition, given the manufacturer's opposition, it is not clear that voluntary standards by themselves would be an effective incentive for manufacturers. Instead, we will be adopting a consumer labeling program. A label must be fixed securely to the product prior to arriving at the dealership but does not have to be permanent and may be removed by the consumer when placed into use. The label can be in the form of a removable sticker or decal, or a hang tag affixed to the handlebars or fuel cap. If a hang tag is used, it must be attached by a cable tie that cannot be easily removed, except by the ultimate retail consumer. The label, at a minimum, must include the following information: U. S. EPA; Clean Air Index ( appropriate pollutant, e. g., HC+ NOX, etc.); manufacturer name; vehicle model with engine description ( e. g., 500 cc two­ stroke with direct fuel injection); emission performance rating scale; explanation of scale; and notice stating that label must be on vehicle prior to sale and can be removed only by the ultimate retail consumer. In section 1051.135( g) of the regulations, titled `` How must I label and identify the vehicles I produce?,'' we have developed several equations that determine what the emission performance rating scale will be for each category. The scale is based on a rating system of 1.0 through 10.0. A value of 1.0 would be assigned for the cleanest vehicle, while the dirtiest vehicle would get a rating of 10.0. 4. What Durability Provisions Apply? We are adopting several additional provisions to ensure that emission controls will be effective throughout the life of the vehicle. This section discusses these provisions for recreational vehicles. More general certification and compliance provisions, which apply across different vehicle categories, are discussed in Sections II and VII, respectively. a. How long do my engines have to comply. Manufacturers must produce off­ highway motorcycle and ATV engines that comply over a useful life of 5 years or until the vehicle accumulates 10,000 kilometers, or for ATVs 1,000 hours, whichever occurs first. We consider the 10,000­ kilometer and 1,000 hour values to be minimum values for useful life, with the requirement that manufacturers must comply for a longer period if the average life of their vehicles is longer than this minimum value. The values being finalized will harmonize EPA's useful life intervals with those contained in the California program. We proposed a significantly longer useful life intervals of 30,000 kilometers based on our understanding of usage rates for the vehicles at the time of the proposal. We received comments from manufacturers that we overestimated vehicle usage and commenters recommended that we harmonize the useful life intervals with California's. We have lowered our estimate of usage rates based on available data, including new data provided during the comment period. Based on our current estimates of usage, we concur with manufacturers that harmonization with California is the best approach for establishing minimum useful life intervals. Generally, this will allow the same emission test data to be used for certification under both programs. However, this remains the minimum useful life and longer useful life intervals could be required in cases where the basic mechanical warranty of the engine or the advertised operating life is longer than the minimum interval. Average service life information will help in making such a determination. The manufacturer can alternatively base the longer useful life on the average service life of the vehicles where necessary data are available. For snowmobiles, the minimum useful life is 5 years, 8,000 km, or 400 hours of operation, whichever occurs first. We based these values on VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68278 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 61 EPA memorandum, `` Emission Modeling for Recreational Vehicles,'' from Linc Wehrly to Docket A 2000 01, November 13, 2000 ( document II B 19). 62 While it is possible that the user could make modifications to their competition off­ highway motorcycle that alter the emissions characteristics of the vehicle, we do not expect tampering to be a problem for those competition vehicles certifying to our voluntary standard of 4.0 g/ km HC+ NOX because the technologies required to meet this standard, four­ stroke engines and direct fuel injection two­ stroke engines, are inherent to the engine and will be optimized for maximum engine performance as well as emissions performance. Thus, any modifications would actually reduce rather than improve engine performance. 63 `` Closed Crankcase Exhaust Emissions from Four­ Stoke Competition Off­ highway Motorcycle,'' EPA memo from L. Wehrly to Docket A 2000 01, September 10, 2001 ( document II­ B 25). discussions with manufacturers regarding typical snowmobile life, and on emission­ modeling data regarding typical snowmobile usage rates. 61 As with ATVs and off­ highway motorcycles, longer useful life intervals are required where the basic mechanical warranty of the engine or the advertised operating life is longer than the minimum interval and the manufacturer may alternatively base the longer useful life on the average service life of the vehicles where necessary data are available. b. What are the minimum warranty periods for emission controls. For offhighway motorcycle, ATVs, and snowmobiles, manufacturers must provide an emission­ related warranty for at least half of the minimum useful life period. These periods could be longer if the manufacturer offers a longer mechanical warranty for the engine or any of its components; this includes extended warranties that are available for an extra price. See § 1051.120 for a description of which components are emission­ related. We have included in our final rule an optional set of standards for off­ highway motorcycles that would require the certification of competition motorcycles. However, for those individual vehicles actually used in organized competition events, it may be appropriate to exclude competition motorcycles from warranty coverage. Machines used in competition, even part of the time, may be subject to usage that can cause premature degradation of the engine and related components. Competition riders may place a premium on winning at the expense of engine durability or could otherwise damage the vehicle during the competition events. In fact, most manufacturers do not offer any mechanical warranty on vehicles used in competition. In addition, motorcycles used only for competition may be modified by the user in ways that alter the emissions characteristics of the vehicle. 62 We do not believe it is reasonable to hold manufacturers responsible for the emission warranty for such vehicles. c. How do I demonstrate emission durability during certification. Durability demonstration for offhighway motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles includes a requirement to run the engines long enough to develop and justify the full life deterioration factor. This allows manufacturers to generate a deterioration factor that helps ensure that the engines will continue to control emissions over a lifetime of operation. Snowmobiles also must run out to the end of the useful life for purposes of durability demonstration and generating deterioration factors. d. What maintenance is allowed during service accumulation. For vehicles certified to the minimum useful life, emission­ related maintenance is generally not allowed during service accumulation. The only maintenance that may be done must be ( 1) regularly scheduled, ( 2) unrelated to emissions, and ( 3) technologically necessary. This typically includes changing engine oil, oil filter, fuel filter, and air filter. 5. Do These Standards Apply to Alternative­ Fueled Engines? These standards apply to all sparkignited recreational vehicles, without regard to the type of fuel used. However, because we are not aware of any alternative­ fueled recreational vehicles sold into the U. S. market, we are not adopting extensive special provisions to address them at this time. 6. Is EPA Controlling Crankcase Emissions? We are requiring that new offhighway motorcycles and ATVs not emit crankcase vapors directly to the atmosphere. This requirement will phase in beginning in 2006 and be fully phased in by 2007. California's regulations for off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs, which has been in effect since 1997, also prohibits the venting of crankcase vapors into the atmosphere. The major ATV manufacturers sell many of their California certified ATV models federally as 50­ state applications. Thus, many ATVs sold federally already control crankcase emissions. The only exceptions could be some of the small youth ATV models that are imported from Asia. The typical control strategy used to control crankcase emissions is to route the crankcase vapors back to the engine intake. This is consistent with our previous regulation of crankcase emissions from such diverse sources as highway motorcycles, outboard and personal water craft marine engines, locomotives, and passenger cars. We have data from California ARB showing that a performance­ based four­ stroke offhighway motorcycle experienced considerably higher tailpipe emission results when crankcase emissions were routed back into the intake of the engine, illustrating the potentially high levels of crankcase emissions that exist. 63 New snowmobiles must also have closed crankcases, beginning in 2006. This requirement is relevant only for four­ stroke snowmobiles, however, since two­ stroke engines, by virtue of their operation, have closed crankcases. Information on the costs and benefits of this action can be found in the Final Regulatory Support Document. D. Testing Requirements 1. What Duty Cycles Are Used To Measure Emissions? Testing a vehicle or engine for emissions typically consists of exercising it over a prescribed duty cycle of speeds and loads, typically using a chassis or engine dynamometer. The nature of the duty cycle used for determining compliance with emission standards during the certification process is critical in evaluating the likely emission performance of engines designed to those standards. Duty cycles must be relatively comparable to the way equipment is actually used because if they are not, then compliance with emission standards would not assure that emissions from the equipment are actually being reduced in use as intended. a. Off­ highway Motorcycles and ATVs. For testing off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs, we specify the current highway motorcycle test procedure be used for measuring emissions. The highway motorcycle test procedure is very similar to the test procedure as used for light­ duty vehicles ( i. e., passenger cars and trucks) and is referred to as the Federal Test Procedure ( FTP). The FTP for a particular class of engine or equipment is actually the aggregate of all of the emission tests that the engine or equipment must meet to be certified. However, the term FTP has also been used traditionally to refer to the exhaust emission test based on the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule ( UDDS), also referred to as the LA 4 ( Los Angeles Driving Cycle # 4). The UDDS is a chassis dynamometer driving cycle that consists of numerous `` hills'' VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68279 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 64 `` Development and Validation of a Snowmobile Engine Emission Test Procedure,'' Jeff J. White, Southwest Research Institute and Christopher W. Wright, Arctic Cat, Inc., Society of Automotive Engineers paper 982017, September, 1998. ( Docket A 2000 1; document II D 05). which represent a driving event. Each hill includes accelerations, steady­ state operation, and decelerations. There is an idle between each hill. The FTP consists of a cold start UDDS, a 10­ minute soak, and a hot start. The emissions from these three separate events are collected into three unique bags. Each bag represents one of the events. Bag 1 represents cold transient operation, Bag 2 represents cold stabilized operation, and Bag 3 represents hot transient operation. For highway motorcycles, we have three classes based on engine displacement, with Class I ( 50 to 169 cc) being the smallest and Class III ( 280 cc and over) being the largest. The highway motorcycle regulations allow Class I motorcycles to be tested on a less severe UDDS cycle than the Class II and III motorcycles. This is accomplished by reducing the acceleration and deceleration rates on some the more aggressive `` hills.'' We proposed to use this same class/ cycle distinction for offhighway motorcycles and ATVs. In other words, we proposed that offhighway motorcycles and ATVs with an engine displacement at or below 169 cc would be tested over the FTP test cycle for Class I highway motorcycles. We proposed that off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs with engine displacements greater than 169 cc would be tested over the FTP test cycle for Class II and Class III highway motorcycles. We requested comment on the appropriateness of allowing the use of the Class I test cycle for all ATVs. Manufacturers have expressed concerns over the appropriateness of testing ATVs using the FTP and the ability of some ATVs to be run on the test cycle. Manufacturers recommended for FTP testing, that all ATVs be tested over the Class I cycle. Manufacturers stated that the Class I cycle top speed of 36 mph would be `` much more representative'' of ATV operation than the 57 mph top speed of the Class III cycle. Manufacturers also noted that California FTP testing is based on the use of the Class I cycle for all ATVs and that the EPA program would need to be changed allow for harmonization. Manufacturers did not raise these same concern for off­ highway motorcycles which are tested in accordance with the highway motorcycle classifications for California. After considering this issue further, we concur with the manufacturer's comments and are finalizing the Class I cycle for all ATVs. One of the objectives of the final program is to allow harmonization with California and this change is fundamental in the manufacturers' ability to use the same FTP test data for both programs. Also, the average speeds of in­ use ATVs appear to be significantly lower than we estimated in the analysis for the proposal ( 8 13 mph compared to 20 mph). The new data on ATV usage alleviates concerns that the lower speeds of the Class I test cycle might miss significant high­ speed ATV operation. The change in the test procedure is directionally consistent with this new data. In addition, the change in test procedure will enable ATVs in general to be tested over the FTP with fewer issues concerning the ability of the vehicles to operate over the driving cycle. We are finalizing the test procedure requirements as proposed for off­ highway motorcycles. We believe that the manufacturer's concerns regarding the FTP are also addressed by the option to test the smallest ATVs ( up to 100 cc) to J 1088 standards permanently. These vehicles are typically governed to top speeds below the 36 mph contained in the Class I FTP cycle. Also, the small displacement ATVs may be most strenuously tested ( i. e., more operation at high loads) on the FTP due to their lower horsepower output. We acknowledge that chassis dynamometers for ATVs could be costly to purchase and difficult to put in place in the near term, especially for smaller manufacturers. As discussed in Section III. C. 1. b, we are allowing the use of the J1088 engine test cycle as a transitional option through model year 2008. The J1088 option expires after 2008 and the FTP becomes the required test cycle in 2009. As noted above, EPA is currently in discussions with ATV manufacturers to determine whether a new test cycle is appropriate. The J1088 may be discontinued earlier than 2009 if another test procedure is implemented. b. Snowmobiles. We are adopting the snowmobile duty cycle developed by Southwest Research Institute ( SwRI) in cooperation with the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association ( ISMA) for all snowmobile emission testing. 64 The test procedure consists of two main parts; the duty cycle that the snowmobile engine operates over during testing and other testing protocols surrounding the measurement of emissions ( sampling and analytical equipment, specification of test fuel, atmospheric conditions for testing, etc.). While the duty cycle was developed specifically to roughly approximate snowmobile operation, many of the testing protocols are well established in other EPA emission­ control programs and have been simply adapted where appropriate for snowmobiles. The snowmobile duty cycle was developed by instrumenting several snowmobiles and operating them in the field in a variety of typical riding styles, including aggressive ( trail), moderate ( trail), double ( trail with operator and one passenger), freestyle ( off­ trail), and lake driving. A statistical analysis of the collected data produced the five mode steady­ state test cycle is shown in Table III. D 1. This duty cycle is the one that was used to generate the baseline emissions levels for snowmobiles, and we believe it is the most appropriate for demonstrating compliance with the snowmobile emission standards at this time. TABLE III. D 1. SNOWMOBILE ENGINE TEST CYCLE Engine parameter Mode 1 2 3 4 5 Normalized Speed ......................................................................... 1.00 0.85 0.75 0.65 Idle Normalized Torque ........................................................................ 1.00 0.51 0.33 0.19 0.00 Relative Weighting ( in percent) ..................................................... 12 27 25 31 5 The rest of the testing protocol is largely derived from our regulations for marine outboard and personal water craft engines, as recommended in the SwRI/ ISMA test cycle development work ( 61 FR 52088, October 4, 1996). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68280 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 65 For example, importers may have access to large supplies of vehicles from major overseas manufacturers and potentially could substantially increase their market share by selling less expensive noncomplying products. The testing equipment and procedures from that regulation are generally appropriate for snowmobiles, including the provisions for raw exhaust gas sampling which are being adopted here for snowmobiles. Unlike marine engines, however, snowmobiles tend to operate in cold ambient temperatures. Thus, some provision needs to be made in the snowmobile test procedure to account for the colder ambient temperatures typical of snowmobile operation. Since snowmobile carburetors are jetted for specific ambient temperatures and pressures, appropriate accounting for typical operating temperatures is important to assure that anticipated emissions reductions actually occur in use. We proposed that snowmobile engine inlet air temperature be between ¥ 15 ° C and ¥ 5 ° C ( 5 ° F and 23 ° F), but that the ambient temperature in the test cell not be required to be refrigerated. We received comments stating that this approach would be expensive due to the need for refrigeration equipment, pointing out that the snowmobile manufacturers do not currently have the capacity for cold testing. Further, we received comments that accurate emissions results can be obtained using appropriate jetting determined by extrapolating from the manufacturer's jet chart ( if necessary). We agree that emissions can be accurately measured at higher ambient temperatures provided that the proper compensation be made in the fueling system. For carbureted engines this means jetting the engine appropriately for the test temperature. For electronically controlled engines this doesn't tend to be an issue because such technology generally includes temperature compensation in its control algorithms. However, one manufacturer stated that for snowmobiles that have electronically controlled engines, it would be preferable and environmentally appropriate to test with colder inlet temperatures. Thus, we are adopting the option to allow snowmobile testing using either cold engine inlet air temperatures between ¥ 15 ° C and ¥ 5 ° C ( 5 ° F and 23 ° F) or warm engine inlet air temperatures between 20 ° C and 30 ° C ( 68 ° F and 86 ° F). However, depending on the location of the air box where inlet air enters the engine intake system, the inlet temperature could be considerably warmer than ambient conditions. For a snowmobile that does not have temperature compensating capabilities, it could be possible to get a moderate emission reduction due to the increase in air density that results at colder temperatures from the artificially induced test inlet air. These emission reductions would not occur in real operation since actual inlet air would be warmer. Therefore, to use the colder inlet temperature option, a manufacturer must demonstrate that for the given engine family, the temperature of the inlet air within the air box is consistent with the inlet­ air temperature test conditions. 2. What Fuels Will Be Used During Exhaust Emission Testing? We are adopting fuel specifications as proposed for all recreational vehicles that we have specified for 2004 and later light­ duty vehicles. 3. Are There Production­ Line Testing Provisions for These Engines? Recreational vehicle or engine manufacturers must perform emission tests on a small percentage of their production as it leaves the assembly line to ensure that production vehicles operate at certified emission levels. The broad outline of this program is discussed in Section II. C. 4 above. Production­ line testing must be performed using the same test procedures as for certification testing. E. Special Compliance Provisions As described in Section XI. B, the report of the inter­ agency Small Business Advocacy Review Panel addresses the concerns of small­ volume manufacturers of recreational vehicles. We proposed to adopt the provisions recommended by the panel and received comments on the proposals. We are finalizing the provisions below as proposed, with the modifications as noted. Off­ Highway Motorcycles and ATVs To identify representatives of small businesses for this process, we used the definitions provided by the Small Business Administration for motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles ( fewer than 500 employees). Eleven small businesses agreed to serve as small­ entity representatives. These companies represented a cross­ section of off­ highway motorcycle, ATV, and snowmobile manufacturers, as well as importers of off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs. As discussed above, our emission standards for off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs will likely necessitate the widespread use of four­ stroke engines. Most small­ volume off­ highway motorcycle and ATV importers and to a lesser degree, small­ volume manufacturers currently use twostroke engines. While four­ stroke engines are common in motorcycles and ATVs in general, their adoption by any manufacturer is still a significant business challenge. Small manufacturers of these engines may face additional challenges in certifying engines to emission standards, because the cost of certification would be spread over the relatively few engines they produce. These higher per­ unit costs may place small manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage without specific provisions to address this burden. We are applying the flexibilities described below to engines produced or imported by small entities with combined off­ highway motorcycle and ATV annual sales of fewer than 5,000 units. The inter­ agency panel recommended these provisions to address the potentially significant adverse effects on small entities of an emission standard that may require conversion to four­ stroke engines. The 5,000­ unit threshold is intended to focus these flexibilities on those segments of the market where the need is likely to be greatest and to ensure that the flexibilities do not result in significant adverse environmental effects during the period of additional lead­ time recommended below. 65 In addition, we are limiting some or all of these flexibilities to companies that are in existence or have product sales at the time we proposed emission standards to avoid creating arbitrary opportunities in the import sector, and to guard against the possibility of corporate reorganization, entry into the market, or other action for the sole purpose of circumventing emission standards. Snowmobiles There are only a few small snowmobile manufacturers and they sell only a few hundred sleds a year, which represents less than 0.5 percent of total annual production. Therefore, the perunit cost of regulation may be significantly higher for these small entities because they produce very low volumes. Additionally, these companies do not have the design and engineering resources to tackle compliance with emission standard requirements at the same time as large manufacturers and tend to have limited ability to invest the capital necessary to conduct emission testing related to research, development, and certification. Finally, the requirements of the snowmobile program may be infeasible or highly impractical because some small­ volume VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68281 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations manufacturers may have typically produced engines with unique designs or calibrations to serve niche markets ( such as mountain riding). The new snowmobile emission standards may impose significant economic hardship on these few manufacturers whose market presence is small. We therefore believe significant flexibility is necessary and appropriate for this category of small entities, as described below. Flexibilities 1. Additional lead time. We are adopting a delay of two years beyond the date larger businesses must comply to ease the burden for small businesses. This will provide extra time to develop technology and, in the case of importers, extra time to resolve supplier issues that may arise. The two­ year delay also applies to the timing of the Phase 2 standards for snowmobiles. In addition, for small snowmobile manufacturers, the emission standards phase in over an additional two years at a rate of 50 percent, then 100 percent. Phase 1 phases in at 50/ 50/ 100 percent in 2008/ 2009/ 2010 and Phase 2 phases in at 50/ 50/ 100 percent in 2012/ 2013/ 2014. 2. Design­ based certification. The process of certification is a business cost and lead time issue that may place a disproportionate burden on small entities, particularly importers. Certification is a fixed cost of doing business, which is potentially more burdensome on a unit­ cost basis for small entities. It is potentially an even greater challenge, since some small entities will either contract emission testing to other parties or, in the case of importers, perhaps rely on off­ shore manufacturers to develop and certify imported engines. Small­ volume manufacturers may use design­ based certification, which allows us to issue a certificate to a small business for the emission­ performance standard based on a demonstration that engines or vehicles of a similar design criteria meet the standards of the individual engine family. The small vehicle manufacturer must demonstrate that their engine uses a design similar to or superior to one that is being used by other manufacturers that has been shown through prior emission testing to meet the standards. The demonstration must be based in part on emission test data from engines of a similar design. Under a design­ based certification program, a manufacturer provides evidence in the application for certification that an engine or vehicle meets the applicable standards for its useful life based on comparing its design ( for example, the use a fourstroke engine, advanced fuel injection, or any other particular technology or calibration) to that of a previously tested engine. The design criteria might include specifications for engine type, calibrations ( spark timing, air / fuel ratio, etc.), and other emission­ critical features, including, if appropriate, catalysts ( size, efficiency, precious metal loading). Manufacturers submit adequate engineering and other information about their individual designs showing that they will meet emission standards for the useful life. 3. Broaden engine families. Small businesses may define their engine families more broadly, putting all their models into one engine family ( or more) for certification purposes. Manufacturers may then certify their engines using the `` worst­ case'' configuration within the family. A small manufacturer might need to conduct certification emission testing rather than pursuing design­ based certification. Such a manufacturer would likely find broadened engine families useful. 4. Production­ line testing waiver. As discussed above, manufacturers must test a small sampling of production engines to ensure that production engines meet emission standards. We are waiving production­ line testing requirements for small manufacturers. This will eliminate or substantially reduce production­ line testing requirements for small businesses. 5. Use of assigned deterioration factors for certification. Small manufacturers may use deterioration factors assigned by EPA. Rather than performing a durability demonstration for each family for certification, manufacturers may elect to use deterioration factors determined by us to demonstrate emission levels at the end of the useful life, thus reducing the development and testing burden. This might be a very useful and costbeneficial option for a small manufacturer opting to perform certification emission testing instead of design­ based certification. 6. Using emission standards and certification from other EPA programs. A wide array of engines certified to other EPA programs may be used in recreational vehicles. For example, there is a large variety of engines certified to EPA lawn and garden standards ( Small SI). Manufacturers of recreational vehicles may use engines certified to any other EPA standards for five years. Under this approach, engines certified to the Small SI standards may be used in recreational vehicles. These engines would then meet the Small SI standards and related provisions rather than those adopted in this document for recreational vehicles. Small businesses using these engines will not have to recertify them, as long as they do not alter the engines in a way that might cause it to exceed the emission standards it was originally certified to meet. Also, the recreational vehicle application may not be the primary intended application for the engine. Additionally, a certified snowmobile engine produced by a large snowmobile manufacturer may be used by a small snowmobile manufacturer, as long as the small manufacturer did not change the engine in a way that might cause it to exceed the snowmobile emission standards. This provides a reasonable degree of emission control. For example, if a manufacturer changed a certified engine only by replacing the stock exhaust pipes with pipes of similar configuration or the stock muffler and air intake box with a muffler and air box of similar air flow, the engine would still be eligible for this flexibility option, subject to our review. The manufacturer may also change the carburetor to have a leaner air­ fuel ratio without losing eligibility. The manufacturer in such cases could establish a reasonable basis for knowing that emissions performance is not negatively affected by the changes. However, if the manufacturer changed the bore or stroke of the engine, it would no longer qualify, as emissions might increase beyond the level of the standard. 7. Averaging, banking, and trading. For the overall program, we are adopting corporate­ average emission standards with opportunities for banking and trading of emission credits. We expect the averaging provisions to be most helpful to manufacturers with broad product lines. Small manufacturers and small importers with only a few models might not have as much opportunity to take advantage of these flexibilities. However, we received comment from one small manufacturer supporting these types of provisions as a critical component of the program. Therefore, we are adopting corporateaverage emission standards with opportunities for banking and trading of emission credits for small manufacturers. 8. Hardship provisions. We are adopting provisions to address hardship circumstances, as described in Section VII. C. 9. Unique snowmobile engines. Even with the broad flexibilities described above, there may be a situation where a small snowmobile manufacturer cannot comply. Therefore, we are adopting an additional provision to allow a small VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68282 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 66 The engines are small relative to automotive engines. For example, automotive engines typically range from one liter to well over five liters in displacement, whereas off­ highway motorcycles range from 0.05 liters to 0.65 liters. snowmobile manufacturer to petition us for relaxed standards for one or more engine families. The manufacturer must justify that the engine has unique design, calibration, or operating characteristics that make it atypical and infeasible or highly impractical to meet the emission­ reduction requirements, considering technology, cost, and other factors. At our discretion, we may then set an alternative standard at a level between the prescribed standard and the baseline level, which would likely apply until the engine family is retired or modified in a way that might alter emissions. These engines will be excluded from averaging calculations. We proposed that this provision be limited to 300 snowmobiles per year. However, we received comment that this limit is too restrictive to be of much assistance to small businesses. Based on this comment we are adopting a limit for this provision of 600 snowmobiles per year. F. Technological Feasibility of the Standards 1. Off­ highway Motorcycles and ATVs We believe the new emission standards are technologically feasible given the availability of emissioncontrol technologies, as described below. a. What are the baseline technologies and emission levels? As discussed earlier, off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs are equipped with relatively small ( 48 to 650 cc) high­ performance two­ or four­ stroke single cylinder engines that are either air­ or liquid­ cooled. 66 Since these vehicles are unregulated outside of the state of California, the main emphasis of engine design is on performance, durability, and cost and thus they generally have no emission controls. The fuel systems used on these engines are almost exclusively carburetted. Two­ stroke engines lubricate the piston and crankshaft by mixing oil with the air and fuel mixture. This is accomplished by most contemporary two­ stroke engines with a pump that sends two­ cycle oil from a separate oil reserve to the carburetor where it is mixed with the air and fuel mixture. Some less expensive twostroke engines require that the oil be mixed with the gasoline in the fuel tank. Four­ stroke engines inject oil via a pump throughout the engine as the means of lubrication. With the exception of those vehicles certified in California, most of these engines are unregulated and thus have no emission controls. For ATVs, approximately 80­ percent use four­ stroke engines while only 55 percent of off­ highway motorcycles use four­ stroke engines. The average HC emissions for twostroke engines are about 35 g/ km, while the average for four­ stroke engines are 1.5 g/ km. CO emissions levels are very similar between the types of engines with two­ stroke levels of approximately 34 g/ km and four­ stroke levels of 30 g/ km. For performance and durability reasons, off­ highway motorcycle and ATV engines all tend to operate with a `` rich'' air and fuel mixture. That is, they operate with excess fuel, which enhances performance and allows engine cooling to promote longer engine life. However, rich operation results in high levels of HC, CO, and PM emissions. Also, two­ stroke engines tend to have high scavenging losses, where up to a third of the unburned air and fuel mixture goes out of the exhaust resulting in high levels of HC emissions. b. What technology approaches are available to control emissions? Several approaches are available to control emissions from off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs. The simplest approach consists of modifications to the base engine, fuel system, cooling system, and recalibration of the air and fuel mixture. These changes may include adjusting valve timing for four­ stroke engines, changing from air­ to liquid­ cooling, and using advanced carburetion techniques or electronic fuel injection instead of traditional carburetion systems. Other approaches may include secondary air injected into the exhaust, an oxidation or three­ way catalyst, or a combination of secondary air and a catalyst. The engine technology that may have the most potential for maximizing emission reductions from two­ stroke engines is direct fuel injection. Direct fuel injection is able to reduce or even eliminate scavenging losses by pumping only air through the engine and then injecting fuel into the combustion chamber after the intake and exhaust ports have closed. Using oxidation catalysts with direct injection may reduce emissions even further. Finally, converting from two­ stroke to fourstroke engine technology will significantly reduce HC emissions. All of these technologies have the capability to reduce HC and CO emissions. We expect none of these technologies to negatively affect noise, safety, or energy factors. Fuel injection can improve the combustion process which can result in lower engine noise. The vast majority of four­ stroke engines used in off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs are considerably quieter than their twostroke counterparts. Fuel injection has no impact on safety and four­ stroke engines often have a more `` forgiving'' power band which means the typical operator may find the performance of the machine to be more reasonable and safe. Fuel injection, the enleanment of the air and fuel mixture and four­ stroke technology all can result in significant reductions in fuel consumption. c. What technologies are most likely to be used to meet emission standards? Four­ Stroke Engines Most manufacturers have experience with four­ stroke engine technology and currently have several models powered by four­ stroke engines. This is especially true in the ATV market where four­ stroke engines account for 80 percent of sales. Because four­ stroke engines have been so prevalent over the last 10 years in the off­ highway motorcycle and ATV industry, manufacturers have developed a high level of confidence in four­ stroke technology and its application. Manufacturers of off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs utilizing fourstroke engines will need to make some minor calibration changes and improvements to the carburetor to meet emission standards for the 2006 model year. Some of these modifications may have already been incorporated in response to California requirements. The calibration changes will most likely consist of reducing the amount of fuel in the air­ fuel mixture. This is commonly referred to as leaning out the air­ fuel ratio. Although four­ stroke engines produce considerably lower levels of HC than two­ stroke engines, the four­ stroke engines used in offhighway motorcycles and ATVs all tend to be calibrated to operate with a rich air­ fuel ratio for performance and durability benefits. This rich operation results in high levels of CO, since CO is formed in the engine when there is a lack of oxygen to complete combustion. We believe that many of these engines are calibrated to operate richer than needed, because they have either never had to consider emissions when optimizing air­ fuel ratio or those that are certified to the California standards can operate richer because the California ATV CO standards are fairly lenient. Carburetors with tighter tolerances ensure more precise flow of fuel and air, resulting in better fuel atomization ( i. e., smaller fuel droplets), better combustion, and lower emissions. In addition to converting to fourstroke technology and making some minor calibration and carburetion improvements to meet the 2006 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68283 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations emission standards, manufacturers may need to use secondary air injection on some models. Secondary air has been used by passenger cars and highway motorcycles for many years as a means to help control HC and CO. The hot exhaust gases coming from the combustion chamber contain significant levels of unburned HC and CO. If sufficient oxygen is present, these gases will continue to react in the exhaust system, reducing the amount of pollution emitted into the atmosphere. To assure that sufficient oxygen is present in the exhaust, air is injected into the exhaust system. For offhighway motorcycles and ATVs, the additional air can be injected into the exhaust manifold using a series of check valves which use the normal pressure pulsations in the exhaust manifold to draw air from outside, commonly referred to as pulse air injection. We have tested several four­ stroke ATVs with secondary air injected into the exhaust manifold and found that the HC and CO emission levels were below the standards ( further details of our secondary air testing are described in the Final Regulatory Support Document). A small number of models in California have been equipped with secondary air technology. It is likely that some manufacturers will opt to use secondary air systems to reduce emissions in addition to enleanment strategies to meet EPA standards. We believe this may be especially true for ATVs meeting the 1.5 g/ km HC+ NOX standard. Using these systems would also provide manufacturers with more flexibility within the averaging scheme and would allow them to avoid any negative affects on performance that could accompany excessive enleanment. Also, several models are not certified to California standards, including some four­ stroke models. Manufacturers may use secondary air on a more widespread basis to bring all models into compliance. Since the emission standards address HC + NOX, as well as CO, manufacturers will have to use an emission­ control strategy or technology that doesn't cause NOX emissions to increase disproportionately. However, since all of these vehicles operate with rich airfuel ratios, as discussed above, NOX levels from these engines are generally low and strategies designed to focus on HC reduction allow manufacturers to meet emission standards with no significant increase in NOX levels. Two­ Stroke Engines Off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs using two­ stroke engines will present a greater challenge for compliance with emission standards. Since baseline HC and CO emission levels are so high for two­ stroke engines, it would be very difficult for any two­ stroke engine to meet our standards with current production technologies. Although catalysts have been used for two­ stroke powered mopeds, scooters, and small displacement highway motorcycles in Europe and Asia, the standards and test cycles are significantly different from ours and there is no way to make reasonable comparisons. We have not performed any testing, nor are we aware of any emission test data on the use of catalysts on ATV and off­ highway motorcycle two­ stroke engines. Therefore, we do not believe that catalysts would be available for twostroke engines that would meet our standards in the time frame necessary to comply with our program. Direct fuel injection has been successfully applied to two­ stroke engines used in marine personal water craft, outboard engines, and small mopeds and scooters and is just now being looked at for off­ highway motorcycle applications. However, as discussed below, even this advanced technology cannot meet our standards alone. As described in Section III. C. 1. a, we are including an optional standard for off­ highway motorcycles of 4.0 g/ km HC + NOX, for manufacturers willing to certify competition motorcycles that would otherwise be exempt from emission standards. We received comment from REV! Motorcycles in support of this level. Rev! plans to manufacture two­ stroke off­ highway motorcycles equipped with direct injection. Based on an early analysis of the technology, REV! requested that EPA consider establishing a 4.0 g/ km standard to allow them to pursue the technology and have a realistic opportunity to meet emission standards. According to their comments, they believe that their engines will be capable of meeting the 4.0 g/ km standard without the use of a catalyst. Perhaps most importantly, REV! believes that this is a viable technology approach for competition models, which have very high baseline emissions. REV! shared their plans and emissions projections for a single prototype model of competition motorcycle. Production units, additional models, or motorcycles produced by other manufacturers using similar technologies may not be able to achieve the 4.0 g/ km level. The 4.0 g/ km level represents an HC reduction of 90 percent or more from baseline levels for some competition motorcycles, which is likely to be very challenging. This is one reason EPA is also allowing averaging, banking, and trading for this option. Averaging will provide flexibility to manufacturers who have some models that, while very clean relative to baseline levels, are above the 4.0 g/ km standard. Manufacturers will be able to use credits, for example, from the sale of four­ stroke machines with emissions below 4.0 g/ km to achieve the 4.0 g/ km standard on average. 2. Snowmobiles a. What are the baseline technologies and emission levels? As discussed earlier, snowmobiles are equipped with relatively small high­ performance twostroke two and three cylinder engines that are either air­ or liquid­ cooled. Since these vehicles are currently unregulated, the main emphasis of engine design is on performance, durability, and cost and thus they have no emission controls. The fuel system used on these engines are almost exclusively carburetors, although some have electronic fuel injection. Twostroke engines lubricate the piston and crankshaft by mixing oil with the air and fuel mixture. This is accomplished by most contemporary two­ stroke engines with a pump that sends twocycle oil from a separate oil reserve to the carburetor where it is mixed with the air and fuel mixture. Some less expensive two­ stroke engines require that the oil be mixed with the gasoline in the fuel tank. Snowmobiles currently operate with a `` rich'' air and fuel mixture. That is, they operate with excess fuel, which enhances performance and allows engine cooling which promotes longer lasting engine life. However, rich operation results in high levels of HC, CO, and PM emissions. Also, two­ stroke engines tend to have high scavenging losses, where up to a third of the unburned air and fuel mixture goes out of the exhaust resulting in high levels of raw HC. Current average snowmobile emission rates are 400 g/ kW­ hr ( 296 g/ hp­ hr) CO and 150 g/ kW­ hr ( 111 g/ hp­ hr) HC. There are however, at least two snowmobile models that use four­ stroke engines. Two companies currently have a moderate­ powered four­ stroke touring model that has very low emissions. One sled uses a small advanced automotive engine, while the other uses a modified ATV engine. Both engines are very sophisticated, using electronic fuel injection and computer­ based closedloop control. The other snowmobile manufacturers are planning to release four­ stroke models for the 2003 model year, but are focusing on higher performing models that, according to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68284 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations the manufacturers, may not have as good of emissions control as the production four­ stroke touring models. b. What technology approaches are available to control emissions? We believe the new emission standards are technologically feasible. A variety of technologies are currently available or in stages of development to be available for use on two­ stroke snowmobiles. These include improvements to carburetion ( improved fuel control and atomization, as well as improved production tolerances), enleanment strategies for both carbureted and fuel injected engines, and semi­ direct and direct fuel injection. In addition to these two­ stroke technologies, converting to four­ stroke engines is also feasible. Each of these is discussed in the following paragraphs. There are several ways to improve carburetion in snowmobile engines. First, strategies to improve fuel atomization promote more complete combustion of the fuel/ air mixture. Additionally, improved production tolerances enable more consistent fuel metering. Both of these changes allow more accurate control of air­ fuel ratios. Snowmobile engines are currently calibrated with rich air­ fuel ratios for durability reasons. Leaner calibrations to CO and HC emissions pose a challenge for maintaining engine durability, but many engine improvements are available to prevent problems. These include changes to the cylinder head, pistons, ports and pipes to reduce knock. In addition critical engine components can be made more robust to improve durability. The same calibration changes to the air­ fuel ratio just discussed for carbureted engines can also be employed, possibly with more accuracy, by using fuel injection. At least one major snowmobile manufacturer currently employs electronic fuel injection on several of its snowmobile models. In addition to rich air­ fuel ratios, one of the main reasons that two­ stroke engines have such high HC emission levels is that they release a substantial amount of unburned fuel into the atmosphere as a result from scavenging losses, as described above. One way to reduce or eliminate such losses is to inject the fuel into the cylinder after the exhaust port has closed. This can be done by injecting the fuel into the cylinder through the transfer port ( semidirect injection) or directly into the cylinder ( direct injection). Both of these approaches are currently being used successfully in two­ stroke personal water craft engines. We believe these technologies hold promise for application to snowmobiles. In fact, one company is offering a snowmobile with a semi­ direct injection two­ stroke engine for the 2003 model year. Manufacturers must address a variety of technical design issues for adapting the technology to snowmobile operation, such as operating in colder ambient temperatures and at variable altitude. The averaging approach and the several years of lead time give manufacturers time to incorporate these development efforts into their overall research plan as they apply these technologies to snowmobiles. In addition to the two­ stroke technologies just discussed, using fourstroke engines in snowmobiles is another feasible approach to reduce emissions. Since they do not scavenge the exhaust gases with the incoming airfuel mixture, four­ stroke engines have inherently lower HC emissions compared to two­ stroke engines. Fourstroke engines have a lower power­ todisplacement ratio than two­ stroke engines and are heavier. Thus, initially they may be more appropriate for snowmobile models where extreme power and acceleration are not the primary selling points. Such models include touring and sport trail sleds. However, one company has developed a four­ stroke engine based off one of their sport highway motorcycle engines that produces 150 horsepower and will be used in their high­ performance snowmobiles in the 2003 model year. c. What technologies are most likely to be used to meet emission standards? 2006 Standards We expect that, in the context of an emissions averaging program, manufacturers might choose to take different paths to meet the 2006 emission standards. We expect manufacturers to use a mix of technologies that will include improved carburetion and enleanment strategies, combined with engine modifications, the use of direct injection, and the use of four­ stroke engine technology. For example, depending on their emission rates, one scenario for meeting our standards could be a mixture of 60 percent using improved carburetion, enleanment strategies, and engine modifications, 15 percent using direct injection, and another 15 percent using four­ stroke engines. Manufacturers can expect moderate emission reductions from engine modifications and enleanment strategies. Most two­ stroke snowmobile engines are designed to operate with a rich air and fuel mixture, which result in high levels of HC, CO, and PM. By reducing the amount of fuel in the air and fuel mixture ( i. e., enleanment), these emissions can be reduced. Because manufacturers use the extra fuel in the air and fuel mixture to help cool the engine, some modifications such as the use of more robust materials, may be necessary. Manufacturers have indicated to us that direct injection strategies can result in emission reductions of 70 to 75 percent for HC and 50 to 70 percent for CO. Certification results from 2000 model year outboard engines and personal water craft ( PWC) support such reductions. We believe that as manufacturers learn to apply direct injection strategies they may choose to implement those technologies on some of their more expensive sleds and use less aggressive technologies, such as improved carburetion and enleanment on their lower performance models. It appears that the use of four­ stroke engines in snowmobiles will be more prevalent than we initially anticipated. For the 2003 model year, all four of the major snowmobile manufacturers will offer a four­ stroke engine. Two manufacturers have already sold limited quantities of their four­ stroke snowmobiles in 2002. All of these engines will be appearing in at least two different models and in some cases up to three or four models. The size and design of these engines is quite varied. All of the engines range in size from 650 cc to 1000 cc. There are two cylinder and four cylinder engines, fuel injected and carbureted, moderate horsepower and high horsepower. Manufacturers have indicated that depending on their success, four­ stroke engines will play a large role in meeting our standards. 2010 Standards As with the 2006 standards, we expect that manufacturers will use a mix of technologies to meet our 2010 standards. To meet the 2010 standards, manufacturers will need to employ the use of advanced technologies such as direct fuel­ injection and four­ stroke engines on a larger portion of their production. As noted above, manufacturers are beginning to introduce these technologies and will be gaining experience with them over the next several years. Because we are offering manufacturers the option to choose between two sets of standards in 2010, the mixture of technologies will be very manufacturer and engine family specific. For example, direct injection typically reduces CO significantly but does not reduce HC to the same extent as four­ stroke engines. Engine families that manufacturers believe will be most compatible with direct injection technology would likely meet the 75 g/ kW­ hr HC and 200 g/ kW­ hr CO VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68285 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 67 Estimated reductions in permeation are 95 percent when not considering competition vehicles, which are exempt from the standard. standards. A potential scenario for meeting these standards could be a mixture of 50 percent direct injection, 20 percent four­ stroke engines, and 30 percent with engine modifications. Engine families that manufacturers believe will be more compatible with four­ stroke technology, which typically has superior HC emissions levels but do not necessarily have exceptionally good CO performance, will likely meet the 45 g/ kW­ hr HC and 275 g/ kw­ hr CO standards. Under either option, it is possible that manufacturers will continue to sell two­ stroke models with lesser levels of technology. Manufacturers are likely to reduce emissions where possible from at least a portion of the remaining two­ stroke engines through the use of engine modifications, calibration optimization, and secondary air systems. In some cases this will be necessary just to meet the FEL cap. A potential scenario for meeting these standards could be a mixture of 70 percent four­ stroke engines, 10 percent direct fuel injection, and 20 percent with engine modifications. IV. Permeation Emission Control A. Overview In the proposal we specified only exhaust emission controls for recreational vehicles. However, several commenters raised the issue of control of evaporative emissions related to permeation from fuel tanks and fuel hoses. The commenters stated that work done by California ARB on permeation emissions from plastic fuel tanks and rubber fuel line hoses for various types of nonroad equipment as well as portable plastic fuel containers raised a new emissions concern. Our own investigation into the hydrocarbon emissions related to permeation of fuel tanks and fuel hoses from recreational land­ based and marine applications supports the concerns raised by the commenters. Therefore, on May 1, 2002, we reopened the comment period and requested comment on possible approaches to regulating permeation emissions from recreational vehicles. As a result of our investigations and the comments received, we have determined that it is appropriate to promulgate standards regulating permeation emissions from these vehicles. This section describes the provisions for 40 CFR part 1051, which would apply only to recreational vehicle manufacturers. This section also discusses test equipment and procedures ( for anyone who tests fuel tanks and hoses to show they meet emission standards) and general compliance provisions. We are adopting performance standards intended to reduce permeation emissions from recreational vehicles. The standards, which apply to new vehicles starting in 2008, are nominally based on manufacturers reducing these permeation emissions from new vehicles by about 90 percent overall. 67 We also recognize that there are many small businesses that manufacture recreational vehicles. We are therefore adopting several special compliance provisions to reduce the burden of permeation emission regulations on small businesses. These special provisions are the same as for the exhaust emission standards, as applicable, and are discussed in Section III. E. B. Vehicles Covered by This Provision We are adopting new permeation emission standards for new off­ highway motorcycles, all­ terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles. These provisions apply even if the recreational vehicle manufacturer exercises the option to use an engine certified under another program such as the small spark ignition requirements in 40 CFR part 90. These standards would require these vehicle manufacturers to use low permeability fuel tanks and hoses. We include vehicles and fuel systems that are used in the United States, whether they are made domestically or imported. Even though snowmobiles do not usually experience year around use, as is the case with ATVs and off­ highway motorcycles, we are including snowmobiles in this standard because it is common practice among snowmobile owners to store their snowmobiles in the off­ season with fuel in the tank ( typically half full to full tank). A fuel stabilizer is typically added to the fuel to prevent gum, varnish, and rust from occurring in the engine as a result of the fuel sitting in the fuel tank and fuel system for an extended period of time; however, this does not reduce permeation. Thus, snowmobiles experience fuel permeation losses just like off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs. We are extending our basic nonroad exemptions to the engines and vehicles covered by this rule. These include the testing exemption, the manufacturerowned exemption, the display exemption, and the national security exemption. These exemptions are described in more detail under Section VII. C. In addition, vehicles used solely for competition are not considered to be nonroad vehicles, so they are exempt from meeting the emission standards ( but see discussion in Section III. C. 1. a regarding the voluntary program for certification of all off­ highway motorcycles). C. Permeation Emission Standards 1. What Are the Emission Standards and Compliance Dates? We are finalizing new standards that will require an 85­ percent reduction in plastic fuel tank permeation and a 95­ percent reduction in fuel system hose permeation from new recreational vehicles beginning in 2008. These standards and their implementation dates are presented in Table IV. C 1. Section IV. D presents the test procedures associated with these standards. Test temperatures are presented in Table IV. C 1 because they represent an important parameter in defining the emission levels. We will base the permeation standards on the inside surface areas of the hoses and fuel tanks. We sought comment on whether the potential permeation standards for fuel tanks should be expressed as grams per gallon of fuel tank capacity per day or as grams per square meter of inside surface area per day. Although volume is generally used to characterize fuel tank emission rates, we base the standard on inside surface area because permeation is a function of surface area. In addition, the surface to volume ratio of a fuel tank changes with capacity and geometry of the tank. Two similar shaped tanks of different volumes or two different shaped tanks of the same volume could have different g/ gallon/ day permeation rates even if they were made of the same material and used the same emissioncontrol technology. Therefore, we believe that using a g/ m2/ day form of the standard more accurately represents the emissions characteristics of a fuel tank and minimizes complexity. This approach was supported by the commenters. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68286 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE IV. C 1. PERMEATION STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES Emission component Implementation date Standard Test temperature Fuel Tank Permeation ............................................................................... 2008 1.5 g/ m2/ day .................................... 28 ° C ( 82 ° F) Hose Permeation ....................................................................................... 2008 15 g/ m2/ day ..................................... 23 ° C ( 73 ° F) These standards are revised compared to the values we sought comment on in the notice. In the reopening of the comment period, we identified the need to accommodate variability and deterioration in setting the fuel tank permeation standard. Since the notice, we have received test information that suggests that a tank permeation standard representing an 85 rather than a 95­ percent reduction would fully accommodate these factors. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that manufacturers will target control technologies and strategies focused on achieving reductions of 95 percent in production tanks. With regard to the permeation standard for hoses, we have adjusted the standard slightly to give the manufacturers more freedom in selecting their hose material and to accommodate the fact that we selected a certification test fuel based on a 10­ percent ethanol blend, which would be prone to greater permeation than straight gasoline. Cost­ effective technologies exist to significantly reduce permeation emissions. Because essentially all of these vehicles use high density polyethylene ( HDPE) fuel tanks, manufacturers would be able to choose from several technologies for providing a permeation barrier in HDPE tanks. The use of metal fuel tanks would also meet the standards, because metal tanks do not experience any permeation losses. The hose permeation standard can be met using barrier hose technology or through using low permeation automotive­ type tubing. These technologies are discussed in Section IV. F. The implementation dates give manufacturers three to four years to comply. This will allow manufacturers time to implement controls in their tanks and hoses in an orderly business manner. 2. Will I Be Able to Average, Bank, or Trade Emissions Credits? Averaging, banking, and trading ( ABT) refers to the generation and use of emission credits based on certified emission levels relative to the standard. The general ABT concept is discussed in detail in Section II. C. 3. In many cases, an ABT program can improve technological feasibility, provide manufacturers with additional product planning flexibility, and reduce costs which allows us to consider emission standards with the most appropriate level of stringency and lead time, as well as providing an incentive for the early introduction of new technology. We are finalizing ABT for fuel tanks to facilitate the implementation of the standard across a variety of tank designs which include differences in wall thickness, tank geometry, material quality, and pigment in plastic fuel tanks. To meet the standard on average, manufacturers would be able to divide their fuel tanks into different emission families and certify each of their emission families to a different Family Emissions Level ( FEL). The emission families would include fuel tanks with similar characteristics, including wall thickness, material used ( including additives such as pigments, plasticizers, and UV inhibitors), and the emissioncontrol strategy applied. The FELs would then be weighted by sales volume and fuel tank inside surface area to determine the average level across a manufacturer's total production. An additional benefit of a corporate­ average approach is that it provides an incentive for developing new technology that can be used to achieve even larger emission reductions or perhaps to achieve the same reduction at lower costs or to achieve some reductions early. Any manufacturer could choose to certify each of its evaporative emission control families at levels which would meet the standard. Some manufacturers may choose this approach as the could see it as less complicated to implement. We are also finalizing a voluntary program intended to give an opportunity for manufacturers to prove out technologies earlier than 2008. Manufacturers will be able to use permeation control strategies early, and even if they do not meet the standard, they can earn credit through partial emission reduction that will give them more lead time to meet the standard. This program will allow a manufacturer to certify fuel tanks early to a less stringent standard and thereby delay the fuel tank permeation standard. Therefore, a manufacturer can earn more time to meet the 1.5 g/ m2/ day standard if they have an alternative approach that will reduce permeation by a lesser amount earlier than 2008. Specifically, if a manufacturer certifies fuel tanks early to a standard of 3.0 g/ m2/ day, they can delay the 1.5 g/ m2/ day standard for these fuel tanks by 1 tankyear for every tank­ year of early certification. As an alternative, this delay could be applied to other fuel tanks provided that these tanks have an equal or smaller inside surface area and meet a level of 3.0 g/ m2/ day. As an example, suppose a manufacturer were to sell 50 vehicles in 2006 and 75 vehicles in 2007 with fuel tanks that meet a level of 3.0 g/ m2/ day. This manufacturer would then be able to sell 125 vehicles with fuel tanks that meet a level of 3.0 g/ m2/ day in 2008 and later years. No uncontrolled tanks could be sold after 2007. In addition to providing implementation flexibility to manufacturers, this option, if used, would result in additional and earlier emission reductions. For hoses, we do not believe that ABT provisions would result in a significant technological benefit to manufacturers. We believe that all fuel hoses can meet the permeation standards using straight forward technology as discussed in Section IV. F. From EPA's perspective, including an ABT program in the rule creates a long­ term administrative burden that is not worth taking on since it does not provide the industry with useful flexibility. 3. How Do I Certify My Products? We are finalizing a certification process similar to our existing program for other mobile sources. Manufacturers test representative prototype designs and submit the emission data along with other information to EPA in an application for a Certificate of Conformity. As discussed in Section IV. D. 3, we will allow manufacturers to certify based on either design ( for which there is already data) or by conducting its own emissions testing. If we approve the application, then the manufacturer's Certificate of Conformity allows the manufacturer to produce and sell the vehicles described in the application in the U. S. Manufacturers certify their fuel systems by grouping them into emission families that have similar emission characteristics. The emission family definition is fundamental to the certification process and to a large VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68287 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 68 Draft SAE Information Report J1769, `` Test Protocol for Evaluation of Long Term Permeation Barrier Durability on Non­ Metallic Fuel Tanks,'' ( Docket A 2000 01, document IV A 24). degree determines the amount of testing required for certification. The regulations include specific characteristics for grouping emission families for each category of tanks and hoses. For fuel tanks, key parameters include wall thickness, material used ( including additives such as pigments, plasticizers, and UV inhibitors), and the emission­ control strategy applied. For hoses, key parameters include material, wall thickness, and emission­ control strategy applied. To address a manufacturer's unique product mix, we may approve using broader or narrower engine families. The certification process for vehicle permeation is similar as for the process for certifying engines ( see Section II. C. 1). 4. What Durability Provisions Apply? We are adopting several additional provisions to ensure that emission controls will be effective throughout the life of the vehicle. This section discusses these provisions for permeation from recreational vehicles. More general certification and compliance provisions, which apply across different vehicle categories, are discussed in Sections II and VII, respectively. a. How long do my vehicles have to comply? Manufacturers would be required to build fuel systems that meet the emission standards over each vehicle's useful life. For the permeation standards, we use the same useful life as discussed in Section III. C. 4. a for exhaust emissions from recreational vehicle engines based on the belief that fuel system components and engines are intended to have the same design life. Further, we are applying the same warranty period for permeation emission related components of the fuel system as for exhaust emission­ related components of the vehicle ( See Section III. C. 4. b). b. How do I demonstrate emission durability? We are adopting several additional provisions to ensure that emission controls will be effective throughout the life of the vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must demonstrate that the permeation emission­ control strategies will last for the useful life of the vehicle. Any deterioration in performance would have to be included in the family emissions limit. This section discusses durability provisions for fuel tanks and hoses. For plastic fuel tanks, we are specifying a preconditioning and four durability steps that must be performed in conjunction with the permeation testing for certification to the standard. These steps, which include fuel soaking, slosh, pressure­ vacuum cycling, temperature cycling, and ultra­ violet light exposure, are described in more detail in Section IV. D. 1. The purpose of these preconditioning steps is to help demonstrate the durability of the fuel tank permeation control under conditions that may occur in use. For fuel hoses, the only preconditioning step that we are requiring is a fuel soak to ensure that the permeation rate is stabilized prior to testing. Data from before and after the durability tests would be used to determine deterioration factors for the certified fuel tanks. The durability factors would be applied to permeation test results to determine the certification emission level of the fuel tank at full useful life. The manufacturer would still be responsible for ensuring that the fuel tank and hose meet the permeation standards throughout the useful life of the vehicle. We recognize that vehicle manufacturers will likely depend on suppliers/ vendors for treated tanks and fuel hoses. We believe that, in addition to normal business practices, our testing requirements will help assure that suppliers/ vendors consistently meet the performance specifications laid out in the certificate. D. Testing Requirements To obtain a certificate allowing sale of products meeting EPA emission standards, manufacturers generally must show compliance with such standards through emission testing. The test procedures for determining permeation emissions from fuel tanks and hoses on recreational vehicles are described below. This section also discusses design­ based certification as an alternative to performing specific testing. 1. What Are the Test Procedures for Measuring Permeation Emissions From Fuel Tanks? Prior to testing the fuel tanks for permeation emissions, the fuel tank must be preconditioned by allowing the tank to sit with fuel in it until the hydrocarbon permeation rate has stabilized. Under this step, the fuel tank must be filled with a 10­ percent ethanol blend in gasoline ( E10), sealed, and soaked for 20 weeks at a temperature of 28 ± 5 ° C. Once the soak period has ended, the fuel tank is drained, refilled with fresh fuel, and sealed. The permeation rate from fuel tanks is measured at a temperature of 28 ± 2 ° C over a period of at least 2 weeks. Consistent with good engineering judgment, a longer period may be necessary for an accurate measurement for fuel tanks with low permeation rates. Permeation loss is determined by measuring the weight of the fuel tank before and after testing and taking the difference. Once the mass change is determined it is divided by the manufacturer provided tank surface area and the number of days of soak to get the emission rate. As an option, permeation may be measured using alternative methods that will provide equivalent or better accuracy. Such methods include enclosure testing as described in 40 CFR part 86. The fuel used for this testing will be a blend of 90­ percent gasoline and 10­ percent ethanol. This fuel is consistent with the test fuel used for highway evaporative emission testing. To determine permeation emission deterioration factor, we are specifying three durability tests: slosh testing, pressure­ vacuum cycling, and ultraviolet exposure. The purpose of these deterioration tests is to help ensure that the technology is durable and the measured emissions are representative of in­ use permeation rates. For slosh testing, the fuel tank is filled to 40­ percent capacity with E10 fuel and rocked for 1 million cycles. The pressure­ vacuum testing contains 10,000 cycles from ¥ 0.5 to 2.0 psi. These two durability tests are based on draft recommended SAE practice. 68 The third durability test is intended to assess potential impacts of UV sunlight ( 0.2 µ m 0.4 µ m) on the durability of the surface treatment. In this test, the tank must be exposed to a UV light of at least 0.40 W­ hr/ m2 / min on the tank surface for 15 hours per day for 30 days. Alternatively, it can be exposed to direct natural sunlight for an equivalent period of time. We originally sought comment on applying the procedures in 49 CFR part 173, appendix B, but upon further evaluation and receipt of additional information found these inadequate for our purposes. The 49 CFR part 173 test procedure is designed for testing plastic receptacles for transporting hazardous chemicals. This test focus on temperatures and durability procedures that do not represent recreational vehicle use. 2. What Are the Test Procedures for Measuring Permeation Emissions From Fuel System Hoses? The permeation rate of fuel from hoses would be measured at a temperature of 23 ± 2 ° C using SAE VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68288 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 69 SAE Recommended Practice J30, `` Fuel and Oil Hoses,'' June 1998, ( Docket A 2000 01, document IV A 92). 70 SAE Recommended Practice J1737, `` Test Procedure to Determine the Hydrocarbon Losses from Fuel Tubes, Hoses, Fittings, and Fuel Line Assemblies by Recirculation,'' 1997, ( Docket A 2000 01, document, IV A 34). 71 SAE Recommended Practice J1527, `` Marine Fuel Hoses,'' 1993, ( Docket A 2000 01, document IV A 19). 72 ASTM Standard Test Method D 814 95 ( Reapproved 2000), `` Rubber Property Vapor Transmission of Volatile Liquids,'' ( Docket A 2000 01, document IV A 95). 73 SAE Recommended Practice J2260, `` Nonmetallic Fuel System Tubing with One or More Layers,'' 1996, ( Docket A 2000 01, document IV A 18). method J3069 with E10. The hose must be preconditioned with a fuel soak to ensure that the permeation rate has stabilized. The fuel to be used for this testing would be a blend of 90­ percent gasoline and 10­ percent ethanol. This fuel is consistent with the test fuel used for highway evaporative emission testing. Alternatively, for purposes of submission of data at certification, permeation could be measured using alternative equipment and procedures that provide equivalent results. To use these alternative methods, manufacturers would have to apply to us and demonstrate equivalence. Examples of alternative approaches that we anticipate manufacturers may use are the recirculation technique described in SAE J1737,70 enclosuretype testing such as in 40 CFR part 86, or weight loss testing such as described in SAE J1527.71 3. Can I Certify Based on Engineering Design Rather Than Through Testing? In general, test data would be required to certify fuel tanks and hoses to the permeation standards. Test data could be carried over from year to year for a given emission­ control design. We do not believe the cost of testing tanks and hose designs for permeation would be burdensome especially given that the data could be carried over from year to year, and that there is a good possibility that the broad emission family concepts would lead to minimum testing. However, there are some specific cases where we would allow certification based on design. These special cases are discussed below. We would consider a metal fuel tank to meet the design criteria for a low permeation fuel tank because fuel does not permeate through metal. However, we would not consider this design to be any more effective than any other low permeation fuel tank for the purposes of any sort of credit program. Although metal is impermeable, seals and gaskets used on the fuel tank may not be. The design criteria for the seals and gaskets would be that either they would not have a total exposed surface area exceeding 1000 mm2, or the seals and gaskets would have to be made of a material with a permeation rate of 10 g/ m2/ day or less at 23 ° C as measured under ASTM D814.72 A metal fuel tank with seals that meet this design criteria would readily pass the standard. Fuel hoses can be certified by design as being manufactured in compliance with certain accepted SAE specifications. Specifically, a fuel hose meeting the SAE J30 R11 A or R12 requirements could be design­ certified to the standard. In addition, fuel line meeting the SAE J226073 Category 1 requirements could be design­ certified to the standard. These fuel hoses and fuel line specifications are based on 15­ percent methanol fuel and higher temperatures. We believe that fuel hoses and lines that are tested and meet these requirements would also meet our hose permeation standards because both are generally acknowledged as representing more stringent test parameters. In the future, if new SAE specifications are developed which are consistent with our hose permeation standards, we would consider including hoses meeting the new SAE requirements as being able to certify by design. At certification, manufacturers will have to submit an engineering analysis showing that the tank or hose designs will meet the standards throughout their full useful life. The tanks and hoses will remain subject to the emission standards throughout their useful lives. The design criteria relate only to the issuance of a certificate. E. Special Compliance Provisions We believe that the permeation control requirements will be relatively easy for small businesses to meet, given the relatively low cost of the requirements and the availability of materials and treatment support by outside vendors. Low permeation fuel hoses are available from vendors today, and we would expect that surface treatment would be applied through an outside company. However, to minimize any additional burden these requirements may impose on small manufacturers, we are implementing, where they are applicable to permeation, the same options we proposed for the exhaust emission standards. These options for small recreational vehicle manufacturers are described in detail in Section III. E. F. Technological Feasibility We believe there are several strategies that manufacturers can use to meet our permeation emission standards. This section gives an overview of this technology. See Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document for more detail on the technology discussed here. 1. Implementation Schedule The permeation emission standards for fuel tanks become effective in the 2008 model year. Several technologies are available that could be used to meet this standard. Surface treatments to reduce tank permeation are widely used today in other container applications, and the technology and production facilities needed to conduct this process exist. Selar is used by at least one portable fuel tank manufacturer and has also been used in automotive applications. Plastic tanks with coextruded barriers have been used in automotive applications for years. However, fuel tanks used in recreational vehicles are primarily ( but not exclusively) high­ density polyethylene tanks with no permeation control. We received comments from manufacturers that they would not be able to comply with permeation standards until 2008 or 2009. They stated that, especially for fuel tanks, they would need this extra lead time to ensure that the useful life requirement can be met on their products. At the same time, others commented that the technology is already available and that the permeation standards should apply in 2004. We believe it is appropriate to give manufacturers until the 2008 model year for the fuel tank permeation standards. Manufacturers will need lead time to allow for durability testing and other development work associated with applying this technology to recreational vehicles. This is especially true for manufacturers or vendors who choose to set up their own sulfonation or fluorination facilities in­ house. We believe that the low permeation hose technology can also be applied in the 2008 time frame. A lower permeation fuel hose exists today known as the SAE R9 hose that is as flexible as the SAE R7 hose used in most recreational applications today. These SAE hose specifications are contained in SAE J30 cited above. This hose would meet our permeation standard on gasoline, but probably not on a 10­ percent ethanol blend. As noted in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document, barrier materials typically used in R9 hose today may have permeation rates 3 to 5 times VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68289 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations higher on a 10­ percent ethanol blend than on straight gasoline. However, there are several lower permeability barrier materials that can be used in rubber hose that will comply with the hose permeation requirement on a 10­ percent ethanol blend and still be flexible enough for use in recreational vehicles. This hose is available for automotive applications at this time, but some lead time may be required to apply these hoses to recreational vehicles if hose connection fitting changes were required. For these reasons, we are implementing the hose permeation standard on the same schedule as the tank permeation standards. 2. Standard Levels We have identified several strategies for reducing permeation emissions from fuel tanks and hoses. We recognize that some of these technologies may be more desirable than others for some manufacturers, and we recognize that different strategies for equal emission reductions may be better for different applications. A specific example of technology that could be used to meet the fuel tank permeations would be surface barrier treatments such as sulfonation or fluorination. With these surface treatments, more than a 95­ percent reduction in permeation emissions from new fuel tanks is feasible. However, variation in material tolerances and in­ use deterioration can reduce this effectiveness. Given the lead time for the standards, manufacturers will be able to provide fuel tanks with consistent material quality, and the surface treatment processes can be optimized for a wide range of material qualities and additives such as pigments, plasticizers, and UV inhibitors. We do not expect a large deterioration in use; however, data on slosh testing suggest that some deterioration may occur. To accommodate variability and deterioration, we are finalizing a standard that represents about an 85­ percent reduction in permeation emissions from plastic fuel tanks. It is our expectation that manufacturers will aim for a surface treatment effectiveness rate as near to 100 percent a practical for new tanks. Therefore, even with variability and deterioration in use, control rates are likely to exceed 85 percent. Several materials are available today that could be used as a low permeation barrier in rubber hoses. We present more detail on these and other technological approaches below. 3. Technological Approaches a. Fuel tanks. Blow molding is widely used for the manufacture of small fuel tanks of recreational vehicles. Typically, blow molding is performed by creating a hollow tube, known as a parison, by pushing high­ density polyethylene ( HDPE) through an extruder with a screw. The parison is then pinched in a mold and inflated with an inert gas. In highway applications, non­ permeable plastic fuel tanks are produced by blow molding a layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol ( EVOH) or nylon between two layers of polyethylene. This process is called coextrusion and requires at least five layers: the barrier layer, adhesive layers on either side of the barrier layer, and HDPE as the outside layers which make up most of the thickness of the fuel tank walls. However, multi­ layer construction requires two additional extruder screws which significantly increases the cost of the blow molding process. Multi­ layer fuel tanks can also be formed using injection molding. In this method, a low viscosity polymer is forced into a thin mold to create each side of the fuel tank. The two sides are then welded together. To add a barrier layer, a thin sheet of the barrier material is placed inside the mold prior to injection of the poleythylene. The polyethylene, which generally has a much lower melting point than the barrier material, bonds with the barrier material to create a shell with an inner liner. A less expensive alternative to coextrusion is to blend a low permeable resin in with the HDPE and extrude it with a single screw. The trade name typically used for this permeation control strategy is Selar. The low permeability resin, typically EVOH or nylon, creates non­ continuous platelets in the HDPE fuel tank which reduce permeation by creating long, tortuous pathways that the hydrocarbon molecules must navigate to pass through the fuel tank walls. Although the barrier is not continuous, this strategy can still achieve greater than a 90­ percent reduction in permeation of gasoline. EVOH has much higher permeation resistance to alcohol than nylon; therefore, it would be the preferred material to use for meeting our standard which is based on testing with a 10­ percent ethanol fuel. Another type of low permeation technology for fuel tanks would be to treat the surfaces of a plastic fuel tanks with a barrier layer. Two ways of achieving this are known as fluorination and sulfonation. The fluorination process causes a chemical reaction where exposed hydrogen atoms are replaced by larger fluorine atoms which creates a barrier on the surface of the fuel tank. In this process, a batch of fuel tanks are generally processed post production by stacking them in a steel container. The container is then voided of air and flooded with fluorine gas. By pulling a vacuum in the container, the fluorine gas is forced into every crevice in the fuel tanks. As a result of this process, both the inside and outside surfaces of the fuel tank would be treated. As an alternative, fuel tanks can be fluorinated on­ line by exposing the inside surface of the fuel tank to fluorine during the blow molding process. However, this method may not prove as effective as off­ line fluorination which treats the inside and outside surfaces. Sulfonation is another surface treatment technology where sulfur trioxide is used to create the barrier by reacting with the exposed polyethylene to form sulfonic acid groups on the surface. Current practices for sulfonation are to place fuel tanks on a small assembly line and expose the inner surfaces to sulfur trioxide, then rinse with a neutralizing agent. However, sulfonation can also be performed using a batch method. Either of these processes can be used to reduce gasoline permeation by more than 95 percent. Over the first month or so of use, polyethylene fuel tanks can expand by as much as three percent due to saturation of the plastic with fuel. Manufacturers have raised the concern that this hydrocarbon expansion could affect the effectiveness of surface treatments like fluorination or sulfonation. We believe this will not have a significant effect on the effectiveness of these surface treatments. California ARB has performed extensive permeation testing on portable fuel containers with and without these surface treatments. Prior to the permeation testing, the tanks were prepared by first performing a durability procedure where the fuel container is cycled a minimum of 1000 times between ¥ 1 psi and 5 psi. In addition, the fuel containers are soaked with fuel for a minimum of four weeks prior to testing. Their test data, presented in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document show that fluorination and sulfonation are still effective after this durability testing. Manufacturers have also commented that fuel sloshing in the fuel tank, under normal in­ use operation, could wear off the surface treatments. However, we do not believe that this is likely. These surface treatments actually result in an atomic change in the structure of the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68290 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 74 ethylene­ tetrafluoro­ ethylene ( ETFE), tetrafluoro ethylene, hexa­ fluoro­ propylene, and vinyledene fluoride ( THV). 75 Gas turbines are non­ reciprocating internal combustion engines. outside surface of the fuel tank. To wear off the treatment, the plastic would need to be worn away on the outside surface. In addition, testing by California ARB shows that the fuel tank permeation standard can be met by fuel tanks that have been sloshed for 1.2 million cycles. Test data on an sulfonated automotive HDPE fuel tank after five years of use showed no deterioration in the permeation barrier. This data are presented in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document. Permeation can also be reduced from fuel tanks by constructing them out of a lower permeation material than HDPE. For instance, metal fuel tanks would not permeate. In addition, there are grades of plastics other than HDPE that could be molded into fuel tanks. One commenter suggested nylon; however, although nylon has excellent permeation resistance on gasoline, it has poor chemical resistance to alcoholblended fuels. Other materials, which have excellent permeation even with alcohol­ blended fuels are acetal copolymers and thermoplastic polyesters. At this time, these materials are generally much more expensive than HDPE. b. Hoses. Fuel hoses produced for use in recreational vehicles are generally extruded nitrile rubber with a cover for abrasion resistance. Lower permeability fuel hoses produced today for other applications are generally constructed in one of two ways: either with a low permeability layer or by using a low permeability rubber blend. By using hose with a low permeation thermoplastic layer, permeation emissions can be reduced by more than 95 percent. Because the thermoplastic layer is very thin, on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 mm, the rubber hose retains its flexibility. Two thermoplastics which have excellent permeation resistance, even with an alcohol­ blend fuel, are ETFE and THV. 74 In automotive applications, multilayer plastic tubing, made of fluoropolymers is generally used. An added benefit of these low permeability lines is that some fluoropolymers can be made to conduct electricity and therefore can prevent the buildup of static charges. Although this technology can achieve more than an order of magnitude lower permeation than barrier hoses, it is relatively inflexible and may need to be molded in specific shapes for each recreational vehicle design. Manufacturers have commented that they would need flexible hose to fit their many designs, resist vibration, and to simplify the hose connections and fittings. An alternative approach to reducing the permeability of fuel hoses would be to apply a surface treatment such as fluorination or sulfonation. This process would be performed in a manner similar to discussed above for fuel tanks. 4. Conclusions The standards for permeation emissions from recreational vehicles reasonably reflect what manufacturers can achieve through the application of available technology. Manufacturers will have several years of lead time to select, design, and produce permeation emission­ control strategies that will work best for their product lines. We expect that meeting these requirements will pose a challenge, but one that is feasible taking into consideration the availability and cost of technology, lead time, noise, energy, and safety. The role of these factors is presented in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document. The permeation standards are based on the effective application of low permeable materials or surface treatments. This is a step change in technology; therefore, we believe that even if we set a less stringent permeation standard, these technology options would likely still be used. In addition, this technology is relatively inexpensive and can achieve meaningful emission reductions. The standards are expected to achieve more than an 85­ percent reduction in permeation emissions from fuel tanks and more than 95 percent from hoses. We believe that more stringent standards could result in significantly more expensive materials without corresponding additional emission reduction. In addition, the control technology would generally pay for itself over time by conserving fuel that would otherwise evaporate. The projected costs and fuel savings are discussed in Chapter 5 of the Final Regulatory Support Document. V. Large Spark­ Ignition ( SI) Engines A. Overview This section applies to most nonroad spark­ ignition engines rated over 19 kW (`` Large SI engines''). The emission standards will lead to emission reductions of about 90 percent for CO, NOX, and HC. Since the emission standards are based on engine testing with broadly representative duty cycles, these estimated reductions apply to all types of equipment using these engines. Reducing Large SI engine emissions will help reduce ozone and CO concentrations and will also be valuable to individuals operating these engines in areas with limited fresh air circulation. The cost of applying the anticipated emission­ control technology to these engines is offset by much greater cost savings from reduced fuel consumption over the engines' operating lifetime, as described in the Final Regulatory Support Document. This section describes the requirements that apply to engine manufacturers. See Section II for a description of our general approach to regulating nonroad engines and how manufacturers show that they meet emission standards. See Section VII for additional requirements for engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and others. See Section VIII for general provisions related to testing equipment and procedures. B. Large SI Engines Covered by This Rule Large SI engines covered in this section power nonroad equipment such as forklifts, sweepers, pumps, and generators. This includes marine auxiliary engines, but does not include marine propulsion engines or engines used in recreational vehicles ( snowmobiles, off­ highway motorcycles, and all­ terrain vehicles). These other nonroad applications are addressed elsewhere in this document. This final rule applies only to sparkignition engines. Our most recent rulemaking for nonroad diesel engines adopted a definition of `` compressionignition that addressed the status of alternative­ fuel engines ( 63 FR 56968, October 23, 1998). We are adopting updated definitions consistent with those already established in previous rulemakings to clarify that all reciprocating internal combustion engines are either spark­ ignition or compression­ ignition. 75 These new definitions apply to 40 CFR parts 89 and 1048. Spark­ ignitions include gasolinefueled engines and any others that control power with a throttle and follow the theoretical Otto cycle. Compressionignition engines are any reciprocating internal­ combustion engines that are not spark­ ignition engines. Under these definitions, it is possible for a dieselderived engine to fall under the sparkignition program. We believe the requirements adopted in this rule are feasible and appropriate for these engines. However, we will allow such engines over 250 kW to instead meet the requirements that apply to nonroad VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68291 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations diesel engines. We believe this is appropriate for several reasons. First, the technology requirements are comparable between programs. The nonroad diesel emission standards, which apply over the longer useful life characteristic of diesel engines, are slightly more stringent for CO and slightly less stringent for HC+ NOX. The calibration changes needed to adjust these emission levels are not fundamental to the overall design of the emission­ control system. Second, the diesel engine manufacturers producing these engines are already set up to do testing based on test procedures that apply to diesel engines. To the extent that they would incur costs to be able to run test procedures specified for Large SI engines, these costs would likely not correspond with improving emission­ controls. Third, these engines share important technical characteristics with diesel engines and are likely to experience in­ use operation that is more like that of nonroad diesel engines. In addition, they are installed in applications that also use diesel engines, not Large SI engines. Several types of engines are excluded or exempted from these new regulations. The following sections describe the types of special provisions that apply uniquely to nonrecreational spark­ ignition engines rated over 19 kW. Section VII. C covers several additional exemptions that apply generally across programs. 1. Stationary Engine Exclusion Consistent with the Clean Air Act, stationary­ source engines are not nonroad engines, so the emission standards don't apply to engines used in stationary applications. In general, an engine that would otherwise be considered a Large SI engine is not considered a nonroad engine if it will be either installed in a fixed position or if it will be a portable ( or transportable) engine operating for at least one­ year periods without moving throughout its lifetime. We are adopting the same definitions for these engines that have already been established for other programs. These stationary engines ( that would otherwise qualify as Large SI engines) must have an engine label identifying their excluded status. This is especially valuable for importing excluded engines without complication from U. S. Customs officials. It also helps us ensure that such engines are legitimately excluded from emission standards. 2. Exclusion for Engines Used Solely for Competition For Large SI engines we proposed the existing regulatory definition for nonroad engines, with excludes engines used solely for competition. As described in the proposed rule, we are not aware of any manufacturers producing new engines that are intended only for competition. As a result, we are not adopting any specific provisions addressing a competition exclusion for manufacturers. Part 1068 of the regulations includes provisions addressing the practice of modifying certified engines for competition ( see Section VII. C). 3. Motor Vehicle Engine Exemption In some cases an engine manufacturer may want to modify a certified automotive engine for nonroad use to sell the engine without recertifying it as a Large SI engine. We are therefore adopting an exemption from the Large SI standards in 40 CFR part 1048 for engines that are already certified to the emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 for highway applications. To qualify for this exemption from separately certifying to nonroad standards, the manufacturer must makes no changes to the engine that might affect its exhaust or evaporative emissions. Companies using this exemption must report annually to us, including a list of its exempted engine models. For engines included under this provision, manufacturers of the vehicle or engine must generally meet all the requirements from 40 CFR part 86 that would apply if the engine were used in a motor vehicle. Section 1048.605 of the regulations describes the qualifying criteria and responsibilities in greater detail. We generally prohibit equipment or vehicle manufacturers from producing new nonroad equipment that does not have engines certified to nonroad emission standards. However, in some cases a manufacturer may want to produce vehicles certified to highway emission standards for nonroad use. We are providing an exemption for these manufacturers, as long as there is no change in the vehicle's exhaust or evaporative emission­ control systems. For example, a mining company may want to use a pickup truck for dedicated work at a mine site, but special­ order the trucks from the manufacturer with modifications that cause the truck to no longer qualify as a motor vehicle. Manufacturers may produce such a modified version of a truck that has been certified to the motor­ vehicle standards, as long as the modifications don't affect its emissions. 4. Lawn and Garden Engine Exemption Most Large SI engines, rated over 19 kW, have a total displacement greater than one liter. The design and application of the few Large SI engines currently being produced with displacement less than one liter are very similar to those of engines rated below 19 kW, which are typically used for lawn and garden applications. As described in the most recent rulemaking for these smaller engines, manufacturers may certify engines between 19 and 30 kW with total displacement of one liter or less to the requirements we have already adopted in 40 CFR part 90 for engines below 19 kW ( see 65 FR 24268, April 25, 2000). We are not changing this provision, and engines so certified would not be subject to the requirements that apply to Large SI engines. This approach allows manufacturers of small air­ cooled engines to certify their engines rated between 19 and 30 kW with the program adopted for the comparable engines with slightly lower power ratings. This is also consistent with the provisions adopted by California ARB, except for the addition of the 30­ kW cap to prevent treating high­ power engines under the program that applies to lawn and garden engines. Technological, economic, and environmental issues associated with the few engine models with rated power over 19 kW, but with displacement at or below 1 liter, were previously analyzed in the rulemaking for nonroad sparkignition engines below 19 kW. This rule therefore does not specifically address the provisions applying to them or repeat the estimated impacts of adopting emission standards. Conversely, we are aware that some engines rated below 19 kW may be part of a larger family of engine models that includes engines rated above 19 kW. This may include, for example, three­ and four­ cylinder engine models that are otherwise identical. To avoid the need to separate these engines into separate engine families ( certified under completely different control programs), manufacturers may certify any engine rated under 19 kW to the more stringent Large SI emission standards. Such an engine is then exempt from the requirements of 40 CFR part 90. C. Emission Standards In October 1998, California ARB adopted emission standards for Large SI engines. We are extending these requirements to the rest of the U. S. in the near term. We are also revising the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68292 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 76 See Section V. D for a discussion of duty cycles. emission standards and adding various provisions in the long term, as described below. The near­ term and the long­ term emission standards are based on threeway catalytic converters with electronic fueling systems to control emissions, and differ primarily in terms of how well the controls are optimized. In addition to the anticipated emission reductions, we project that these technologies will provide large savings to operators as a result of reduced fuel consumption and other performance improvements. An important element of the control program is the attempted harmonization with the requirements adopted by California ARB. We are aware that inconsistent or conflicting requirements may lead to additional costs. Cooperation between agencies has allowed a great degree of harmonization. In addition to the common structure of the programs, the specific provisions that make up the certification requirements and compliance programs are consistent with very few exceptions. In most of the cases where individual provisions differ, the EPA language is more general than that adopted by California, rather than being incompatible. The following sections describe the requirements in greater detail. 1. What Are the Emission Standards and Compliance Dates? a. Exhaust emissions. We are adopting standards starting in the 2004 model year consistent with those adopted by California ARB. These standards, which apply to testing only with the applicable steady­ state duty cycles, are 4.0 g/ kW­ hr ( 3.0 g/ hp­ hr) for HC+ NOX emissions and 50 g/ kW­ hr ( 37 g/ hp­ hr) for CO emissions. See Section V. D for further discussion of the steady­ state duty cycles. We expect manufacturers to meet these standards using three­ way catalytic converters and electronically controlled fuel systems. These systems are similar to those used for many years in highway applications, but not necessarily with the same degree of sophistication. Adopting emission standards for these engines starting in 2004 allows a relatively short lead time. However, manufacturers will be able to achieve this by expanding their production of the same engines they will be selling in California at that time. We have designed our 2004 standards to require no additional development, design, or testing beyond what California ARB already requires. Adopting these nearterm emission standards allows us to set early requirements to introduce the lowemission technologies for substantial emission reductions with minimal lead time. The final requirements includes two principal adjustments to align with the California ARB standards. First, we specify that manufacturers' deterioration factors for 2004 through 2006 model years should be based on emission measurements over 3500 hours of engine operation, rather than the full useful life of 5000 hours. Second, for those same model years, we are applying an emission standard of 5.4 g/ kW­ hr ( 4.0 g/ hp­ hr) HC+ NOX for any inuse testing to account for the potential for additional deterioration beyond 3500 hours. This allowance for higher in­ use emissions is a temporary provision to ensure the feasibility of compliance in the early years of the program. Testing has shown that with additional design time, manufacturers can incorporate emission­ control technologies with sufficient durability that the long­ term standards do not require a separate inuse standard. This is separate from the field­ testing standards described below. Testing has shown that additional time to optimize designs to better control emissions will allow manufacturers to meet significantly more stringent emission standards that are based on more robust measurement procedures. We are therefore adopting a second tier of standards to require additional emission reductions. These later standards require manufacturers to control emissions under both steadystate and transient engine operation, as described in Section V. D below). Setting the emission standards to require additional control involves separate consideration of the achievable level of control for HC+ NOX and CO emissions. While HC+ NOX emissions contribute to nonattainment of ozone air quality standards, CO emissions contribute to nonattainment of CO air quality standards and potentially harmful exposures of individuals where engines are operating in areas where fresh airflow may be restricted. Emissioncontrol technology is able to simultaneously control these three pollutants, but a tradeoff between NOX and CO emissions persists for any given system. This relationship is determined by an engine's precise control of air­ fuel ratios shifting to air­ fuel ratios slightly lean of stoichiometric increases NOX emissions but decreases CO emissions and vice versa. Engines using different fuels face this same situation, though gasoline engines operating under heavy load generally need to shift to richer airfuel ratios to prevent accelerated engines wear from very high combustion temperatures. Our primary focus in setting the level of the emission standards is reductions in emissions that contribute to ambient air­ pollution problems. At the same time, we recognize that these engines are used in many applications where there are concerns about personal exposure to the engine exhaust, including workplace exposure, focusing primarily on CO exposure. It is appropriate to take such concerns into consideration in setting the level of the standards. In this case, where the equipment using these engines can vary substantially and where the emissioncontrol technology means there is a trade­ off between HC+ NOX control and CO control, it is difficult to set a single, optimal standard for all three pollutants. In such a situation it is reasonable to have more than one set of standards to allow an engine to use technologies focused on controlling the pollutants of most concern for a specific application. We are not in a position, however, to readily identity the specific levels of alternative standards that are appropriate for each application or to pick specific applications that should go with different standards. We also want to ensure that engines significantly reduce emissions of all three pollutants. To address this, we are setting a combination of standards requiring more effective emission controls starting with the 2007 model year. First, we are setting benchmark emission standards of 2.7 g/ kW­ hr ( 2.0 g/ hp­ hr) for HC+ NOX emissions and 4.4 g/ kW­ hr ( 3.3 g/ hp­ hr) for CO emissions. The emission standards apply to measurements during duty­ cycle testing under both steady­ state and transient operation, including certification, production­ line testing, and in­ use testing. 76 These emission levels provide for substantial control of HC+ NOX emissions ( in fact, these standards are more stringent than those proposed), but also contain substantial control of CO emissions to protect against individual exposure as well as CO nonattainment. We are also including an option for manufacturers to certify their engines to different emission levels to allow manufacturers to build engines whose emission controls are more weighted toward controlling NOX emissions to reflect the inherent tradeoff of NOX and CO emissions. Generally this involves meeting a less stringent CO standard if a manufacturer certifies an engine with lower HC+ NOX emissions. Table V. C 1 shows several examples of possible combinations of HC+ NOX and CO emission standards. The highest allowable CO standard is 20.6 g/ kW­ hr ( 15.4 g/ hp­ hr), which corresponds with HC+ NOX emissions below 0.8 g/ kW­ hr VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68293 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 77 While the emission standards in this final rule require substantial emission reductions of CO and other harmful pollutants from nonroad engines, this does not replace the need for ongoing regulation of air quality to protect occupational safety and health. More specifically, in accordance with the limitations provided in Section 310( a) of the Clean Air Act ( 42 U. S. C. section 7610( a)), nothing in this rule affects the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's authority to enforce standards and other requirements under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ( 29 U. S. C. sections 651 et seq.). ( 0.6 g/ hp­ hr). Manufacturers certify to any HC+ NOX level between and including 0.8 and 2.7 g/ kW­ hr, rounding to the nearest 0.1 g/ kW­ hr. They will certify also to the corresponding CO level, as calculated using the formula below, again rounding to the nearest 0.1 g/ kW­ hr. TABLE V. C 1. SAMPLES OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE DUTY­ CYCLE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR LARGE SI ENGINES( G/ KW­ HR)* HC+ NOX CO 2.7 ................................................. 4.4 2.2 ................................................. 5.6 1.7 ................................................. 7.9 1.3 ................................................. 11.1 1.0 ................................................. 15.5 0.8 ................................................. 20.6 * As described in the Final Regulatory Support Document and the regulations, the values in the table are related by the following formula ( HC+ NOX) x CO0.784 = 8.57. These values follow directly from the logarithmic relationship presented with the proposal in the Draft Regulatory Support Document. We believe this flexible approach to setting standards is the most appropriate and efficient way to allocate the different design strategies to achieve effective reductions of HC+ NOX emissions while providing for the best control of CO emissions where it is most needed. Testing has shown that emission controls are more likely to experience degradation with respect to controlling CO emissions than HC or NOX emissions. Manufacturers therefore have a natural incentive to certify engine families with an HC+ NOX emission level as low as possible to increase the compliance margin for meeting the CO standard. In addition, many of these engines will be used in applications where ozone is of more concern. As a result, we expect manufacturers to design most of their engines to operate substantially below the 2.7 g/ kW­ hr standard for HC+ NOX emissions. This approach also encourages manufacturers to continually improve their control of HC+ NOX emissions over time. At the same time, to the extent that purchasers want engines with low CO emission levels, particularly for exposure­ related concerns, manufacturers will be able to produce compliant engines that will provide appropriate protection. Note that engines operating at the highest allowable CO emission levels under the 2007 standards will still be substantially reducing CO emissions compared with baseline levels. The emission standards in this final rule will achieve substantial reductions, but are not designed to guarantee workplace safety or to set a safety standard. Rather, we intend to facilitate the use of engine­ based control technologies so that owners and operators can purchase equipment to help them address these concerns. We are not adopting any controls or limits to restrict the sale of engines meeting certain requirements into certain applications. We believe that the manufacturers and customers for these products will together make educated choices regarding the appropriate mix of emission controls for each application and that market forces will properly balance emission controls for the different pollutants in specific applications. We believe that customers for these applications, some of whom are subject to occupational air­ quality standards for related pollutant concentrations, will be well placed to make informed choices regarding airpollution control, especially given their ability to make choices based on the specific environmental circumstances of each particular customer. 77 We are adopting field­ testing standards of 3.8 g/ kW­ hr ( 2.8 g/ hp­ hr) for HC+ NOX and 6.5 g/ kW­ hr ( 4.9 g/ hphr for CO. As described above for dutycycle testing, field­ testing allows for the same pattern of optional emission standards to reflect the tradeoff of CO and NOX emissions. See Section V. D. 5 for more information about field testing. As described in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document, we believe manufacturers can achieve these emission standards by optimizing currently available three­ way catalysts and electronically controlled fuel systems. Two additional provisions apply to specific situations. First, some engines need to operate with rich air­ fuel ratios at high loads to protect the engine from overheating. This is especially true for gasoline­ fueled engines, which typically experience higher combustion temperatures. When operating at such air­ fuel ratios, the engines may be unable to meet the CO emission standard during steady­ state testing because the steady­ state duty cycle involves sustained operation under high­ load conditions, unlike the transient duty cycle. If a manufacturer shows us that this type of engine operation keeps it from meeting the CO emission standard shown above for specific models, we will approve a separate CO emission standard of 31.0 g/ kW­ hr that would apply only to steady­ state testing. This standard reflects the adjustment needed at highload operation and would apply to any steady­ state tests for certification, production­ line testing, or in­ use testing. To prevent high in­ use emission levels, we are adopting several additional provisions related to this separate CO standard. Manufacturers must show that enrichment is necessary to protect the engine from damage and that enrichment will be limited to operating modes that require additional cooling to protect the engine from damage. In addition, manufacturers must show in their application for certification that enrichment will rarely occur in the equipment in which your engines are installed ( for example, an engine that is expected to operate 5 percent of the time in use with enrichment would clearly not qualify). Finally, manufacturers must include in the emission­ related installation instructions any steps necessary for someone installing the engines to prevent enrichment during normal operation. This option does not apply to transient or field testing, so these engines would need to meet the same formula for HC+ NOX and CO standards that apply to other engines for transient testing and for field testing. By tying the CO standard for these engines to the highest allowable CO emission level for field testing, we are effectively requiring that manufacturers ensure that in­ use engines employ engine­ protection strategies no more frequently than is reflected in the steady­ state duty cycles for certification. Second, equipment manufacturers have made it clear that some nonroad applications involve operation in severe environments that require the use of aircooled engines. These engines rely on air movement instead of an automotivestyle water­ cooled radiator to maintain acceptable engine temperatures. Since air cooling is less effective, these engines rely substantially on enrichment to provide additional cooling relative to water­ cooled engines. At these richer air­ fuel ratios, catalysts are able to reduce NOX emissions but oxidation of CO emissions is much less effective. As a result, we are adopting emission standards for these `` severeduty engines of 2.7 g/ kW­ hr for HC+ NOX and 130 g/ kW­ hr for CO. These standards apply to duty­ cycle VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68294 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations emission testing for both steady­ state and transient measurements ( for certification, production­ line, and inuse testing). The corresponding fieldtesting standards are 3.8 g/ kW­ hr for HC+ NOX and 200 g/ kW­ hr for CO. Severe­ duty applications include concrete saws and concrete pumps. These types of equipment are exposed to high levels of concrete dust, which tends to form a thick insulating coat around any heat­ exchanger surfaces and exposes engines to highly abrasive dust particles. Manufacturers may request approval in identifying additional severe­ duty applications subject to these less stringent standards if they can provide clear evidence that the majority of installations need air­ cooled engines as a result of operation in a severe­ duty environment. This arrangement generally prevents these higher­ emitting engines from gaining a competitive advantage in markets that don't already use air­ cooled engines. We believe three years between phases of emission standards allows manufacturers enough lead time to meet the more stringent emission standards. The projected emission­ control technologies for the 2004 emission standards should be capable of meeting the 2007 emission levels with additional optimization and testing. In fact, manufacturers may be able to apply their optimization efforts before 2004, leaving only the additional testing demonstration for complying with the 2007 standards. The biggest part of the optimization effort may be related to gaining assurance that engines will meet field­ testing emission standards described in Section V. D. 5, since engines will not be following a prescribed duty cycle. For engines fueled by gasoline and liquefied petroleum gas ( LPG), we specify emission standards based on total hydrocarbon measurements, while California ARB standards are based on nonmethane hydrocarbons. We believe that switching to measurement based on total hydrocarbons simplifies testing, especially for field testing of in­ use engines with portable devices ( See Section V. D. 5). To maintain consistency with California ARB standards in the near term, we will allow manufacturers to base their certification through 2006 on either nonmethane or total hydrocarbons ( see 40 CFR 1048.145). Methane emissions from controlled engines operating on gasoline or LPG are about 0.1 g/ kW­ hr. Operation of natural gas engines is very similar to that of LPG engines, with one noteworthy exception. Since natural gas consists primarily of methane, these engines have a much higher level of methane in the exhaust. Methane generally does not contribute to ozone formation, so it is often excluded from emission measurements. We have therefore specified nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions for comparison with the standard for natural gas engines. However, the emission standards based on measuring emissions in the field depend on total hydrocarbons. We are therefore adopting a NOX­ only field­ testing standard for natural gas engines instead of a HC+ NOX standard. Since control of NOX emissions for natural gas engines poses a significantly greater challenge than controlling nonmethane hydrocarbons, duty­ cycle testing provides adequate assurance that these engines have sufficiently low hydrocarbon emission levels. Manufacturers must show that they meet these duty­ cycle standards for certification and the engines remain subject to the nonmethane hydrocarbon standard in­ use when tested over the same duty­ cycles. b. Evaporative emissions. We are adopting requirements related to evaporative and permeation emissions from gasoline­ fueled Large SI engines. For controlling diurnal emissions, we are adopting an emission standard of 0.2 grams of hydrocarbon per gallon of fuel tank capacity during a 24­ hour period. In addition, we specify that manufacturers use fuel lines meeting an industry standard for permeationresistance Finally, we require that manufacturers take steps to prevent fuel from boiling. We expect certification of manufacturers' equipment to be designbased as compared with conducting a full emission­ measurement program during certification. As such, meeting these evaporative requirements is much more like meeting the requirements related to controlling crankcase emissions and is therefore discussed in detail in Section V. C. 4 below. 2. May I Average, Bank, or Trade Emission Credits? We are not including an averaging, banking, and trading program for certifying engines. As described in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document, we believe that manufacturers will generally be able to rely on a relatively uniform application of emission­ control technology to meet emission standards. The standards were selected based on the capabilities of all manufacturers to comply with all their models without an emission­ credit program. Moreover, overlaying an emission­ credit program on the flexible standards described above would be highly impractical. If such a program could be devised it would need to be very complex and would achieve little, if any, advantage to manufacturers beyond the advantages already embodied in the flexible approach we are adopting. However, as an alternative to a program of calculating emission credits for averaging, banking, and trading, we are adopting a simpler approach of `` family banking'' to help manufacturers transition to new emission standards ( see 40 CFR 1048.145 of the regulations). Manufacturers may certify an engine family early, which would allow them to delay certification of smaller engine families. This would be based on the actual sales of each engine family; this requires no calculation or accounting of emission credits. The manufacturer would have actual sales figures for the early family at the end of the production year, which would yield a total number of allowable sales for the engine family with delayed compliance. Manufacturers may certify engines to the 2004 standards early, but this would provide benefits only for complying with the 2004 standards. These `` credits'' would not apply to engines for meeting the 2007 standards. 3. Is EPA Adopting Voluntary Blue Sky Standards for These Engines? We are adopting voluntary Blue Sky standards for Large SI engines. We are setting a target of 0.8 g/ kW­ hr ( 0.6 g/ hphr HC+ NOX and 4.4 g/ kW­ hr ( 3.3 g/ hphr CO as a qualifying level for Blue Sky Series engines. The corresponding fieldtesting standards for Blue Sky Series engines are 1.1 g/ kW­ hr ( 0.8 g/ hp­ hr) HC+ NOX and 6.6 g/ kW­ hr ( 4.9 g/ hp­ hr) CO. These voluntary standards are based on achieving the maximum control of both HC+ NOX and CO emissions, as described in Section V. C. 1. To achieve these emission levels, manufacturers will need to apply significantly additional technology beyond that required for the mandatory standards. Manufacturers may start producing engines to these voluntary standards immediately after this final rule becomes effective. In addition, we are adopting interim voluntary standards corresponding with the introduction of new emission standards. Since manufacturers will not be complying early to bank emission credits, voluntary emission standards are an appropriate way to encourage manufacturers to meet emission standards before the regulatory deadline. If manufacturers certify engines to these voluntary standards, they are not eligible for participation in the family­ banking program described VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68295 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 78 Stoichiometry is the proportion of a mixture of air and fuel such that the fuel is fully oxidized with no remaining oxygen. For example, stoichiometric combustion in gasoline engines typically occurs at an air­ fuel mass ratio of about 14.7. 79 '' Measurement of Evaporative Emissions from Off­ Road Equipment,'' by James N. Carroll and Jeff J. White, Southwest Research Institute ( SwRI 08 Continued above. In the 2003 model year, manufacturers may certify their engines to the requirements that apply starting in 2004 to qualify for the Blue Sky designation. Since manufacturers are producing engines with emissioncontrol technologies starting in 2001, these engines are available to customers outside of California desiring emission reductions or fuel­ economy improvements. Similarly, for 2003 through 2006 model years, manufacturers may certify their engines to the requirements that start to apply in 2007. 4. Are There Other Requirements for Large SI Engines? a. Crankcase emissions. Due to blowby of combustion gases and the reciprocating action of the piston, exhaust emissions ( mostly hydrocarbons) can accumulate in the crankcase. These crankcase emissions are significant, representing about 33 percent of total exhaust hydrocarbon. Uncontrolled engines route these vapors directly to the atmosphere. We have long required that automotive engines prevent crankcase emissions. Manufacturers typically do this by routing crankcase vapors through a valve into the engine's air intake system where they are burned in the combustion process. Manufacturers may choose one of two methods for controlling crankcase emissions. First, adding positivecrankcase ventilation prevents crankcase emissions. Since automotive engine blocks are already tooled for closed crankcases, the cost of adding a valve for positive­ crankcase ventilation for most engines is very small. An alternative method addresses specific concerns related to turbocharged engines or engines operating in severeduty environments. Where closed crankcases are impractical, manufacturers may therefore measure crankcase emissions during any emission testing to add crankcase emissions to measured exhaust emissions for comparing with the standards. b. Diagnosing malfunctions. Manufacturers must design their Large SI engines to diagnose malfunctioning emission­ control systems starting with the 2007 model year ( see § 1048.110). Three­ way catalyst systems with closedloop fueling control work well only when the air­ fuel ratios are controlled to stay within a narrow range around stoichiometry. 78 Worn or broken components or drifting calibrations over time can prevent an engine from operating within the specified range. This increases emissions and can significantly increase fuel consumption and engine wear. The operator may or may not notice the change in the way the engine operates. We are not requiring similar diagnostic controls for recreational vehicles or recreational marine diesel engines, because the anticipated emission­ control technologies for these other applications are generally less susceptible to drift and gradual deterioration. This diagnostic requirement focuses solely on maintaining stoichiometric control of air­ fuel ratios. This kind of design detects problems such as broken oxygen sensors, leaking exhaust pipes, fuel deposits, and other things that require maintenance to keep the engine at the proper air­ fuel ratio. Some companies are already producing engines with diagnostic systems that check for consistent airfuel ratios. Their initiative supports the idea that diagnostic monitoring provides a mechanism to help keep engines tuned to operate properly, with benefits for both controlling emissions and maintaining optimal performance. There are currently no inspection and maintenance programs for nonroad engines, so the most important variable in making the emission control and diagnostic systems effective is in getting operators to repair the engine when the diagnostic light comes on. This calls for a relatively simple design to avoid the signaling of false failures as much as possible. The diagnostic requirements in this rule therefore focus on detecting inappropriate air­ fuel ratios, which is the most likely failure mode for threeway catalyst systems. The malfunctionindicator light must go on when an engine runs for a full minute under closed­ loop operation without reaching a stoichiometric air­ fuel ratio. Some natural gas engines may meet standards with lean­ burn designs that never approach stoichiometric combustion. While manufacturers may design these engines to operate at specific air­ fuel ratios, catalyst conversion ( with two­ way catalysts) would not be as sensitive to air­ fuel ratio as with stoichiometric designs. For these or other engines that rely on emission­ control technologies incompatible with the diagnostic system described above, manufacturers must devise an alternate system that alerts the operator to engine malfunctions that would prevent the emission­ control system from functioning properly. The automotive industry has developed a standardized protocol for diagnostic systems, including hardware specifications, and uniform trouble codes. In the regulations we reference standards adopted by the International Organization for Standardization ( ISO) for automotive systems. If manufacturers find that these standards are not applicable to the simpler diagnostic design specified for Large SI engines, we encourage engine manufacturers to cooperate with each other and with other interested companies to develop new standards specific to nonroad engines. Manufacturers may request approval to use systems that don't meet the automotive specifications if those specifications are not practical or appropriate for their engines. c. Evaporative emissions. Evaporative emissions occur when fuel evaporates and is vented into the atmosphere. They can occur while an engine or vehicle is operating and even while it is not being operated. Among the factors that affect evaporative emissions are: Fuel metering ( fuel injectors or carburetor) The degree to which fuel permeates fuel lines and fuel tanks Proximity of the fuel tank to the exhaust system or other heat sources Whether the fuel system is sealed and the pressure at which fuel vapors are ventilated. In addition, some gasoline fuel tanks may be exposed to heat from the engine compartment and high­ temperature surfaces such as the exhaust pipe. In extreme cases, fuel can start boiling, producing very large amounts of gasoline vapors vented directly to the atmosphere. Evaporative emissions from Large SI engines and the associated equipment represent a significant part of their overall hydrocarbon emissions. The magnitude of evaporative emissions varies widely depending on the engine design and application. LPG­ fueled equipment generally has very low evaporative emissions because of the tightly sealed fuel system. At the other extreme, carbureted gasoline­ fueled equipment can have high rates of evaporation. In 1998, Southwest Research Institute measured emissions from several gasoline­ fueled Large SI engines and found them to vary from about 12 g/ day up to almost 100 g/ day. 79 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68296 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 1076), November 1998, Docket A 2000 01, document II A 10. 80 '' Industrial Trucks, Internal Combustion Engine­ Powered,'' UL558, ninth edition, June 28, 1996, paragraphs 26.1 through 26.4, Docket A 2000 01, document II A 28. See Section XI. I for our consideration of incorporating the UL requirements into our regulations by reference. 81 '' New Evaporative Control System for Gasoline Tanks,'' EPA Memorandum from Charles Moulis to Glenn Passavant, March 1, 2001, Docket A­ 2000 01, document II B 16. 82 SAE J2260 `` Nonmetallic Fuel System Tubing with One or More Layers,'' November 1996 ( Docket A 2000 01, document II A 03). 83 UL558, paragraph 19.1.1, Docket A 2000 01, document II A 28. This study did not take into account the possibility of unusually high fuel temperatures during engine operation, as described further below. We are adopting basic measures to reduce evaporative emissions from gasoline­ fueled Large SI engines. First, we are adopting an evaporative emission standard of 0.2 grams per gallon of fuel tank capacity for 24­ hour day when temperatures cycle between 72 ° and 96 ° F. For purposes of certification, manufacturers may choose, however, to rely on a specific design for certification instead of measuring emissions. We have identified a technology that adequately prevents evaporative emissions such that the design itself would be enough to show compliance with the evaporative emission standard for purposes of certification. Specifically, pressurized fuel tanks control evaporative emissions by suppressing vapor generation. In its standards for industrial trucks operating in certain environments, Underwriters Laboratories requires that trucks use self­ closing fuel caps with tanks that stay sealed to prevent evaporative losses; venting is allowed for positive pressures above 3.5 psi or for vacuum pressures of at least 1.5 psi. 80 We know that any Large SI engines or vehicles operating with these pressures would meet the standard because test data confirm the basic chemistry principles related to phase­ change pressure relationships showing that fuel tanks will remain sealed at all times during the prescribed test procedure. Also, similar to the Underwriters Laboratories' requirement, we specify that manufacturers must use self­ closing or tethered fuel caps to ensure that fuel tanks designed to hold pressure are not inadvertently left exposed to the atmosphere. In some applications, manufacturers may want to avoid high fuel­ tank pressures. Manufacturers may be able to meet the standard using an air bladder inside the fuel tank that changes in volume to keep the system in equilibrium at atmospheric pressure. 81 We have data showing that these systems also would remain sealed at all times during the prescribed test procedure. However, the permeation levels related to the air bladder and the long­ term durability of this type of system are still unknown. Once these parameters are established with test data, perhaps with some additional product development, this technology may then qualify as an option for design­ based certification. Similarly, collapsible bladder tanks, which change in volume to prevent generation of a vapor space or vapor emissions, may eventually be available as a technology for design­ based certification once permeation data are available to confirm that systems with these tanks would meet the standard. Finally, an automotive­ type system that stores fuel tank vapors for burning in the engine would be another alternative technology, though it is unlikely that such a system can be simply characterized and included as an option for design­ based certification. In addition, engine manufacturers must use ( or specify that equipment manufacturers installing their engines use) fuel lines meeting the industry performance standard for permeationresistant fuel lines developed for motor vehicles. 82 While metal fuel lines do not have problems with permeation, manufacturers should use discretion in selecting materials for grommets and valves connecting metal components to avoid high­ permeation materials. Evaporative emission standards for motor vehicles have led to the development of a wide variety of permeation­ resistant polymer components. These permeation requirements are based on manufacturers using a more effective emission controls than that specified for recreational vehicles. This is appropriate because Large SI manufacturers are able to use automotive­ grade materials across their product line, while recreational vehicle manufacturers have pointed out various limitations in incorporating automotivegrade materials. Conversely, Large SI manufacturers are not subject to permeation requirements related to fuel tanks, since almost all of these tanks are made of metal. Finally, based on available technologies, manufacturers must take steps to prevent fuel boiling. The Underwriters Laboratories specification for forklifts attempts to address this concern through a specified maximum fuel temperature, but the current limit does not prevent fuel boiling. 83 We are adopting a standard that prohibits fuel boiling during continuous operation at 30 ° C ( 86 ° F). Engine manufacturers must incorporate designs that reduce the heat load to the fuel tank to prevent boiling. For companies that sell loose engines, this may involve instructions to equipment manufacturers to help ensure, for example, that fuel tank surfaces are exposed to ambient air rather than to exhaust pipes or direct engine heat. Engine manufacturers may specify a maximum fuel temperature for the final installation. Such a temperature limit should be well below 53 ° C ( 128 ° F), the temperature at which summer­ grade gasoline ( 9 RVP) typically starts boiling. An additional source of evaporative emissions is from carburetors. Carburetors often have high hot soak emissions ( immediately after engine shutdown). We expect manufacturers to convert carbureted designs to fuel injection as a result of the exhaust emission standards. While we do not mandate this technology, we believe the need to reduce exhaust emissions will cause engine manufacturers to use fuel injection on all gasoline engines. This change alone will eliminate most hot soak emissions. Engine manufacturers using designbased certification need to describe in the application for certification the selected design measures and specifications to address evaporative losses from gasoline­ fueled engines. For loose­ engine sales, this includes emission­ related installation instructions that the engine manufacturer gives to equipment manufacturers. While equipment manufacturers must follow these installation instruction, the engine manufacturer has the responsibility to certify a system that meets the evaporative­ related requirements described in this section. This should work in practice, because engine manufacturers already provide equipment manufacturers a variety of specifications and other instructions to ensure that engines operate properly inuse after installation in the equipment. The alternative approach of requiring equipment manufacturers to certify is impractical because of the very large number of companies involved. 5. What Durability Provisions Apply? a. Useful life. We are adopting a useful life period of seven years or until the engine accumulates at least 5,000 operating hours, whichever comes first. This figure represents a minimum value and may increase as a result of data showing that an engine model is designed to last longer. This figure, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68297 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations which California ARB has already adopted, represents an operating period that is common for Large SI engines before they undergo rebuild. This also reflects a comparable degree of operation relative to the useful life values of 100,000 to 150,000 miles that apply to automotive engines ( assuming an average driving speed of 20 to 30 miles per hour). Some engines are designed for operation in severe­ duty applications with a shorter expected lifetime. Concrete saws in particular undergo accelerated wear as a result of operating in an environment with high concentrations of highly abrasive, airborne concrete dust particles. We are allowing manufacturers to request a shorter useful life for an engine family based on information showing that engines in the family rarely operate beyond the alternative useful­ life period. For example, if engines powering concrete saws are typically scrapped after 2000 hours of operation, this would form the basis for establishing a shorter useful­ life period for those engines. Manufacturers relying on designbased certification to meet the evaporative requirements must use good engineering judgment to show that emission controls will work for at least seven years. This may, for example, be based on warranty or productperformance history from component suppliers. This also applies for systems designed to address crankcase emissions. b. Warranty. Manufacturers must provide an emission­ related warranty for at least the first half of an engine's useful life ( in operating hours) or three years, whichever comes first. These periods must be longer if the manufacturer offers a longer mechanical warranty for the engine or any of its components; this includes extended warranties that are available for an extra price. The emission­ related warranty includes components related to controlling evaporative and crankcase emissions. In addition, we are adopting the warranty provisions adopted by California ARB for high­ cost parts. For emission­ related components whose replacement cost is more than about $ 400, we specify a minimum warranty period of at least 70 percent of the engine's useful life ( in operating hours) or 5 years, whichever comes first. See § 1048.120 for a description of which components are emission­ related. c. Maintenance instructions. We are specifying minimum maintenance intervals much like those established by California ARB for Large SI engines. The minimum intervals define how much maintenance a manufacturer may specify to ensure that engines are properly maintained for staying within emission standards. Manufacturers may schedule maintenance on catalysts, fuel injectors, electronic control units and turbochargers after 5,000 hours. For oxygen sensors and cleaning of fuelsystem components, the minimum maintenance interval is 2,500 hours. This fuel­ system cleaning must be limited to steps that can be taken without disassembling components. We have relaxed this from the proposed interval of 4,500 hours to take into account comments emphasizing that these maintenance steps will be necessary more frequently than the proposed interval; this shorter interval also reflects the comparable provisions that apply to automotive systems. We are also proposing a diagnostic requirement to ensure that prematurely failing oxygen sensors or other components are detected and replaced on an as­ needed basis. If operators fail to address faulty components after a fault signal, we would not consider that engine to be properly maintained. This could the engine ineligible for manufacturer in­ use testing. d. Deterioration factors. We are adopting an approach that gives manufacturers wide discretion in how to establish deterioration factors for Large SI engines. The general expectation is that manufacturers will rely on emission measurements from engines that have operated for an extended period, either in field service or in the laboratory. The manufacturer should do testing as needed to be confident that their engines will meet emission standards under the in­ use testing program. In deciding to certify an engine family, we can review deterioration factors to ensure that the projected deterioration accurately predicts in­ use deterioration. We will use results under the in­ use testing program to verify the appropriateness of deterioration factors. In the first two or three years of certification, manufacturers will not yet have data from the in­ use testing program. Moreover, manufacturers may choose to rely on technologies and calibrations for meeting the long­ term standards well before 2007 to simplify their product­ development efforts. We are therefore allowing manufacturers to rely on an assigned deterioration factor to meet the 2004 standards, while continuing to require manufacturers to meet the applicable emission standards throughout the useful life for these engines. The assigned deterioration factor may be derived from any available data that would help predict the way these systems would perform in the field, using good engineering judgment. Manufacturers may develop deterioration factors for crankcase and evaporative controls. However, we do not expect these control technologies to experience degradation that would cause a deterioration factor to be appropriate. e. In­ use fuel quality. Gasoline used in industrial applications is generally the same as that used for automotive applications. Improvements that have been made to highway­ grade gasoline therefore carry over directly to nonroad markets. This helps manufacturers be sure that fuel quality will not degrade an engine's emission­ control performance after several years of sustained operation. In contrast, there are no enforceable industry or government standards for LPG fuel quality. Testing data indicate that varying fuel quality has a small direct effect on emissions from a closedloop engine with a catalyst. The greater concern is that fuel impurities and heavy­ end hydrocarbons may cause an accumulation of deposits that can prevent an emission­ control system from functioning properly. While an engine's feedback controls can compensate for some restriction in air­ and fuel­ flow, deposits may eventually prevent the engine from accurately controlling air­ fuel ratios at stoichiometry. As described in the Final Regulatory Support Document, test data show that emission­ control systems can tolerate substantial fuel­ related deposits before there is any measurable effect on emissions. Moreover, the engine diagnostic systems described in the next section will notify the operator when fuel­ related deposits prevent an engine from operating at stoichiometry. In any case, a routine cleaning step should remove deposits and restore the engine to proper functioning. Data from in­ use testing will provide additional information related to the effects of varying fuel quality on emission levels. This information will be helpful in making sure that the deterioration factors for certifying engines accurately reflect the whole range of in­ use operating variables, including varying fuel quality. Our testing shows that fuel properties of conventional commercial LPG fuel allow for durable, long­ term control of emissions. However, to the extent that engines operating in specific areas have inferior fuel quality that prevents them from meeting emission standards, we will be pursuing nationwide requirements to set minimum quality standards for in­ use LPG fuel. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68298 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations D. Testing Requirements and Supplemental Emission Standards 1. What Duty Cycles Are Used To Measure Emissions? For 2004 through 2006 model years, we specify the same steady­ state duty cycles adopted by California ARB. For variable­ speed engines, this involves the testing based on the ISO C2 duty cycle, which has five modes at various intermediate speed points, plus one mode at rated speed and one idle mode. The combined intermediate­ speed points at 10, 25, and 50 percent account for over 70 percent of the total modal weighting. A separate duty cycle for the large number of Large SI engine providing power for constant­ speed applications, such as generators, welders, compressors, pumps, sweepers, and aerial lifts. Constant­ speed testing is based on the ISO D2 duty cycle, which specifies engine operation at rated speed with five different load points. This same steady­ state duty cycle applies to constant­ speed, nonroad diesel engines. Emission values measured on the D2 duty cycle are treated the same as values from the C2 duty cycle; the same numerical standards apply to both cycles. Manufacturers must generally test engines on both the C2 and D2 duty cycles. Since the C2 cycle includes very little operation at rated speed, it is not effective in ensuring control of emissions for constant­ speed engines. The D2 cycle is even less capable of predicting emission performance from variable­ speed engines. Manufacturers may, however, choose to certify their engines on only one of these two steadystate duty cycles. In this case, they would need to take steps to make sure C2­ certified engines are installed only in variable­ speed applications and D2­ certified engines are installed only in constant­ speed applications. Engine manufacturers would do this by labeling their engines appropriately and providing installation instructions to make sure equipment manufacturers and others are aware of the restricted certification. Equipment manufacturers are required under the regulations to follow the engine manufacturer's emission­ related installation instructions. Starting in 2007, we specify an expanded set of duty cycles, again with separate treatment for variable­ speed and constant­ speed applications. The test procedure is comprised of three segments: ( 1) A warm­ up segment, ( 2) a transient segment, and ( 3) a steady­ state segment. Each of these segments, described briefly in this section, include specifications for the speed and load of the engine as a function of time. Measured emissions during the transient and steady­ state segments must meet the same emission standards that apply to all duty cycles. In general, the duty cycles are intended to represent operation from the wide variety of in­ use applications. This includes highly transient low­ speed forklift operation, constant­ speed operation of portable equipment, and intermediate­ speed vehicle operation. Ambient temperatures in the laboratory must be between 20 ° and 30 ° C ( 68 ° and 86 ° F) during duty­ cycle testing. This improves the repeatability of emission measurements when the engine runs through its prescribed operation. We nevertheless expect manufacturers to design for controlling emissions under broader ambient conditions, as described in Section V. D. 5. The warm­ up segment begins with a cold­ start. This means that the engine should be near room temperature before the test cycle begins. ( Starting with an engine that is still warm from previous testing is allowed if good engineering judgment indicates that this will not affect emissions.) Once the engine is started, it operates over the first 3 minutes of the specified transient duty cycle without emission measurement. The engine then idles for 30 seconds before starting the prescribed transient cycle. The purpose of the warm­ up segment is to bring the engine up to normal operating temperature in a standardized way. For severe­ duty engines, the warm­ up period is extended up to 15 minutes to account for the additional time needed to stabilize operating temperatures from air­ cooled engines. The warm­ up period allows enough time for engine­ out emissions to stabilize, for the catalyst to warm up enough to become active, and for the engine to start closed­ loop operation. This serves as a defined and achievable target for the design engineer to limit cold­ start emissions to a relatively short period. In addition, we require manufacturers to activate emission­ control systems as soon as possible after engine starting to make clear that it is not acceptable to design the emission­ control system to start working only after the defined warm­ up period is complete. In addition, we may measure emissions during the warm­ up period to evaluate whether manufacturers are employing defeat devices. In contrast, transient testing of heavy­ duty highway engines requires separate cold­ start and hot­ start measurements, with an 86­ percent weighting assigned to the hot­ start portion in calculating an engine's composite emission level. We believe this approach for nonroad engines serves to limit cold­ start emissions without forcing manufacturers to focus design and testing resources on this portion of operation. The transient segment of the general duty cycle is a composite of forklift and welder operation. This duty cycle was developed by selecting segments of measured engine operation from two forklifts and a welder as they performed their normal functions. This transient segment captures the wide variety of operation from a large majority of Large SI engines as fork­ lifts and constantspeed engines represent about 90 percent of the Large SI market. Emissions measured during this segment are averaged over the entire transient segment to give a single value in g/ kW. Steady­ state testing consists of engine operation for an extended period at several discrete speed­ load combinations. Associated with these test points are weighting factors that allow a single weighted­ average steadystate emission level in g/ kW. While any steady­ state duty cycle is limited in how much it can represent operation of engines that undergo transient operation, the distribution of the C2 modes and their weighting values aligns significantly with expected and measured engine operation from Large SI engines. In particular, these engines are generally not designed to operate for extended periods at high­ load, rated speed conditions. Field measurement of engine operation shows, however, that forklifts operate extensively at lower speeds than those included in the C2 duty cycle. While we believe the test points of the C2 duty cycle are representative of engine operation from many applications of Large SI engines, supplementing the steady­ state testing with a transient duty cycle is necessary to adequately include engine operation characteristic of what occurs in the field. A separate transient duty cycle applies to engines that are certified for constant­ speed applications only. These engines maintain a constant speed, but can experience widely varying loads. The transient duty cycle for these engines includes 20 minutes of engine operation based on the way engines work in a welder. Note that manufacturers selling engines for both constant­ speed and variable­ speed applications may omit the constantspeed transient test, since that type of operation is included in the general transient test. A subset of constant­ speed engines are designed to operate only at high VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68299 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations load. To address the operating limitations of these engines, we are adopting a modified steady­ state duty cycle if the manufacturer provides clear evidence showing that engines rarely operate below 75 percent of full load at rated speed. Since most Large SI engines are clearly capable of operating for extended periods at light loads, we expect these provisions to apply to very few engines. This modified duty cycle consists of two equally weighted points, 75 percent and 100 percent of full load, at rated speed. Since the transient cycle described above involves extensive light­ load operation, engines qualifying for this high­ load duty cycle would not need to measure emissions over the transient cycle. Note that the fieldtesting emission standards still apply to engines that don't certify to transient duty­ cycle standards. Some diesel­ derived engines operating on natural gas with power ratings up to 1,500 or 2,000 kW may be covered by these emission standards. Engine dynamometers with transientcontrol capabilities are generally limited to testing engines up to 500 or 600 kW. At this time emission standards and testing requirements related to transient duty cycles will not apply for engines rated above 560 kW. We will likely review this provision for Large SI engines once we have reached a conclusion on the same issue for nonroad diesel engines. For example, if we propose provisions for nonroad diesel engines that address testing issues for these very large engines, we would likely propose those same provisions for Large SI engines. Test procedures related to evaporative emissions are described in Section V. C. 4 above. In general, this involves measuring evaporative losses during a three­ day period of cycling ambient temperatures between 72 ° and 96 ° F. 2. What Fuels Are Used During Emission Testing? For gasoline­ fueled Large SI engines, we are adopting the same specifications we have established for testing gasolinefueled highway vehicles and engines. This includes the revised specification to cap sulfur levels at 80 ppm ( 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000). These fuel specifications apply for both exhaust and evaporative emissions. For LPG, we are adopting the same specifications established by California ARB. We understand that in­ use fuel quality for LPG varies significantly in different parts of the country and at different times of the year. Not all in­ use fuels outside California meet California ARB specifications for certification fuel, but fuels meeting the California specifications are nevertheless widely available. Test data show that LPG fuels with a much lower propane content have only slightly higher NOX and CO emissions ( see Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document for additional information). These data support our belief that engines certified using the specified fuel will achieve the desired emission reduction for a wide range of in­ use fuels. At certification manufacturers provide deterioration factors that take into account any effects related to the varying quality of commercially available fuels. For natural gas, we are adopting specifications similar to those adopted by California ARB. As described in the Summary and Analysis of Comments, we have adjusted some of the detailed specifications from the proposal to reflect new data submitted after the proposal regarding ranges of fuel properties reflecting current commercial fuels. Unlike California ARB, we apply the fuel specifications to testing only for emission measurements, not to service accumulation. Service accumulation between emission tests may involve certification fuel or any commercially available fuel of the appropriate type. We similarly allow manufacturers to choose between certification fuel and any commercial fuel for in­ use measurements to show compliance with field­ testing emission standards. Since publishing the proposal, we learned about issues related to Large SI engines that operate around landfills or oil wells, where engines may burn naturally occurring gases that are otherwise emitted to the atmosphere. These gases generally consist of methane, but a wide range of other constituents may also be mixed in. As a result, engines may require adjustment over a wide range of settings for spark timing and air­ fuel ratio to maintain consistent combustion. We generally believe that engine manufacturers should design their engines to operate with automatic feedback controls as much as possible to avoid the need for operators to manually adjust engines. However, in cases involving these noncommercial fuels, there is no way to improve the quality of the fuel to conform to any standardized specifications. Also, it is clearly preferred to capture and burn these gases than to emit them directly to the atmosphere, both to prevent greenhouse­ gas emissions and to avoid wasting this source of fuel. To address this concern, we are adopting special provisions for engines burning noncommercial fuels if they are unable to meet emission standards over the full range of adjustability needed to accommodate the varying fuel properties. Manufacturers would show that these engines can meet emission standards using normal certification fuels, but the normal provisions related to adjustable parameters would not apply. To properly constrain this provision, we are including four requirements. First, manufacturers would need to add information on an engine label instructing operators how to make adjustments that would allow for maintained emission control and overall engine performance. Second, manufacturers would include additional label language to warn operators that the engine may be used only in applications involving noncommercial fuels. Third, manufacturers must separate these engines into a distinct engine family. Fourth, manufacturers must keep a record of individual sales of such engines. 3. Are There Production­ Line Testing Provisions for Large SI Engines? The provisions described in Section II. C. 4 apply to Large SI engines. These requirements are consistent with those adopted by California ARB. One new issue specific to Large SI engines relates to the duty cycles for measuring emissions from production­ line engines. For routine production­ line testing, we require emission measurements only with the steady­ state duty cycles used for certification. Due to the cost of sampling equipment for transient engine operation, we do not require routine transient testing of production­ line engines. Transient testing of productionline engines would add a substantial burden, since many manufacturers have limited emission­ sampling capability at production facilities; also, these production facilities might be located at multiple sites. We believe that steadystate emission measurements will give a good indication of the manufacturers' ability to build engines consistent with the prototypes on which their certification data are based. We reserve the right, however, to direct a manufacturer to measure emissions with a transient duty cycle if we believe it is appropriate. One indication of the need for this transient testing would be if steady­ state emission levels from production­ line engines are significantly higher than the emission levels reported in the application for certification for that engine family. For manufacturers with the capability of measuring transient emission levels at the production line, we recommend doing transient tests to better ensure that inuse tests will not reveal problems in controlling emissions during transient VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68300 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations operation. Manufacturers need not make any measurements to show that production­ line engines meet fieldtesting emission standards. We expect manufacturers generally to certify their engines to the evaporative requirements using a design­ based approach. Accordingly, the technologies we expect manufacturers to use for controlling evaporative emissions are not subject to variation as a result of production procedures, so we are not requiring production­ line testing related to the evaporative requirements. 4. Are There In­ Use Testing Provisions for Large SI Engines? While the certification and production­ line compliance requirements are important to ensure that engines are designed and produced in compliance with established emission limits, there is also a need to confirm that manufacturers build engines with sufficient durability to meet emission limits as they age in service. Consistent with the California ARB program, we are requiring engine manufacturers to conduct emission tests on a small number of field­ aged engines to show they meet emission standards. We may generally select up to 25 percent of a manufacturer's engine families in a given year to be subject to in­ use testing. Most companies will need to test at most one engine family per year. Manufacturers may conduct in­ use testing on any number of additional engine families at their discretion. Manufacturers in unusual circumstances may develop an alternate plan to fulfill any in­ use testing obligations, consistent with a similar program we have adopted for outboard and personal watercraft marine engines. These circumstances include total sales for an engine family below 200 per year, installation only in applications where testing is not possible without irreparable damage to the vehicle or engine, or any other unique feature that prevents full emission measurements. While the regulations allow us to select an engine family every year from an engine manufacturer, there are several reasons why small­ volume manufacturers may expect a less demanding approach. These manufacturers may have only one or two engine families. If a manufacturer shows that an engine family meets emission standards in an in­ use testing exercise, that may provide adequate data to show compliance for that engine family for a number of years, provided that the manufacturer continues to produce those engines without significantly redesigning them in a way that might affect their in­ use emissions performance and that we do not have other reason to suspect noncompliance. Also, where we have evidence that a manufacturer's engines are likely in good in­ use compliance, we generally take the approach of selecting engine families based on some degree of proportionality. To the extent that manufacturers produce a smaller than average proportion of engines, they may expect us to select their engine families less frequently, especially if other available data pointed toward in­ use compliance. In addition, our experience in implementing a comparable testing program for recreational marine engines provides a history of how we implement in­ use testing requirements. Engines can be tested one of two ways. First, manufacturers can remove engines from vehicles or equipment and test the engines on a laboratory dynamometer using certification procedures. For 2004 through 2006 model year engines, this is the same steady­ state duty cycle used for certification; manufacturers may optionally test engines on the dynamometer under transient operating conditions. For 2007 and later model year engines, manufacturers must test engines using both steady­ state and transient duty cycles, as in certification. As an alternative, manufacturers may use the specified equipment and procedures for testing engines without removing them from the equipment ( referred to in this document as field testing). See Section V. D. 5 for a more detailed description of how to measure emissions from engines during normal operation in the field. Since engines operating in the field cannot be controlled to operate on a specific duty cycle, compliance is demonstrated by comparing the measured emission levels to the field­ testing emission standards, which have higher numerical value to account for the possible effects of different engine operation. Because the engine operation can be so variable, however, engines tested to show compliance only with the field­ testing emission standards are not eligible to participate in the in­ use averaging, banking, and trading program ( described below). Clean Air Act section 213 requires engines to comply with emission standards throughout their regulatory useful lives, and section 207 requires a manufacturer to remedy in­ use nonconformity when we determine that a substantial number of properly maintained and used engines fail to conform with the applicable emission standards ( 42 U. S. C. 7541). Along with the in­ use testing program, we would allow manufacturers to demonstrate that they have designed their engines to control emissions substantially below the emission standards that apply. If manufacturers are able to show that they have already been reducing emissions more than required by the standards, including appropriate consideration for deterioration and compliance margins, this may allow us to conclude that these accumulated additional emission reductions are sufficient to offset the high emissions from a failing engine family. In concept, this approach serves much like a banking program to recognize manufacturers' efforts to go beyond the minimum required emission reductions. This approach differs from the specific in­ use emission­ credit program that we proposed. This more general approach is preferred for two primary reasons. First, while we proposed to limit the in­ use emission­ credit program to transient testing in the laboratory, manufacturers will now be able to use emission data generated from field testing to characterize an engine family's average emission level. This becomes necessarily more subjective, but allows us to consider a wider range of information in evaluating the degree to which manufacturers are complying with emission standards across their product line. Second, this approach makes clearer the role of the emission credits in our consideration to recall failing engines. As we described in the proposal, we plan to consider average emission levels from multiple engine families in deciding whether to recall engines from a failing engine family. We therefore believe it is not appropriate to have a detailed emission­ credit program defining precisely how and when to calculate, generate, and use credits that do not necessarily have value elsewhere. The regulations do not specify how manufacturers would generate emission credits to offset a nonconforming engine family. This gives us the ability to consider any appropriate test data in deciding what action to take. In generating this kind of information, some general guidelines would apply. For example, we would expect manufacturers to share test data from all engines and all engine families tested under the in­ use testing program, including nonstandard tests that might be used to screen engines for later measurement. This allows us to understand the manufacturers' overall level of performance in controlling emissions to meet emission standards. Average emission levels should be calculated over a running three­ year period to include a broad range of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68301 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations testing without skewing the results based on old designs. Emission values from engines certified to different tiers of emission standards or tested using different measurement procedures should not be combined to calculate a single average emission level. Average emission levels should be calculated according to the following equation, rounding the results to 0.1 g/ kW­ hr: Average EL ( STD CL) ( UL) ( Sales) Power LF ( UL) ( Sales) Power LF i i i i i i i i i i i = × × × × ÷ × × × Where: Average EL= Average emission level in g/ kW­ hr. Salesi= The number of eligible sales, tracked to the point of first retail sale in the U. S., for the given engine family during the model year. i( STD­ CL)= The difference between the emission standard and the average emission level for an in­ use testing family in g/ kW­ hr. ULi= Useful life in hours. Poweri= The sales­ weighted average rated brake power for an engine family in kW. LFi= Load factor or fraction of rated engine power utilized in use; use 0.50 for engine families used only in constant­ speed applications and 0.32 for all other engine families. The anticipated crankcase and evaporative emission­ control technologies generally are best evaluated simply by checking whether or not they continue to function as designed, rather than implementing a program to measure these emissions from in­ use engines. As a result, we may inspect in­ use engines to verify that these systems continue to function properly throughout the useful life, but are not requiring manufacturers to include crankcase or evaporative measurements as part of the in­ use testing program described in this section. 5. What Are the Field­ Testing Emission Standards and Test Procedures? To address concerns for controlling emissions outside of the certification duty cycles and to enable field­ testing of Large SI engines, we are adopting procedures and standards that apply to a wider range of normal engine operation. a. What is the field­ testing concept? Measuring emissions from engines in the field as they undergo normal operation while installed in nonroad equipment addresses two broad concerns. First, testing of in­ use engines has shown that emissions can vary dramatically under certain modes of operation. Second, this provides a low­ cost method of testing in­ use engines, which facilitates in­ use compliance programs. Field­ testing addresses this by including emission measurements over the broad range of normal engine operation. This may include varying engine speeds and loads according to real operation and may include a reasonable range of ambient conditions, as described below. No engine operating in the field can follow a prescribed duty cycle for a consistent measure of emission levels. Similarly, no single test procedure can cover all real­ world applications, operations, or conditions. Specifying parameters for testing engines in the field and adopting an associated emission standard provides a framework for requiring that engines control emissions under the whole range of normal operation in the relevant nonroad equipment. To ensure that emissions are controlled from Large SI engines over the full range of speed and load combinations seen in the field, we are adopting supplemental emission standards that apply more broadly than the duty­ cycle standard, as detailed below. These standards apply to all regulated pollutants ( NOX, HC, and CO) under all normal operation ( steady­ state or transient). We exclude abnormal operation ( such as very low average power and extended idling time), but do not restrict operation to any specific combination of speeds and loads. In addition, the field­ testing standards apply under a broad range of in­ use ambient conditions, both to ensure robust emission controls and to avoid overly restricting the times available for testing. These provisions are described in detail below. b. How do the field­ testing standards apply? Manufacturers have expressed an interest in using field­ testing procedures before the 2007 model year to show that they can meet emission standards as part of the in­ use testing program. While we are not adopting specific fieldtesting standards for 2004 through 2006 model year engines, we will allow this as an option. In this case, manufacturers would conduct the field testing as described here to show that their engines meet the 5.4 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX standard and the 50 g/ kW­ hr CO standard. This may give manufacturers the opportunity to do testing at significantly lower cost compared with laboratory testing. Preliminary certification data from California ARB show that manufacturers are reaching steady­ state emission levels well below emission standards, so we expect any additional variability in field­ testing measurements not to affect manufacturers' ability to meet the same emission standards. The 2007 field­ testing standards are based on emission data measured on engines with the same emission­ control technology used to establish the dutycycle standards. As described above for the duty­ cycle standards, we are adopting a flexible approach to address the tradeoff between HC+ NOX and CO emissions. Table V. D 1 shows the range of values that define the standard for showing compliance for field­ testing measurements. The higher numerical values of the Tier 2 standards for field testing ( compared with duty­ cycle testing) reflect the observed variation in emissions for varying engine operation, and the projected effects of ambient conditions on the projected technology. Conceptually, we believe that fieldtesting standards should primarily require manufacturers to adjust engine calibrations to effectively manage airfuel ratios under varying conditions. The estimated cost of complying with emission standards includes an allowance for the time and resources needed for this recalibration effort ( see Section IX. B. for total estimated costs per engine). TABLE V. D 1. SAMPLES OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE FIELD­ TESTING EMISSION STANDARDS FOR LARGE SI ENGINES( G/ KW­ HR) * HC+ NOX CO 3.8 ............................................... 6.5 3.1 ............................................... 8.5 2.4 ............................................... 11.7 1.8 ............................................... 16.8 1.4 ............................................... 23.1 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08NO02.000</ MATH> 68302 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE V. D 1. SAMPLES OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE FIELD­ TESTING EMISSION STANDARDS FOR LARGE SI ENGINES( G/ KW­ HR) * Continued HC+ NOX CO 1.1 ............................................... 31 * As described in the Final Regulatory Support Document and the regulations, the values in the table are related by the following formula ( HC+ NOX) × CO0.791 = 16.78. These values follow directly from the logarithmic relationship presented with the proposal in the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis. We generally require manufacturers to show at certification that they are capable of meeting all standards that apply for the useful life. This adds a measure of assurance to both EPA and manufacturers that the engine design is sufficient for any in­ use engines to pass any later testing. For Large SI engines, manufacturers must show in their application for certification that they are able to meet the field­ testing standards. Manufacturers must submit a statement that their engines will comply with field­ testing emission standards under all conditions that may reasonably be expected to occur in normal vehicle operation and use. Manufacturer will provide a detailed description of any testing, engineering analysis, and other information that forms the basis for the statement. This will likely include a variety of steady­ state emission measurements not included in the prescribed duty cycle. It may also include a continuous trace showing how emissions vary during the transient test or it may include emission measurements during other segments of operation manufacturers believe are representative of the way their engines normally operate in the field. Two additional provisions are necessary to allow emission testing without removing engines from equipment in the field. Manufacturers must design their engines to broadcast instantaneous speed and torque values to the onboard computer and ensure that emission sampling is possible after engine installation. The test equipment and procedures for showing compliance with fieldtesting standards also hold promise to reduce the cost of production­ line testing. Companies with production facilities that have a dynamometer but no emission measurement capability may use the field­ testing equipment and procedures to get a low­ cost, valid emission measurement at the production line. Manufacturers may also choose to use the cost advantage of the simpler measurement to sample a greater number of production­ line engines. This would provide greater assurance of consistent emissions performance, but would also provide valuable quality­ control data for overall engine performance. See the discussion of alternate approaches to productionline testing in Section II. C. 4 for more information. c. What limits are placed on field testing? The field­ testing standards apply to all normal operation. This may include steady­ state or transient engine operation. Given a set of field­ testing standards, the goal for the design engineer is to ensure that engines are properly calibrated for controlling emissions under any reasonably expected mode of engine operation. Engines may not be able to meet the emissions limit under all conditions, however, so we are adopting several parameters to narrow the range of engine operation that is subject to the field­ testing standards. For example, emission sampling for field testing does not include engine starting. Engines can often operate at extreme environmental and geographic conditions ( temperature, altitude, etc.). To narrow the range of conditions for the design engineer, we are limiting emission measurements during field testing to ambient temperatures from 13 ° to 35 ° C ( 55 ° to 95 ° F), and to ambient pressures from 600 to 775 millimeters of mercury ( which should cover almost all normal pressures from sea level to 7,000 feet above sea level). This allows testing under a wider range of conditions in addition to helping ensure that engines are able to control emissions under the whole range of conditions under which they operate. Some additional limits to define `` normal'' operation apply to field testing. These restrictions are intended to provide manufacturers with some certainty about what their design targets are and to ensure that compliance with the field­ testing standards is feasible. These restrictions apply to both variable­ speed and constant­ speed engine applications. First, measurements with more than 2 minutes of continuous idle are excluded. This means that an emission measurement from a forklift while it idled for 5 minutes will not be considered valid. On the other hand, an emission measurement from a forklift that idled for multiple 1­ minute periods and otherwise operated at 40­ percent power for several minutes would be considered a valid measurement. Measurements with in­ use equipment in their normal service show that idle periods for Large SI engines are short, but relatively frequent. We therefore do not automatically exclude an emission sample if it includes an idling portion. At the same time, controlling emissions during extended idling poses a difficult design challenge, especially at low ambient temperatures. Exhaust and catalyst temperatures under these conditions can decrease enough that catalyst conversion is significantly less effective. Since extended idling is not an appropriate focus of extensive development efforts at this stage, we believe the 2­ minute threshold for continuous idle appropriately balances the need to include measurement during short idling periods with the technical challenges of controlling emissions under difficult conditions. Second, measured power during the sampling period must be above 5 percent of maximum power for an emission measurement to be considered valid. Brake­ specific emissions ( g/ kWhr can be very high at low power because they are calculated by dividing the g/ hr emission rate by a very small power level ( kW). By ensuring that brake­ specific emissions are not calculated by dividing by power levels less than 5 percent of the maximum, we can avoid this problem. The data presented in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulator Support Document show that engines can meet the emission standards when operating above 5 percent of rated power. Third, some engines need to run rich of stoichiometric combustion during extended high­ load operation to protect against engine failure. This increases HC and CO emissions. We are adopting provisions allowing manufacturers to meet separate standards for these engines for steady­ state operation. For engines qualifying for these different steady­ state standards, we specify that a valid sample for field testing must include less than 10 percent of operation at 90 percent or more of maximum power. We expect it to be uncommon for engine installations to call for such high power demand due to the shortened engine lifetime at very high­ load operation. A larger engine can generally produce the desired power at a lower relative load, without compromising engine lifetime. Alternatively, applications that call for full­ load operation typically use diesel engines. Manufacturers may request a different threshold to allow more openloop operation. Before we approve such a request, the engine manufacturer would need to have a plan for ensuring that the engines in their final installation do not routinely operate at loads above the specified threshold. An additional parameter to consider is the minimum sampling time for field testing. A longer period allows for VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68303 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations greater accuracy, due mainly to the smoothing effect of measuring over several transient events. On the other hand, an overly long sampling period can mask areas of engine operation with poor emission­ control characteristics. To balance these concerns, we are applying a minimum sampling period of 2 minutes. In other rules for diesel engines, we have allowed sampling periods as short as 30 seconds. Sparkignition engines generally don't have turbochargers and they control emissions by maintaining air­ fuel ratio with closed­ loop controls through changing engine operation. Sparkignition engines are therefore much less prone to consistent emission spikes from off­ cycle or unusual engine operation. We believe the 2­ minute sampling time requirement will ensure sufficient measurement accuracy and will allow for more meaningful measurements from engines that may be operated with very frequent but brief times at idle. We do not specify a maximum sampling time. We expect manufacturers testing in­ use engines to select an approximate sampling time before measuring emissions; however, the standards apply for any sampling time that meets the minimum. When selecting an engine family for the in­ use testing program, we will develop a plan with direction related to the way manufacturers conduct the emissionsampling effort, such as sampling time or specific types of engine operation, to ensure that testing provides relevant data. d. How do I test engines in the field? To test engines without removing them from equipment, analyzers are connected to the engine's exhaust to detect emission concentrations during normal operation. Exhaust volumetric flow rate and continuous power output are also needed to convert the analyzer responses to units of g/ kW­ hr for comparing to emission standards. These values can be calculated from measurements of the engine intake flow rate, the exhaust air­ fuel ratio and the engine speed, and from torque information. Available small analyzers and other equipment may be adapted for measuring emissions from field equipment. A portable flame ionization detector can measure total hydrocarbon concentrations. Methane measurement currently requires more expensive laboratory equipment that is impractical for field measurements. Field­ testing standards are therefore be based on total hydrocarbon emissions. A portable analyzer based on zirconia technology measures NOX emissions. A nondispersive infrared ( NDIR) unit can measure CO. Emission samples can best be drawn from the exhaust flow directly downstream of the catalyst material to avoid diluting effects from the end of the tailpipe. Installing a sufficiently long tailpipe extension is also an acceptable way to avoid dilution. Mass flow rates also factor into the torque calculation; this may either be measured in the intake manifold or downstream of the catalyst. Calculating brake­ specific emissions depends on determining instantaneous engine speed and torque levels. Manufacturers must therefore design their engines to continuously monitor engine speed and torque. The tolerance for speed measurements, which is relatively straightforward, is ± 5 percent. For torque, the onboard computer needs to convert measured engine parameters into useful units. Manufacturers generally will need to monitor a surrogate value such as intake manifold pressure or throttle position ( or both), then rely on a look­ up table programmed into the onboard computer to convert these torque indicators into newton­ meters. Manufacturers may also want to program the look­ up tables for torque conversion into a remote scan tool. Because of the greater uncertainty in these measurements and calculations, manufacturers must produce their systems to report torque values that are within 85 and 105 percent of the true value. This broader range allows appropriately for the uncertainty in the measurement, while providing an incentive for manufacturers to make the torque reading as accurate as possible. Under­ reporting torque values would over­ predict emissions. These tolerances are taken into account in the selection of the field­ testing standards, as described in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document. E. Special Compliance Provisions We are adopting hardship provisions to address the particular concerns of small­ volume manufacturers, which generally have limited capital and engineering resources. These hardship provisions are generally described in Section VII. C. For Large SI engines, we are adopting a longer available extension of the deadline, up to four years, for meeting emission standards for companies that qualify for special treatment under the hardship provisions. We will, however, not extend the deadline for compliance beyond the four­ year period. This approach considers the fact that, unlike most other engine categories, qualifying small businesses are more likely to be manufacturers designing their own products. Other types of engines more often involve importers, which are limited more by available engine suppliers than design or development schedules. We are not finalizing the proposed interim emission standards proposed for small­ volume manufacturers. We believe we can accomplish the same objectives with more flexibility, and potentially with greater net emission reductions, by relying on the hardship provisions. In addition, we are waiving the requirement for small­ volume manufacturers to broadcast engine speed and torque values. These companies may choose to do this to enable field­ testing of their products, but may be constrained in developing this capability to the extent that they rely on component suppliers to provide systems that meet EPA requirements. F. Technological Feasibility of the Standards We are adopting emission standards that depend on the industrial versions of established automotive technologies. The most recent advances in automotive technology have made possible even more dramatic emission reductions. However, we believe that transferring some of these most advanced technologies is not appropriate for nonroad engines at this time, especially considering the much smaller sales volumes for amortizing fixed costs and the additional costs associated with the first­ time regulation of these engines. To comply with the 2004 model year standards, manufacturers should not need to do any development, testing, or certification work that is not already necessary to meet California ARB standards in 2004. As shown in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document, manufacturers can meet these standards with three­ way catalysts and closed­ loop fuel systems. These technologies have been available for industrial engine applications for several years. Moreover, several manufacturers have already completed the testing effort to certify with California ARB that their engines meet these standards. Complying with emission standards nationwide in 2004 will therefore generally require manufacturers only to produce greater numbers of the engines complying with the California standards. Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document further describes data and rationale showing why we believe that the 2007 model year emission standards under the steadystate and transient duty­ cycles and field­ testing procedures are feasible. In VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68304 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations summary, testing from Southwest Research Institute and other data show that the same catalyst and fuel­ system technologies needed to meet the 2004 standards can be optimized to meet more stringent emission standards. Applying further development allows the design engineer to fine­ tune control of air­ fuel ratios and address any highemission modes of operation to produce engines that consistently control emissions to very low levels, even considering the wide range of operation experienced by these engines. The numerical emission standards are based on measured emission levels from engines that have operated for at least 5,000 hours with a functioning emission­ control system. These engines demonstrate the achievable level of control from catalyst­ based systems and provide a significant degree of basic development that should help manufacturers in optimizing their own engines. We believe it is appropriate to initiate the second stage of standards in 2007, because we believe that applying these emission standards earlier does not allow manufacturers enough stability between introduction of different phases of emission standards to prepare for complying with the full set of requirements in this final rule and to amortize their fixed costs. Three years of stable emission standards, plus the remaining lead time before 2004, allows manufacturers enough time to go through the development and certification effort to comply with the new standards including new test cycle requirements. The provisions to allow `` family banking'' for early compliance provide an additional tool for companies that choose to spread out their design and certification efforts. The new emission standards will either have no impact or a positive impact with respect to noise, energy, and safety, as described in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document. In particular, the anticipated fuel savings associated with the expected emission­ control technologies will provide a very big energy benefit related to new emission standards. The projected technologies are currently available and are consistent with those anticipated for complying with the emission standards adopted by California ARB. The lead time for the near­ term and long­ term emission standards allows manufacturers enough time to optimize these designs to most effectively reduce emissions from the wide range of Large SI equipment applications. VI. Recreational Marine Diesel Engines This section describes the new provisions for 40 CFR part 94, which apply to engine manufacturers and importers. We are applying the same general compliance provisions from 40 CFR part 94 for engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, operators, rebuilders, and others. See Section II for a description of our general approach to regulating nonroad engines and how manufacturers show that they meet emission standards. A. Overview We are adopting exhaust and crankcase emission standards for recreational marine diesel engines with power ratings greater than or equal to 37 kW. We are adopting emission standards for HC, NOX, CO, and PM beginning in 2006. We believe manufacturers will be able to use technology developed for land­ based nonroad and commercial marine diesel engines. To encourage the introduction of low­ emission technology, we are also adopting voluntary `` Blue Sky'' standards which are 40 percent lower than the mandatory standards. We also recognize that there are many small businesses that manufacture recreational marine diesel engines. We are therefore including several regulatory options for small businesses that will help minimize any unique burdens caused by emission regulations. Diesel engines are primarily available in inboard marine configurations, but may also be available in sterndrive and outboard marine configurations. Inboard diesel engines are the primary choice for many larger recreational boats. B. Engines Covered by This Rule The standards in this section apply to recreational marine diesel engines. We excluded these engines from the requirements applying to commercial marine diesel engines because at the time we thought their operation in planing mode might impose design requirements on recreational boat builders and to allow us more time for further evaluation prior to setting standards ( 64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999). Commercial marine vessels tend to be displacement­ hull vessels, designed and built for a unique commercial application ( such as towing, fishing, or general cargo). Power ratings for engines used on these vessels are analogous to land­ based applications, and these engines generally have warranties for 2,000 to 5,000 hours of use. Recreational vessels, on the other hand, tend to be planing vessels. Engines used on these vessels are designed to achieve higher power output with less engine weight. This increase in power reduces the lifetime of the engine, so recreational marine engines have shorter warranties than their commercial counterparts. In our previous rulemaking, recreational engine industry representatives raised concerns about the ability of these engines to meet the commercial standards without substantial changes in the size and weight of the engine. Such changes may have an impact on vessel builders, who might have to redesign vessel hulls to accommodate the new engines. Because most recreational vessel hulls are made with fiberglass molds, this may be a significant burden for recreational vessel builders. Our further evaluation of these issues leads us to conclude that recreational marine diesel engines can achieve those same emission standards without significant impacts on engine size and weight, and therefore without significant impacts on vessel design. Section VI. G of this document, Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document, and Section II. A of the Summary and Analysis of Comments describe the several technological changes we anticipate manufacturers will use to comply with the new emission standards. None of these technologies has an inherent negative effect on the performance or power density of an engine. As with engines in land­ based applications, we expect that manufacturers will be able to use the range of technologies available to maintain or even improve the performance capabilities of their engines. We are establishing a separate regulatory program for recreational marine diesel engines in this rule, with most aspects the same as for commercial marine diesel engines but with certain aspects of the program tailored to these applications, notably the not­ to­ exceed emissions requirements. To distinguish between commercial and recreational marine diesel engines for the purpose of emission controls, it is necessary to define `` recreational marine diesel engine.'' The commercial marine diesel engine rule defined recreational marine engine as a propulsion marine engine that is intended by the manufacturer to be installed on a recreational vessel. The engine must be labeled to distinguish it from a commercial marine diesel engine. The label must read: `` THIS ENGINE IS CATEGORIZED AS A RECREATIONAL ENGINE UNDER 40 CFR PART 94. INSTALLATION OF THIS ENGINE IN ANY NONRECREATIONAL VESSEL IS A VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68305 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO PENALTY.'' We are revising this definition to include a requirement that a recreational marine engine must be a Category 1 marine engine ( have a displacement of less than 5 liters per cylinder). Category 2 marine engines are generally designed with characteristics similar to commercial marine engines. Vessels using engines of this size generally require engines that can operate longer at higher power than typical recreational boats; therefore, these engines generally have a lower power density and are not offered in a `` recreational'' rating. For the purpose of the recreational marine diesel engine definition included in the proposal, recreational vessel was defined as `` a vessel that is intended by the vessel manufacturer to be operated primarily for pleasure or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure.'' Because certain vessels that are used for pleasure may have operating characteristics that are more similar to commercial marine vessels ( such as excursion vessels and charter craft), we drew on the Coast Guard's definition of a `` small passenger vessel'' ( 46 U. S. C. 2101 ( 35)) to further delineate what would be considered to be a recreational vessel. Specifically, the term `` operated primarily for pleasure or leased, rented or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure'' does not include the following vessels: ( 1) Vessels of less than 100 gross tons that carry more than 6 passengers; ( 2) vessels of 100 gross tons or more that carry one or more passengers; or ( 3) vessels used solely for competition. For the purposes of this definition, a passenger is defined by 46 U. S. C 2101 ( 21, 21a) which generally means an individual who pays to be on the vessel. We received several comments in this rulemaking on these definitions. Engine manufacturers were concerned that the definitions may be unworkable for engine manufacturers, because they cannot know whether a particular recreational vessel might carry more than six passengers at a time. All they can know is whether the engine they manufacture is intended by them for installation on a vessel designed for pleasure and having the corresponding characteristics for planing, power density, and performance requirements. We are not revising our existing definition of recreational marine vessel. As discussed in the Summary and Analysis of Comments, a vessel will be considered recreational if the boat builder intends that the customer will operate it consistent with the recreational­ vessel definition. Relying on the boat builder's intent is necessary because manufacturers need to establish a vessel's classification before it is sold, whereas the Coast Guard definitions apply at the time of use. The definition therefore relies on the intent of the boat builder to establish that the vessel will be used consistent with the above criteria. If a boat builder manufactures a vessel for a customer who intends to use the vessel for recreational purposes, we would always consider that a recreational vessel, regardless of how the owner ( or a subsequent owner) actually uses it. The engine manufacturer will not be expected to ensure that their engines are used only in recreational craft; however, they would be required to label their recreational engines as described above. The vessel builders will then be required to install properly certified recreational ( or commercial) marine engines in recreational vessels and certified commercial marine engines in commercial vessels. C. Emission Standards for Recreational Marine Diesel Engines This section describes the new emission standards and implementation dates, with an outline of the technology that can be used to achieve these levels. The technological feasibility discussion below ( Section VI. G) describes our technical rationale in more detail. 1. What Are the Emission Standards and Compliance Dates? The emission standards for recreational marine diesel engines are the same as the Tier 2 standards for commercial marine diesel engines with two years additional lead time. We are setting the standards at the same level because recreational marine diesel engines can use all the technologies projected for Tier 2 and these technologies are expected to lead to compliance. As with commercial marine engines this technology will be available in the lead time provided to allow compliance with the emission standards. Many of these engines already use this technology. This includes electronic fuel management, turbocharging, and separate­ circuit aftercooling. In fact, because recreational engines have much shorter design lives than commercial engines, it is easier to apply raw­ water aftercooling to these engines, which allows manufacturers to enhance performance while reducing NOX emissions. Engine manufacturers will generally increase the fueling rate in recreational engines, compared to commercial engines, to gain power from a given engine size. This helps bring a planing vessel onto the water surface and increases the maximum vessel speed without increasing the weight of the vessel. This difference in how recreational engines are designed and used affects emissions. However, the technology listed above can be used to meet the emission standards while still meeting the performance requirements of a recreational engine. We are adopting the commercial marine engine standards for recreational marine diesel engines, allowing two years beyond the dates that standards apply for the commercial engines. This gives engine manufacturers additional lead time in adapting technology to their recreational marine diesel engines. For manufacturers producing only recreational marine engines the implementation dates provide three to six years of lead time beyond this notice. Based on our evaluation of the industry, we believe that manufacturers who produce only recreational marine engines would likely be small businesses and would have the option of additional lead time, and other flexibility, as discussed in Section VI. E. The emission standards and implementation dates for recreational marine diesel engines are presented in Table VI. C 1. The subcategories refer to engine displacement in liters per cylinder. TABLE VI. C 1. RECREATIONAL MARINE DIESEL EMISSION STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION DATES Subcategory HC+ NOX g/ kW­ hr PM g/ kW­ hr CO g/ kW­ hr Implementation date power 37 kW disp < 0.9 ............................................................................... 7.5 0.40 5.0 2007 0.9 disp < 1.2 ................................................................................................ 7.2 0.30 5.0 2006 1.2 disp < 2.5 ................................................................................................ 7.2 0.20 5.0 2006 disp 2.5 ......................................................................................................... 7.2 0.20 5.0 2009 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68306 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Manufacturers commented that engines with less than 2.5 liters per cylinder, but more than 560 kW would have no lead time beyond the landbased nonroad diesel engine standards and that some commercial marine engines in this category would actually have to certify two years before nonroad engines. In this case this is caused by the way we define subclasses, but has technology and cost implications for the engines involved. To address this, we are providing an optional implementation date of 2008 for certain commercial and recreational marine engines ( see the Summary and Analysis of Comments for more detail). To be eligible for this option, the engine must be derived from a land­ based nonroad engine with a rated power greater than 560 kW and have a displacement of 2.0 to 2.5 liters per cylinder. To use this option, we are requiring that engines certified under this option meet an HC+ NOX standard of 6.4 g/ kW­ hr through model year 2012. We believe this emission level, which matches the Tier 2 level for land­ based nonroad engines, should be achievable given the extra lead time for development. Testing would still be performed on the appropriate marine duty cycles. Based on our analysis in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for commercial marine engines, HC+ NOX emissions measured over the marine duty cycles should be similar to those measured over the landbased nonroad duty cycle. We are also adopting not­ to­ exceed emission standards and related requirements similar to those finalized for commercial marine diesel engines. This is discussed below in Section VI. C. 8. 2. Will I Be Able To Average, Bank, or Trade Emissions Credits? Manufacturers may use emission credits from recreational marine diesel engines to show that they meet emission standards. Section II. C. 3 gives an overview of the emission­ credit program, which is consistent with what we have adopted for Category 1 commercial marine diesel engines. The emission­ credit program covers HC+ NOX and PM emissions, but not CO emissions. Consistent with our land­ based nonroad and commercial marine diesel engine regulations, manufacturers may not simultaneously generate HC+ NOX credits while using PM credits on the same engine family, and vice versa. This is necessary because of the inherent trade­ off between NOX and PM emissions in diesel engines. We are adopting the same maximum value of the Family Emission Limit ( FEL) as for commercial marine diesel engines. For engines with a displacement of less than 1.2 liters/ cylinder, the maximum values are 11.5 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX and 1.2 g/ kW­ hr PM; for larger engines, the maximum values are 10.5 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX and 0.54 g/ kW­ hr PM. These maximum FEL values were based on the comparable landbased emission­ credit program and will ensure that the emissions from any given family certified under this program not be significantly higher than the applicable emission standards. We believe these maximum values will prevent backsliding of emissions above the baseline levels for any given engine model. Also, we are concerned that the higher emitting engines may cause increased emissions in areas such as ports that may have a need for PM or NOX emission reductions. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that recreational marine diesel engines constitute a small fraction of PM and HC + NOX emissions in nonattainment areas. Emission credits generated under this program have no expiration, with no discounting applied. This is consistent with the commercial marine credit program and gives manufacturers more options in implementing their engine designs. However, if we revisit these standards later, we will have to reevaluate this issue in the context of whether future advances in technology would result in a large amount of accumulated credits that would adversely impact the timely implementation of any new requirements. Consistent with the land­ based nonroad diesel rule, we will also not allow manufacturers to use credits generated on land­ based engines for demonstrating compliance with marine diesel engines. In addition, credits may not be exchanged between recreational and commercial marine engines. The emission standards for recreational engines are based on the baseline levels of current recreational marine engines and the capability of technology to reduce emissions from recreational marine engines. The standard is, therefore, premised on the capability and use of recreational marine technology and not on the capability and use of technology on other engines. Emissions from land­ based, commercial, and recreational marine engines are measured over different duty cycles and have different useful lives. Correction factors would be difficult to generate and they would add complexity and uncertainty to the value of the credits. Furthermore, we are concerned that allowing cross program trading could create an inequity between manufacturers with diverse product lines and those with more limited offerings, thereby potentially creating a competitive advantage for diverse companies over small companies selling only recreational marine engines. If a manufacturer were to do this, we do not believe it is likely that they would sell emission credits at a price that would be economical for small manufacturers. We will allow early banking of emission credits relative to the standard. Early banking of emission credits may allow for a smoother implementation of the recreational marine standards. These credits are generated relative to the new emission standards and are undiscounted. We will also allow manufacturers to generate early credits relative to their pre­ control emission levels. If manufacturers choose this option they will have to develop baseline emission levels specific to each participating engine family. Credits will then be calculated relative to the manufacturergenerated baseline emission rates, rather than the standards. To generate the baseline emission rates, a manufacturer must test three engines from the family for which the baseline is being generated. The baseline will be the average emissions of the three engines. Under this option, engines must still certify to the standards to generate credits, but the credits will be calculated relative to the generated baseline rather than the standards. Any credits generated between the level of the standards and the generated baseline will be discounted 10 percent. This is to account for the variability of testing inuse engines to establish the familyspecific baseline levels, which may result from differences in hours of use and maintenance practices as well as other sources of potential uncertainty about the representativeness if the baseline. Manufacturers commented that credits should not be generated under the early banking program for the portion of NOX reductions above the MARPOL Annex VI standard. We believe this approach is reasonable since this should be a common upper limit for all engines. Therefore, if manufacturers use this option, any baseline NOX levels determined to be above the MARPOL Annex VI standard must be adjusted to that level for determining early credits. 3. Is EPA Proposing Voluntary Standards for These Engines? a. Blue Sky. We are adopting voluntary emission standards based on a 45­ percent reduction beyond the mandatory standards. An engine family meeting the voluntary standards VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68307 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations qualifies for designation as Blue Sky Series engines. These voluntary standards are the same as those adopted for commercial marine diesel engines ( see Table VI. C 2). While the Blue Sky Series emission standards are voluntary, a manufacturer choosing to certify an engine under this program must comply with all the requirements that apply to this category of engines, including allowable maintenance, warranty, useful life, rebuild, and deterioration factor provisions. This program is effective immediately when we publish this rule. To maximize the potential for other groups to create incentive programs, without double­ counting, we do not allow manufacturers to earn marketable credits for their Blue Sky Engines. TABLE VI. C 2. BLUE SKY VOLUNTARY EMISSION STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL MARINE DIESEL ENGINES [ g/ kW­ hr] Rated brake power ( kW) HC+ NOX PM power 37 kW displ.< 0.9 ............... 4.0 0.24 0.9 displ.< 1.2 ........... 4.0 0.18 1.2 displ.< 2.5 ........... 4.0 0.12 2.5 displ. .................. 5.0 0.12 b. MARPOL Annex VI. The MARPOL Annex VI standards are for NOX emissions from marine diesel engines rated above 130 kW. We encourage engine manufacturers to make Annex VI­ compliant engines available and boat builders to purchase and install them before we apply the EPA Tier 2 standards. If the treaty enters into force, the standards would go into effect retroactively to all boats built January 1, 2000 or later. One advantage of using MARPOL­ compliant engines is that if this happens, users will be in compliance with the standard without having to make any changes to their engines. 4. What Durability Provisions Apply? Several provisions help ensure that engines control emissions throughout a lifetime of operation. Section II. C gives a general overview of durability provisions associated with emissions certification. This section discusses these provisions specifically for recreational marine diesel engines. a. How long do my engines have to comply? Manufacturers must produce engines that comply over a useful life of ten years or until the engine accumulates 1,000 operating hours, whichever occurs first. The hours requirement is a minimum value for useful life, and manufacturers must comply for a longer period in those cases where they design their engines to be operated longer than 1,000 hours. In making the determination that engines are designed to last longer than the 1,000 hour value, we will consider evidence such as whether the engines continue to reliably deliver the necessary power output without an increase in fuel consumption that the user would find unacceptable and thus might trigger a maintenance or rebuild action by the user. b. How do I demonstrate emission durability? We are extending the durability demonstration requirements for commercial marine diesel engines to also cover recreational marine diesel engines. This means that recreational marine engine manufacturers, using good engineering judgment, will generally need to test one or more engines for emissions before and after accumulating the number of hours consistent with the engine useful life ( usually performed by continuous engine operation in a laboratory). The results of these tests are referred to as `` durability data,'' and are used to determine the rates at which emissions are expected to increase over the useful life of the engine for each engine family The rates are known as deterioration factors. However, in many cases, manufacturers may use durability data from a different engine family, or for the same engine family in a different model year. Because of this allowance to use the same data for multiple engine families, we expect durability testing to be very limited. We also specify that manufacturers must collect durability data and generate deterioration factors using the same methods established for commercial marine diesel engines. These requirements are in 40 CFR 94.211, 94.218, 94.219, and 94.220. These sections describe when durability data from one engine family can be used for another family, how to select to the engine configuration that is to be tested, how to conduct the service accumulation, and what maintenance can be performed on the engine during this service accumulation. Under 40 CFR 94.220, manufacturers may project deterioration rates from engines with an accumulation of less than 1,000 hours, as long as the amount of service accumulation completed and projection procedures are determined using good engineering judgment. c. What maintenance may be done during service accumulation? For engines certified to a 1,000­ hour useful life, the only maintenance that may be done must be: ( 1) Regularly scheduled, ( 2) unrelated to emissions, and ( 3) technologically necessary. This typically includes changing engine oil, oil filter, fuel filter, and air filter. For recreational marine diesel engines certified to longer lives, these engines will be subject to the same minimum allowable maintenance intervals as commercial marine engines. These intervals and the allowable maintenance are specified in 40 CFR 94.211. d. Are there production­ line testing provisions? We are adopting the production­ line testing requirements from commercial marine engines for recreational marine diesel engines, with the additional provisions described in II. C. 4. A manufacturer must test one percent of its total projected annual sales of Category 1 engines each year to meet production­ line testing requirements. We are not adopting a minimum number of tests, so a manufacturer who produces no more than 100 marine diesel engines is not required to do any production­ line testing. Similar to the commercial marine requirements, manufacturers have the option of using alternative production­ line testing programs with EPA approval. Manufacturers commented that we should limit the number of engines tested for a given engine family to five, arguing that five engines would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the standards. Although there isn't necessarily an engineering rationale for capping the number of tests for each engine family to five, we believe that statistical certainty can be determined using the Cumulative Sum method described for recreational vehicles in 40 CFR part 1051, subpart D. Therefore, we are providing the option of using the Cumulative Sum method for determining sample sizes under the production­ line testing program. For marine engines, PM would need to be included in this methodology. Under the Cumulative Sum method, a statistical analysis is applied to test results to establish the number of tests needed. This may limit the number of engines tested to less than 1 percent of the production volume in cases where there is low variability in the test data. 5. Do These Standards Apply to Alternative­ Fueled Engines? These new standards apply to all recreational marine diesel engines, without regard to the type of fuel used. While we are not aware of any alternative­ fueled recreational marine diesel engines currently being sold into the U. S. market, alternate forms of the hydrocarbon standards address the potential for natural gas­ fueled and VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68308 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations alcohol­ fueled engines. In our regulation of highway vehicles and engines, we determined that nonmethane standards should be used in place of total hydrocarbon standards for engines fueled with natural gas ( which is comprised primarily of methane) ( 59 FR 48472, September 21, 1994). These alternate forms follow the precedent set in previous rulemakings to make the standards similar in stringency and environmental impact. Similarly, we are applying HCequivalent ( HCE) standards instead of total hydrocarbon standards to alcoholfueled highway engines and vehicles ( 54 FR 14426, April 11, 1989). HCequivalent emissions are calculated from the oxygenated organic components and non­ oxygenated organic components of the exhaust, summed together based on the amount of organic carbon present in the exhaust. Alcohol­ fueled recreational marine engines must therefore comply with total hydrocarbon equivalent ( THCE) plus NOX standards instead of THC plus NOX standards. 6. Is EPA Controlling Crankcase Emissions? Manufacturers must prevent crankcase emissions from recreational marine diesel engines, with one exception. Turbocharged recreational marine diesel engines may be built with open crankcases, as long as the crankcase ventilation system allows for measurement of crankcase emissions. For these engines with open crankcases, we will require crankcase emissions to be either routed into the exhaust stream to be included in the exhaust measurement, or to be measured separately and added to the measured exhaust mass. These measurement requirements do not add significantly to the cost of testing, especially where the crankcase vent is simply routed into the exhaust stream prior to the point of exhaust sampling. These provisions are consistent with our previous regulation of crankcase emissions from such diverse sources as commercial marine engines, locomotives, and passenger cars. 7. What Are the Smoke Requirements? We are not adopting smoke requirements for recreational marine diesel engines. Marine diesel engine manufacturers have stated that many of their engines, though currently unregulated, are manufactured with smoke limiting controls at the request of customers. Users seek low smoke emissions both because they dislike the exhaust residue on decks and because they can be subject to penalties in ports with smoke emission requirements. In many cases, marine engine exhaust gases are mixed with water prior to being released. This practice reduces smoke visibility. Moreover, we believe that applying PM standards will have the effect of limiting smoke emissions as well. 8. What Are the Not­ To­ Exceed Standards and Related Requirements? a. Concept. Our goal is to achieve control of emissions over the broad range of in­ use speed and load combinations that can occur on a recreational marine diesel engine so that real­ world emission control is achieved, rather than just controlling emissions under certain laboratory conditions. An important tool for achieving this goal is an in­ use program with an objective emission standard and an easily implemented test procedure. Prior to this concept, our approach has been to set a numerical standard on a specified test procedure and rely on the additional prohibition of defeat devices to ensure in­ use control over a broad range of operation not included in the test procedure. We are applying the defeat device provisions established for commercial marine engines to recreational marine diesel engines in addition to the NTE requirements ( see 40 CFR 94.2). A design in which an engine met the standard at the steady­ state test points but was intentionally designed to approach the NTE limit everywhere else would be considered to be defeating the standard. Electronic controls that recognize and modulate the emissioncontrol system when the engine is not being tested for emissions and increases the emissions from the engine would be an example of a defeat device, regardless of the emissions performance of the engine with regard to the standards. No single test procedure can cover all real­ world applications, operations, or conditions. Yet to ensure that emission standards are providing the intended benefits in use, we must have a reasonable expectation that emissions under real­ world conditions reflect those measured on the test procedure. The defeat­ device prohibition is designed to ensure that emission controls are employed during real­ world operation, not just under laboratory or test­ procedure conditions. However, the defeat­ device prohibition is not a quantified standard and does not have an associated test rocedure, so it does not have the clear objectivity and ready enforceability of a numerical standard and test procedure. As a result, relying on just a using a standardized test procedure and the defeat device prohibition makes it harder to ensure that engines will operate with the same level of control in the real world as in the test cell. Because the ISO E5 duty cycle uses only five modes on an average propeller curve intended to characterize typical marine engine operation for this industry, we are concerned that an engine designed to the duty cycle may not necessarily perform the same way over the range of speed and load combinations normally seen on a boat nor will it always follow the average curve. These duty cycles are based on an average propeller curve, but a propulsion marine engine may never be fitted with an `` average propeller.'' In addition, even if fitted with an `` average propeller,'' an engine fit to a specific boat may operate differently based on how heavily the boat is loaded. To ensure that emissions are controlled from recreational marine engines over the full range of speed and load combinations normally seen on boats, we are establishing a zone under the engine's power curve where the engine may not exceed a specified emission limit. This limit applies to all of the regulated pollutants under steadystate operation. Testing in this `` not­ toexceed ( NTE) zone may include the whole range of real ambient conditions. The NTE zone, limit, and ambient conditions are described below. We believe there are significant advantages to taking this approach. The test procedure is flexible enough to represent the majority of in­ use engine operation and ambient conditions. Therefore, the NTE approach takes all of the benefits of a numerical standard and test procedure and expands it to cover a broad range of conditions. Also, a standard that requires laboratory testing makes it harder to perform in­ use testing because either the engines must be removed from the vessel or laboratorytype conditions must be achieved on the vessel. With the NTE approach, in­ use testing becomes much easier to implement since emissions may be sampled during normal vessel use. Because this approach is objective, it makes enforcement easier and provides more certainty to the industry in terms of what control is expected in­ use versus over a fixed laboratory test procedure. Even with the NTE requirements, we believe it is important to retain standards based on the steady­ state duty cycles. This is the standard that we expect the certified marine engines to meet on average in use. The NTE testing is more focused on maximum emissions for segments of operation. We believe VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68309 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations basing the emission standards on a distinct cycle and using the NTE zone to better ensure in­ use control creates a comprehensive program. In addition, the steady­ state duty cycles give a basis for calculating credits for averaging, banking, and trading. As described in the Summary and Analysis of Comments, the same technology that can be used to meet the standards over the E5 duty cycle can be used to meet the NTE caps in the NTE zone. We therefore do not expect these standards to cause recreational marine diesel engines to need more advanced technology that is used by the nonroad and commercial marine engines from which they are derived. We do not believe the NTE concept results in a large amount of additional testing, because these engines should be designed to perform as well in use as they do over the steady­ state five­ mode certification test. However, our cost analysis in Chapter 5 of the Final Regulatory Support Document accounts for some additional testing, especially in the early years, to provide manufacturers with assurance that their engines will meet the NTE requirements. b. Shape of the NTE zone. Figure VI. C 1 illustrates the NTE zone for recreational marine diesel engines. We based this zone on the range of conditions that these engines might typically see in use. Also, we divide the zone into subzones of operation which have different limits as described below. Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document describes the development of the boundaries and conditions associated with the NTE zone. The NTE zone for recreational marine diesel engines is the same for commercial marine diesel engines operating on a propeller curve, except that an additional subzone is added at speeds over 95 percent of rated to address the typical recreational design for higher rated power. BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68310 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations BILLING CODE 6560 50 C EPA may approve adjustments to the size and shape of the NTE zone for certain engines if the manufacturer demonstrates that the engine will not see operation outside of the revised NTE zone in use. This way, manufacturers can avoid having to test their engines under operation that they will not see in use. However, manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their specified operation represents realworld operation. In addition, if a manufacturer designs an engine for operation at speeds and loads outside of the NTE zone ( i. e., variable­ speed engines used with variable­ pitch propellers), the manufacturer is responsible for notifying us, so the NTE zone for that engine family can be modified to include this operation. c. Transient operation. NTE testing includes only steady­ state operation with a minimum sampling time of 30 seconds. We specify the ISO E5 steadystate duty cycle for showing compliance with average emission standards. The goal of adopting NTE standards and VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08NO02.002</ GPH> 68311 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 84 The range of intake air temperature is 13 to 30 ° C for engines that draw air from outside the engine room. procedures is to cover the operation away from the five modes that are on the assumed propeller curve. Our understanding is that the majority of marine engine operation is steady­ state; however, we recognize that recreational marine use is likely more transient than commercial marine use. At this time we do not have enough data on marine engine operation to accurately determine the amount of transient operation that occurs or to set an NTE standard for transient operation. We are aware that the high­ load transient operation seen when a boat comes to plane is not included in the NTE zone as defined, even if we were to require compliance with NTE standards during transient operation. We are also aware that these speed and load points cannot be achieved under steady­ state operation for a properly loaded boat in use. If we find that excluding transient operation from the compliance requirements results in a significant increase in emissions, we will revisit this provision in the future. Also, an engine designed, with multiple injection timing maps based on operation, to operate at higher emissions during transient operation than during steadystate testing would be in noncompliance with our defeat device prohibition. d. Emission standards. We are requiring emissions caps for the NTE zones that represent a multiplier times the weighted test result used for certification for all of the regulated pollutants ( HC+ NOX, CO, and PM). This is consistent with the concept of a weighted modal emission test such as the steady­ state tests included in this rule. The standard itself is intended to represent the average emissions under steady­ state conditions. Because it is an average, some points can be higher, some lower, and the manufacturer will design to maximize performance and still meet the engine standard. The NTE limit is on top of this. It is designed to make sure that no part of the engine operation and that no application goes too far from the average level of control. Consistent with the requirements for commercial marine engines, recreational marine diesel engines must meet a cap of 1.50 times the certified level for HC+ NOX, PM, and CO for the speed and power subzone below 45 percent of rated power and a cap of 1.20 times the certified levels at or above 45 percent of rated power. However, we are applying an additional subzone at speeds greater than 95 percent of rated, with a corresponding standard of 1.50 times the certified levels for this subzone. This additional subzone addresses the typical recreational design for higher rated power. We understand that this power is needed to ensure that the engine can bring the boat to plane. Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document provides more detail on how we determined the standards. We are aware that marine diesel engines may not be able to meet the emissions limit under all conditions. Specifically, there are times when emission control must be compromised for startability or safety. Engine starting is not included in NTE testing. In addition, manufacturers have the option of petitioning the Administrator to allow emissions to increase under engine protection strategies, such as when an engine overheats. This is also consistent with the requirements for commercial marine engines. e. Ambient conditions. Variations in ambient conditions can affect emissions. Such conditions include air temperature, humidity, and ( especially for aftercooled engines) water temperature. We are applying the commercial marine engine ranges for these variables. Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document provides more detail on how we determined these ranges. Within the ranges, there is no calculation to correct measured emissions to standard conditions. Outside of the ranges, emissions can be corrected back to the nearest end of the range. The ambient variable ranges are 13 to 35 ° C ( 55 to 95 ° F) for intake air temperature, 7.1 to 10.7 g water/ kg dry air ( 50 to 75 grains/ pound dry air) for intake air humidity, and 5 to 27 ° C ( 41 to 80 ° F) for ambient water temperature. 84 f. Certification. At the time of certification, manufacturers must submit a statement that its engines will comply with these requirements under all conditions that may reasonably be expected to occur in normal vessel operation and use. The manufacturer also provides a detailed description of all testing, engineering analysis, and other information that forms the basis for the statement. This statement may be based on testing other research that validly supports such a statement, consistent with good engineering judgment. EPA may review the basis of this statement during the certification process. D. Testing Equipment and Procedures The regulations detail specifications for test equipment and procedures that apply generally to commercial marine engines ( including NTE testing) in 40 CFR part 94. We have based the recreational marine diesel engine test procedures on this part. Section VIII gives a general discussion of testing requirements; this section describes procedures that are specific to recreational marine such as the duty cycle for operating engines for emission measurements. Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document describes these duty cycles in greater detail. In addition to the information provided above, the following section discusses issues concerning test equipment and procedures. 1. Which Duty Cycles Are Used To Measure Emissions? For recreational marine diesel engines, we specify the ISO E5 duty cycle. This is a 5­ mode steady state cycle, including an idle mode and four modes lying on a cubic propeller curve. ISO intends for this cycle to be used for all engines in boats less than 24 meters in length. We apply it to all recreational marine diesel engines to avoid the complexity of tying emission standards to boat characteristics. A given engine may be used in boats longer and shorter than 24 meters; engine manufacturers generally will not know the size of the boat into which an engine will be installed. Also, we expect that most recreational boats will be under 24 meters in length. Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document provides further detail on the ISO E5 duty cycle. 2. What Fuels Will Be Used During Emission Testing? We are applying the same specifications for recreational marine diesel engines that we established for commercial marine diesel engines. That means that the recreational engines will use the same test fuel that is required for testing Category 1 commercial marine diesel engines, which is a regular nonroad test fuel with moderate sulfur content. We are not aware of any difference in fuel specifications for recreational and commercial marine engines of comparable size. 3. How Does In­ Use Testing Work? In­ use testing on marine engines may be used to ensure compliance in use. This testing may include taking in­ use marine engines out of the vessel and testing them in a laboratory, as well as field testing of in­ use engines on the boat, in a marine environment. We plan to use field­ testing data in two ways. First, we may use it as a screening tool, with follow­ up laboratory testing over the ISO E5 duty cycle or NTE zone where appropriate. Second, we may use the data directly as a basis for compliance determinations, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68312 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations as long as field­ testing equipment and procedures are capable of providing reliable information from which conclusions can be drawn regarding what emission levels would be with laboratory­ based measurements. Because it would likely be difficult to match the E5 test points exactly on an engine in use on a vessel, NTE zone testing will reduce the difficulty of inuse compliance determinations. For marine engines that expel exhaust gases underwater or mix their exhaust with water, manufacturers must equip engines with an exhaust sample port where a probe can be inserted for in­ use exhaust emission testing. It is important that the location of this port allow a well­ mixed and representative sample of the exhaust. This provision is intended to simplify in­ use testing. In cases where the engine manufacturer does not supply enough of the exhaust system to add a sample port, the engine manufacturer would be required to provide installation instructions for a sample port. Vessel manufacturers would be required to follow this and any other emission­ related installation instructions. One of the advantages of the not­ toexceed requirements will be to facilitate in­ use testing. This will allow us to perform compliance testing in the field. As long as the engine is operating under steady­ state conditions in the NTE zone, we will be able to measure emissions and compare them to the NTE limits. To assist in this testing, engines with electronic controls will be required to broadcast engine torque ( as percent of maximum) and engine speed on their controller area networks. 4. How Is the Maximum Test Speed Determined? To ensure that a manufacturer's declared maximum speed is representative of actual engine operating characteristics and is not improperly used to influence the parameters under which their engines are certified, we are applying the definition of maximum test speed used for commercial marine engines. This definition of maximum test speed is the single point on an engine's normalized maximum power versus speed curve that lies farthest away from the zero­ power, zero­ speed point. In establishing this definition of maximum test speed, it was our intent to specify the highest speed at which the engine is likely to be operated in use. Under normal circumstances this maximum test speed should be close to the speed at which peak power is achieved. However, as some manufacturers indicated in their comments, it is possible under this definition for the maximum test speed to be very different than the speed at which peak power is achieved. This could result in the certification test cycle and the NTE zone ( which are both defined in part by the maximum test speed) being unrepresentative of in­ use operation. Since we were aware of this potential during the development of the commercial marine regulations, we included two provisions to address issues such as these. First, § 94.102 allows EPA to modify test procedures in situations where the specified test procedures would otherwise be unrepresentative of in­ use operation. Thus, in cases in which the definition of maximum test speed resulted in an engine speed that was not expected to occur with in­ use engines, we would work with the manufacturers to determine the maximum speed that would be expected to occur in­ use. Second, § 94.106( c)( 2) allows EPA to specify during certification a broader NTE zone to include actual in­ use operation. In those cases where we could not specify a single maximum test speed under § 94.102 that would sufficiently cover the range of in­ use engine speeds, we would specify a broader NTE zone. For example, we would generally expect that the NTE zone would include the peak power point. If the maximum test speed derived under § § 94.102 and 94.107 resulted in an NTE zone that did not include the peak power point, we would likely specify that the NTE zone be broadened to include that point. Similarly, we would expect that a manufacturer's advertised rated power/ speed point should be within the NTE zone, and could broaden the NTE zone to include that point as well. E. Special Compliance Provisions The provisions discussed here are designed to minimize regulatory burdens on manufacturers needing added flexibility to comply with emission standards. These manufacturers include engine dressers, small­ volume engine marinizers, and small­ volume boat builders. Commenters generally supported these provisions as proposed. 1. What Are the Burden Reduction Approaches for Engine Dressers? Many recreational marine diesel engine manufacturers take a new, landbased engine and modify it for installation on a marine vessel. Some of the companies that modify an engine for installation on a boat make no changes that might affect emissions. Instead, the modifications may consist of adding mounting hardware and a generator or reduction gears for propulsion. It can also involve installing a new marine cooling system that meets original manufacturer specifications and duplicates the cooling characteristics of the land­ based engine, but with a different cooling medium ( such as sea water). In many ways, these manufacturers are similar to nonroad equipment manufacturers that purchase certified land­ based nonroad engines to make auxiliary engines. This simplified approach of producing an engine can more accurately be described as dressing an engine for a particular application. Because the modified landbased engines are subsequently used on a marine vessel, however, these modified engines will be considered marine diesel engines, which then fall under these requirements. To clarify the responsibilities of engine dressers under this rule, we will not treat them as a manufacturer of a recreational marine diesel engine and therefore they would not be required to obtain a certificate of conformity, as long as they meet the following seven conditions. ( 1) The engine being dressed ( the `` base'' engine) must be a highway, landbased nonroad, or locomotive engine, certified pursuant to 40 CFR part 86, 40 CFR part 89, or 40 CFR part 92, respectively, or a marine diesel engine certified pursuant to this part. ( 2) The base engine's emissions, for all pollutants, must meet the otherwise applicable recreational marine emission limits. In other words, starting in 2005, a dressed nonroad Tier 1 engine will not qualify for this exemption, because the more stringent standards for recreational marine diesel engines go into effect at that time. ( 3) The dressing process must not involve any modifications that can change engine emissions. We do not consider changes to the fuel system to be engine dressing because this equipment is integral to the combustion characteristics of an engine. ( 4) All components added to the engine, including cooling systems, must comply with the specifications provided by the engine manufacturer. ( 5) The original emissions­ related label must remain clearly visible on the engine. ( 6) The engine dresser must notify purchasers that the marine engine is a dressed highway, nonroad, or locomotive engine and is exempt from the requirements of 40 CFR part 94. ( 7) The engine dresser must report annually to us the models that are exempt pursuant to this provision and such other information as we deem VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68313 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations necessary to ensure appropriate use of the exemption. Any engine dresser not meeting all these conditions will be considered an engine manufacturer and will accordingly need to obtain a certificate of conformity for these new engines, consistent with this rule's provisions, and label the engine showing that it is available for use as a marine engine. An engine dresser violating the above criteria might be liable under antitampering provisions for any change made to the land­ based engine that affects emissions. The dresser might also be subject to a compliance action for selling new marine engines that are not certified to the required emission standards. For an engine dresser complying with the above provisions, the original certificate would remain in effect and the certifier of the engine would remain liable for the emissions performance of the engine. 2. What Special Provisions Is EPA Adopting for Small Entities? In addition to provisions for engine dressers, we are also finalizing special provisions designed to provide flexibility to small entities. Prior to the proposal, we conducted an inter­ agency Small Business Advocacy Review Panel as described in Section XI. C. With input from small­ entity representatives, the panel drafted a report with findings and recommendations on how to reduce the potential small­ business burden resulting from this rule. The interagency panel's recommendations were proposed by EPA and are now being finalized as proposed. The following sections describe these provisions. 3. What Are the Burden Reduction Approaches for Small­ Volume Engine Marinizers? We are providing additional options for small­ volume engine marinizers. The purpose of these options is to reduce the burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed over a large number of engines. For this reason, we are defining a small­ volume engine manufacturer based on annual U. S. sales of engines and are providing the additional options on this basis rather than on business size in terms of number of employees, revenue, or other such measures. The production count we are using includes all engines ( automotive, other nonroad, etc.) and not just recreational marine engines. We consider recreational marine diesel engine manufacturers to be small volume for purposes of this provision if they produce fewer than 1,000 internal combustion engines per year. Based on our characterization of the industry, there is a natural break in production volumes above 500 engine sales where the next smallest manufacturers make tens of thousands of engines. We chose 1,000 engines as a limit because it groups together all the marinizers most needing relief, while still allowing for reasonable sales growth. The options for small­ volume marinizers are discussed below. a. Broaden engine families. We have established engine criteria for distinguishing between engine families, which is intended to divide a manufacturer's product line into multiple engine families. We are allowing small­ volume marinizers to put all of their models into one engine family ( or more as necessary) for certification purposes. Marinizers would then certify using the `` worstcase configuration. This approach is consistent with the option offered to post­ manufacture marinizers under the commercial marine regulations. The advantage of this approach is that it minimizes certification testing because the marinizer can use a single engine in the first year to certify their whole product line. As for large companies, the small­ volume manufacturers could then carry­ over data from year to year until changing engine designs in a way that might significantly affect emissions. We understand that this option alone still requires a certification test and the associated burden for small­ volume manufactures. We consider this to be the foremost cost concern for some small­ volume manufacturers, because the test costs are spread over low sales volumes. Also, we recognize that it may be difficult to determine the worst­ case emitter without additional testing. We are requiring testing because we need a reliable, test­ based technical basis to issue a certificate for these engines. Manufacturers will be able to use carryover to spread costs over multiple years of production. b. Minimize compliance requirements. Production­ line and deterioration testing requirements do not apply to small­ volume marinizers. We will assign a deterioration factor for use in calculating end­ of­ life emission factors for certification. The advantages of this approach would be to minimize compliance testing. Production­ line and deterioration testing would be more extensive than a single certification test. c. Expand engine dresser flexibility. We are expanding the engine dresser definition for small­ volume marinizers to include water­ cooled turbochargers where the goal is to match the performance of the non water­ cooled turbocharger on the original certified configuration. We believe this would provide more opportunities for diesel marinizers to be excluded from certification testing if they operate as dressers. d. Streamlined certification. We will allow small­ volume marinizers to certify to the not­ to­ exceed ( NTE) requirements with a streamlined approach. We believe small­ volume marinizers can make a satisfactory showing that they meet NTE standards with limited test data. Similar to the standard NTE program, once these manufacturers test engines over the five­ mode certification duty cycle ( E5), they can use those or other test points to extrapolate the results to the rest of the NTE zone. For example, an engineering analysis may consider engine timing and fueling rate to determine how much the engine's emissions may change at points not included in the E5 cycle. For this streamlined NTE approach, keeping all four test modes of the E5 cycle within the NTE standards will be enough for small­ volume marinizers to certify compliance with NTE requirements, as long as there are no significant changes in timing or fueling rate between modes. e. Delay standards for five years. Applying a five­ year delay, the standards take effect from 2011 to 2014 for small­ volume marinizers, depending on engine size. Marinizers may apply this five­ year delay to all or just a portion of their production. They may therefore still sell engines that meet the standards when possible on some product lines while delaying introduction of emission­ control technology on other product lines. This option provides more time for small marinizers to redesign their products, allowing time to learn from the technology development of the rest of the industry. Boat builders may use these uncertified engines in their vessels. While we are concerned about the loss of emission control from part of the fleet during this time, we recognize the special needs of small­ volume marinizers and believe the added time may be necessary for these companies to comply with emission standards. This additional time will allow small­ volume marinizers to obtain and implement proven, cost­ effective emission­ control technology. f. Hardship provisions. We are adopting two hardship provisions for small­ volume marinizers. Marinizers may apply for this relief on an annual basis. First, small marinizers may petition us for additional time to comply with the standards. The marinizer must show that it has taken all possible steps to comply but the burden of compliance costs will have a VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68314 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations major impact on the company's solvency. Also, if a certified base engine is available, the marinizer must generally use this engine. We believe this provision will protect small­ volume marinizers from undue hardship due to certification burden. Also, some emission reduction can be gained if a certified base engine becomes available. Second, small­ volume marinizers may also apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control caused the failure to comply ( such as a supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if failure to sell the subject engines will have a major impact on the company's solvency. We consider this relief mechanism to be an option of last resort. We believe this provision will protect small­ volume marinizers from circumstances outside their control. We, however, intend to not grant hardship relief if contract problems with a specific company prevent compliance for a second time. Although the inter­ agency panel did not specify a time limit for these hardship provisions, and we are not finalizing any such time limits, we envision these hardship provisions as transitional in nature. We would expect their use to be limited to the early years of the program, in a similar time frame as we are establishing for the recreational vehicle hardship provisions, as discussed in Section VII. C. 4. What Are the Burden Reduction Approaches for Small­ Volume Boat Builders Using Recreational Marine Diesel Engines? The inter­ agency panel also recommended burden reduction approaches for small­ volume boat builders. The recommendations were based on the concerns that, although boat builders are not subject to the engine­ based emission standards, they are required to use certified engines and may need to redesign engine compartments on some boats if engine designs were to change significantly. EPA proposed the flexibilities recommended by the panel and are finalizing them as proposed. We are adopting four options for small­ volume vessel manufacturers using recreational marine diesel engines. These options are intended to reduce the burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed over a large number of vessels. As proposed, we are therefore defining a small­ volume boat builder as one that produces fewer than 100 boats for sale in the U. S. in one year and has fewer than 500 employees. The production count includes all engine­ powered recreational boats. These options may be used at the manufacturer's discretion. The options for small­ volume boat builders are discussed below. a. Percent­ of­ production delay. Manufacturers with a written request from a small­ volume boat builder and prior approval from us may produce a limited number of uncertified recreational marine diesel engines. From 2006 through 2010, small­ volume boat builders may purchase uncertified engines to sell in boats for an amount equal to 80 percent of engine sales for one year. For example, if the small boat builder sells 100 engines per year, a total of 80 uncertified engines may be sold over the five­ year period. This will give small boat builders an option to delay using new engine designs for a portion of business. Engines produced under this flexibility must be labeled accordingly so that customs inspectors know which uncertified engines can be imported. We continue to believe this approach is appropriate and are finalizing it as proposed. b. Small­ volume allowance. This allowance is similar to the percent­ ofproduction allowance, but is designed for boat builders with very small production volumes. The only difference with the above allowance is that the 80­ percent allowance described above may be exceeded, as long as sales do not exceed either 10 engines per year or 20 engines over five years ( 2006 to 2010). This applies only to engines less than or equal to 2.5 liters per cylinder. c. Existing inventory and replacement engine allowance. Small­ volume boat builders may sell their existing inventory after the implementation date of the new standards. However, no purposeful stockpiling of uncertified engines is permitted. This provision is intended to allow small boat builders the ability to turn over engine designs. d. Hardship relief provision. Small boat builders may apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control caused the problem ( for example, if a supply contract were broken by the engine supplier) and if failure to sell the subject vessels will have a major impact on the company's solvency. This relief allows the boat builder to use an uncertified engine and is considered a mechanism of last resort. These hardship provisions are consistent with those currently in place for post­ manufacture marinizers of commercial marine diesel engines. F. Technical Amendments The regulations include a variety of amendments to the programs already adopted for marine spark­ ignition and diesel engines, as described in the following paragraphs. 1. 40 CFR Part 91: Outboards and Personal Watercraft We have identified four principal amendments to the requirements for outboard and personal watercraft engines. First, we are adding a definition of United States which is `` the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.'' This definition is consistent with that included in 40 CFR part 94 for marine diesel engines. This is especially helpful in clearing up questions related to U. S. territories in the Carribean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Second, we have found two typographical errors in the equations needed for calculating emission levels in 40 CFR 91.419. Third, we are adjusting the regulation language to clarify testing rates for the in­ use testing program. The regulations currently specify a maximum rate of 25 percent of a manufacturer's engine families subject to in­ use testing. The revised language states that for manufacturers with fewer than four engine families subject to in­ use testing, the maximum testing rate is one family per year in place of the percentage calculation. Finally, we are revising the regulatory provision prohibiting emission controls that lead to increases of noxious or toxic compounds that would pose an unreasonable risk to the public, as described in Section II. B. 2. 2. 40 CFR Part 94: Commercial Marine Diesel Engines We are adopting several regulatory amendments to the program for commercial marine diesel engines. Many of these are straightforward edits for correct grammar and cross references. We are also changing the definition of United States, as described in the previous section. We are adding a definition for sparkignition consistent with the existing definition for compression­ ignition, which will allow us to define compression­ ignition as any engine that is not spark­ ignition. This will help ensure that marine emission standards for the different types of engines fit together appropriately. The discussion of production­ line testing in Section II. C. 4 specifies reduced testing rates after two years of consistent good performance. We are extending this provision to commercial marine diesel engines as well. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68315 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations The test procedures for Category 2 marine engines give a cross­ reference to 40 CFR part 92, which defines the procedures for testing locomotives and locomotive engines. Part 92 specifies a wide range of ambient temperatures for testing, to allow for outdoor measurements. We expect all testing of Category 2 marine engines to occur indoors and are therefore adopting a range of 13 ° to 30 ° C ( 55 ° to 86 ° F) for emission testing. Finally, we are revising the regulatory provision prohibiting emission controls that lead to increases of noxious or toxic compounds that would pose an unreasonable risk to the public, as described in Section II. B. 2. G. Technological Feasibility We have concluded that the emissionreduction strategies expected for landbased nonroad diesel engines and commercial marine diesel engines can also be applied to recreational marine diesel engines, such that these emission reductions strategies will provide compliance with recreational marine diesel emission standards. Marine diesel engines are generally derivatives of land­ based nonroad and highway diesel engines. Marine engine manufacturers and marinizers make modifications to the engine to make it ready for use in a vessel. These modifications can range from basic engine mounting and cooling changes to a restructuring of the power assembly and fuel management system. Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document discuss this process in more detail. Also, we have collected emission data demonstrating the feasibility of the steady state average standard and not­ to­ exceed requirements. These data are presented in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document. 1. Implementation Schedule For recreational marine diesel engines, the implementation schedule allows an additional two years of delay beyond the commercial marine diesel standards. This represents up to a fiveyear lead time relative to the implementation dates of the land­ based nonroad standards. This allows time for the carryover of technology from landbased nonroad and commercial marine diesel engines. In addition, these implementation dates represent three to six years of lead time beyond publication of this final rule. 2. Standard Levels Marine diesel engines are typically derived from or use the same technology as land­ based nonroad and commercial marine diesel engines and should therefore be able to effectively use the same emission­ control strategies. In fact, recreational marine engines can better use the water they operate in as a cooling medium compared with commercial marine, because they are able to use raw­ water aftercooling. This can help them reduce charge­ air intake temperatures more easily than the commercial models and much more easily than land­ based nonroad diesel engines. Cooling the intake charge reduces the formation of NOX emissions and thus indirectly enables other HC and PM control strategies. As a result, baseline recreational engines generally have lower NOX emissions than uncontrolled commercial marine engines. Therefore, we believe that recreational marine engines can meet the same standard levels as are in place for commercial marine engines without sacrificing power or increasing weight of the engine. 3. Technological Approaches We anticipate that manufacturers will meet the new emission standards for recreational marine diesel engines primarily with technology that will be applied to land­ based nonroad and commercial marine diesel engines. Much of this technology has already been established in highway applications and is being used in limited land­ based nonroad and marine applications. Our analysis of this technology is described in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document and is summarized here. By adopting standards that don't go into place until 2006, we are providing engine manufacturers with substantial lead time for developing, testing, and implementing emission­ control technologies. This lead time and the coordination of standards with those for land­ based nonroad engines allows time for a comprehensive program to integrate the most effective emissioncontrol approaches into the manufacturers' overall design goals related to durability, reliability, and fuel consumption. Engine manufacturers have already produced limited numbers of low­ NOX marine diesel engines. More than 80 of these engines have been placed into service in California through demonstration programs. Through the demonstration programs, we were able to gain some insight into what technologies can be used to meet the new emission standards. Chapter 4 presents data on 25 of these engines tested over the E5 duty cycle. Although only one of these engines has been shown to meet the HC+ NOX and PM standards, many of these engines are well below either the HC+ NOX or PM standards or are close to meeting both. With further optimization, we believe these engine designs can be used to meet the exhaust emission standards for recreational marine diesel engines. Highway engines have been the leaders in developing new emissioncontrol technology for diesel engines. Because of the similar engine designs in land­ based nonroad and marine diesel engines, it is clear that much of the technological development that has led to lower­ emitting highway engines can be transferred or adapted for use on land­ based nonroad and marine engines. Much of the improvement in emissions from these engines comes from `` internal'' engine changes such as variation in fuel­ injection variables ( injection timing, injection pressure, spray pattern, rate shaping), modified piston bowl geometry for better air­ fuel mixing, and improvements intended to reduce oil consumption. Introduction and ongoing improvement of electronic controls have played a vital role in facilitating many of these improvements. Turbocharging is widely used now in marine applications, especially in larger engines, because it improves power and efficiency by compressing the intake air. Turbocharging may also be used to decrease particulate emissions in the exhaust. Today, marine engine manufacturers generally have to rematch the turbocharger to the engine characteristics of the marine version of a nonroad engine and often will add water jacketing around the turbocharger housing to keep surface temperatures low. Once the nonroad Tier 2 engines are available to the marine industry, matching the turbochargers for the engines will be an important step in achieving low emissions. Aftercooling is a well established technology for reducing NOX by decreasing the temperature of the charge air after it has been heated during compression. Decreasing the charge­ air temperature directly reduces the peak cylinder temperature during combustion, which is the primary cause of NOX formation. Air­ to­ water and water­ to­ water aftercoolers are well established for land­ based applications. For engines in marine vessels, there are two different types of aftercooling: jacket­ water and raw­ water aftercooling. With jacket­ water aftercooling, the fluid that extracts heat from the aftercooler is itself cooled by ambient water. This cooling circuit may either be the same circuit used to cool the engine or it may be a separate circuit. By incorporating a separate circuit, marine engine VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68316 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations manufacturers can further reduce charge­ air temperatures. This separate circuit can result in even lower temperatures with raw water as the coolant. This means that ambient water is pumped directly to the aftercooler. Raw­ water aftercooling is currently widely used in recreational applications. Because of the access that marine engines have to a large ambient water cooling medium, we anticipate that marine diesel engine manufacturers will largely reduce NOX emissions with aftercooling. Electronic controls also offer great potential for improved control of engine parameters for better performance and lower emissions. Unit pumps or injectors allow higher­ pressure fuel injection with rate shaping to carefully time the delivery of the whole volume of injected fuel into the cylinder. Marine engine manufacturers can take advantage of modifications to the routing of the intake air and the shape of the combustion chamber of nonroad engines for improved mixing of the fuelair charge. Separate­ circuit aftercooling ( both jacket­ water and raw­ water) will likely gain widespread use in turbocharged engines to increase performance and lower NOX. Fuel injection changes and other NOX control strategies typically reduce engine noise, sometimes dramatically. One important source of noise in diesel combustion is the sound associated with the combustion event itself. When a premixed charge of fuel and air ignites, the very rapid combustion leads to a sharp increase in pressure, which is easily heard and recognized as the characteristic sound of a diesel engine. The conditions that lead to high noise levels also cause high levels of NOX formation. The impact of the new emission standards on energy is measured by the effect on fuel consumption from complying engines. Many of the marine engine manufacturers are expected to retard engine timing which increases fuel consumption somewhat. Most of the technology changes anticipated in response to the new standards, however, have the potential to reduce fuel consumption as well as emissions. Redesigning combustion chambers, incorporating improved fuel injection systems, and introducing electronic controls provide the engine designer with powerful tools for improving fuel efficiency while simultaneously controlling emission formation. To the extent that manufacturers add aftercooling to non aftercooled engines and shift from jacket­ water aftercooling to raw­ water aftercooling, there will be a marked improvement in fuelefficiency Manufacturers of highway diesel engines have been able to steadily improve fuel efficiency even as new emission standards required significantly reduced emissions. There are no apparent safety issues associated with the new emission standards. Marine engine manufacturers will likely use only proven technology that is currently used in other engines such as nonroad land­ based diesel applications, locomotives, and diesel trucks. The main technological approach will likely be optimization and calibration of their fuel injection and air management systems. 4. Our Conclusions The new emission standards for recreational marine diesel engines reasonably reflect what manufacturers can achieve through the application of available technology to current recreational marine diesel engines. Recreational marine engine manufacturers will need to use the available lead time to develop the necessary emission­ control strategies, including transfer of technology from land­ based nonroad and commercial marine diesel engines. This development effort will require not only achieving the targeted emission levels, but also ensuring that each engine will meet all performance and emission requirements over its useful life. As discussed in Section IX, the new standards represent significant reductions compared with baseline emission levels. Based on information currently available, we conclude it is feasible for recreational marine diesel engine manufacturers to meet the new emission standards using combinations of technological approaches discussed above and in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document. While the technologies described above are expected to yield the full degree of emission reduction anticipated, it is possible that manufacturers may also rely on a modest degree of fuel­ injection timing retard as a strategy for complying with emission standards. This is due to variations in engine designs and baseline injection timing. For instance, an engine with very advanced injection timing in its baseline configuration would likely need to employ some timing retard to meet the standards. The transfer of technology from landbased nonroad and commercial marine engines is an important factor in our determination that the recreational marine diesel engine standards are feasible. Most marine diesel engine models also serve in land­ based applications. Sales of land­ based versions of these engines are usually much greater than those of the marine counterpart versions, so manufacturers typically focus their primary technology development efforts on their land­ based products. Manufacturers then modify these engines for use in marine applications. These changes can be extensive, but they rarely involve basic R& D for new technologies. We do not anticipate the use of advanced technology such as particulate filters and NOX adsorbers on trucks until the 2007 time frame. Therefore, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to implement standards, at this time, that would require the use of advanced technology that has yet to be developed for the higher volume land­ based diesel engine market. We would, however, consider this technology in the future for setting further tiers of marine engine emission standards. In addition, we have incorporated various options that will permit marinizers and boat builders to respond to engine changes in an orderly way. We expect that meeting these requirements will pose a challenge, but one that is feasible taking into consideration the availability and cost of technology, time, noise, energy, and safety. VII. General Nonroad Compliance Provisions This section describes a wide range of compliance provisions that apply generally to all the spark­ ignition engines and vehicles subject to the new emission standards. Several of these provisions apply not only to manufacturers and importers, but also to equipment manufacturers installing certified engines, remanufacturing facilities, operators, and others. The regulatory text for the compliance requirements for Large SI engines and recreational vehicles are in a new Part 1068 of Title 40, entitled `` General Compliance Programs for Nonroad Engines.'' The compliance provisions for recreational marine diesel engines are generally the same as those already adopted for commercial marine diesel engines ( 40 CFR part 94). The following discussion of the general nonroad provisions follows the regulatory text. For ease of reference, the subpart designations for 40 CFR part 1068 are provided. Where different provisions apply to the marine engines, we note those differences in this section. A. Miscellaneous Provisions ( Part 1068, Subpart A) This subpart contains general provisions to define terms and the scope of application for all of 40 CFR part VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68317 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 85 EPA acted to adjust the maximum penalty amount in 1996 ( 61 FR 69364, December 31, 1996) and 2002 ( 67 FR 41343, June 18, 2002). See also 40 CFR part 19. 1068. Other provisions concern how we handle confidential information, how the EPA Administrator delegates decision­ making authority, and when we may inspect a manufacturer's facilities, engines, or records. The process of testing engines and preparing an application for certification requires the manufacturer to make a variety of judgments. This includes, for example, selecting test engines, operating engines between tests, and developing deterioration factors. The regulations describe the methodology we use to evaluate concerns related to how manufacturers use good engineering judgment in cases where the manufacturer has such discretion ( see 40 CFR 1068.5 and 40 CFR 94.221). If we find a problem in these areas, we will take into account the degree to which any error in judgment was deliberate or in bad faith. This subpart is consistent with provisions already adopted for lightduty highway vehicles and commercial marine diesel engines. B. Prohibited Acts and Related Requirements ( Part 1068, Subpart B) The provisions in this subpart establish a set of prohibitions for engine manufacturers ( including importers), equipment manufacturers, operators, engine rebuilders, and owners/ operators to ensure that engines meet the emission standards. These provisions are intended to help ensure that each new engine sold or otherwise entered into commerce in the United States is certified to the relevant standards, that it remains in its certified configuration throughout its lifetime, and that only certified engines are used in the appropriate nonroad equipment. 1. General Prohibitions ( § 1068.101) This regulation contains several prohibitions consistent with the Clean Air Act. No one may sell a new engine subject to the emission standards ( or equipment containing such an engine) in the United States without a valid certificate of conformity issued by EPA, deny us access to relevant records, or keep us from entering a facility to test or inspect engines. In addition, no one may remove or disable a device or design element that may affect an engine's emission levels, or manufacture any device that will make emission controls ineffective, which we consider tampering. Other prohibitions reinforce manufacturers' obligations to meet various certification requirements. We also prohibit selling engine parts that prevent emission­ control systems from working properly. Finally, for engines that are excluded because they are used in applications not covered by these regulations ( for example, stationary or solely for competition), we generally prohibit using these engines in regulated applications. These prohibitions are the same as those that apply to other engines we have regulated in previous rulemakings. Each prohibited act has a corresponding maximum penalty as specified in Clean Air Act section 205. As provided for in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. 10 410, these maximum penalties are periodically adjusted by regulation to account for inflation. The current penalty amount for each violation is $ 31,500.85 2. Equipment Manufacturer Provisions ( § 1068.105) Equipment manufacturers may not sell new equipment with uncertified engines once the emission standards begin to apply. We allow a grace period for equipment manufacturers to use up their supply of uncertified engines, as long as they follow their normal inventory practices for buying engines. We require equipment manufacturers to observe the engine manufacturers' emission­ related installation specifications to ensure that the engine remains in its certified configuration. This may include such things as radiator specifications, placement of catalytic converters, diagnostic signals and interfaces, and steps to minimize evaporative emissions. If equipment manufacturers install a certified engine in a way that obscures the engine label, they must add a duplicate label on the equipment. If equipment manufacturers don't fulfill the responsibilities we describe in this section, we consider them to be violating one or more of the prohibited acts described above. 3. In­ Service Engines ( § 1068.110) The regulations prevent manufacturers from requiring owners to use any certain brand of aftermarket parts and give the manufacturer responsibility for engine servicing related to emissions warranty, leaving the responsibility for all other maintenance with the owner. This regulation also reserves our right to do testing ( or require testing) to determine compliance with emission standards and investigate potential defeat devices, as authorized by the Act. 4. Engine Rebuilding ( § 1068.120) We are establishing rebuild provisions for all the nonroad engines subject to the emission standards in this final rule. This approach is similar to what applies to heavy­ duty highway engines, nonroad diesel engines, and commercial marine diesel engines. This is necessary to prevent an engine rebuilder from rebuilding engines in a way that disables the engine's emission controls or compromises the effectiveness of the emission­ control system. For businesses involved in commercial engine rebuilding, we are adopting minimal recordkeeping requirements so rebuilders can show that they comply with regulations. In general, we require anyone rebuilding a certified engine to restore it to its original ( or a lower­ emitting) configuration. We are adding unique requirements for rebuilders to replace some critical emission­ control components such as fuel injectors and oxygen sensors in all rebuilds for engines that use those technologies, unless there is reason to believe that those components are still working properly. We also require that rebuilders replace an existing catalyst if there is evidence that it is not functional; for example, if a catalyst has lost its physical integrity with loose pieces rattling inside, it would need to be replaced. The rebuilding provisions define good rebuilding practices to avoid violating the prohibition on `` removing or disabling'' emission­ control systems. We are therefore extending these provisions to individuals who rebuild their own engines, but without any recordkeeping requirements. C. Exemptions ( Part 1068, Subpart C) We are including several exemptions for certain specific situations. Most of these are consistent with previous rulemakings. We highlight the new or different provisions in the following paragraphs. In general, exempted engines must comply with the requirements only in the sections related to the exemption. Note that additional restrictions may apply to importing exempted engines ( see Section VII. D). Also, we may require manufacturers ( or importers) to add a permanent label describing that the engine is exempt from emission standards for a specific purpose. In addition to helping us enforce emission standards, this helps ensure that imported engines clear Customs without difficulty. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68318 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 1. Testing Anyone may request an exemption for engines used only for research or other investigative purposes. 2. Manufacturer­ Owned Engines Engines that are used by engine manufacturers for development or marketing purposes may be exempted from regulation if they are maintained in the manufacturers' possession and are not used for any revenue­ generating service. 3. Display Engines Anyone may request an exemption for engines intended for only for display. 4. National Security In general, engines installed in combat­ related equipment are exempt from emission standards. In addition, engine manufacturers may request and receive an exemption for other engines if they are needed by an agency of the federal government responsible for national defense. The request for exemptions in these cases must include the endorsement of the procuring government agency. 5. Exported Engines Engines that will be exported to countries that don't have the same emission standards as those that apply in the United States are exempted without a request. This exemption is not available if the destination country has the same emission standards as those in the United States. 6. Competition Engines New engines used solely for competition are generally excluded or exempted from regulations that apply to nonroad engines. For purposes of our certification requirements, manufacturers receive an exemption if they can show that they produce an engine model specifically for use solely in competition. In addition, engines that have been modified for use in competition are exempt from the prohibition against tampering described above ( without need for request). The literal meaning of the term `` used solely for competition'' would apply for these modifications. We therefore do not allow anyone to use the engine for anything other than competition once it has been modified. This also applies to someone who later buys the engine, so we require the person modifying the engine to remove or deface the original engine label and inform a subsequent buyer in writing of the conditions of the exemption. 7. Replacement Engines An exemption is available to engine manufacturers without request if that is the only way to replace an engine from the field that was produced before the current emission standards took effect. If less stringent standards applied to the old engine when it was new, the replacement engine must at a minimum meet those standards. 8. Hardship Related to Economic Burden There are two types of hardship provisions. The first type of hardship program allows small businesses to petition EPA for up to three years of additional lead time to comply with the standards. A small manufacturer must demonstrate that it has taken all possible business, technical, and economic steps to comply but the burden of compliance costs will have a significant impact on the company's solvency. A manufacturer must provide a compliance plan detailing when and how it will achieve compliance with the standards. Hardship relief may include requirements for reducing emission on an interim basis and/ or purchasing and using emission credits. The length of the hardship relief decided during review of the hardship application may be up to one year, with the potential to extend the relief as needed. The second hardship program allows companies to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply ( such as a supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if the failure to sell the subject engines will have a major impact on the company's solvency. We would, however, not grant hardship relief if contract problems with a specific company prevent compliance for a second time. 9. Hardship for Equipment Manufacturers Equipment manufacturers in many cases depend on engine manufacturers to supply certified engines in time to produce complying equipment by the date emission standards begin to apply. This is especially true for industrial and marine applications. In other programs, equipment manufacturers have raised concerns of certified engines being available too late for equipment manufacturers to adequately accommodate changing engine size or performance characteristics. To address this concern, in unusual circumstances, equipment manufacturers may request up to one extra year before using certified engines if they are not at fault and will face serious economic hardship without an extension. In addition, we are aware that some manufacturers of nonroad engines are dependent on another engine manufacturer to supply base engines that are then modified for the final application. Much like equipment manufacturers, these `` secondary engine manufacturers'' may face difficulty in producing certified engines if the manufacturer selling the base engine makes an engine model unavailable with short notice. These secondary manufacturers generally each buy a relatively small number of engines and would therefore not necessarily be able to influence the marketing or sales practices of the engine selling the base engines. In this rulemaking, this is of particular concern for Large SI engine manufacturers subject to new standards in 2004. As a result, we are allowing secondary engine manufacturers to sell uncertified engines or engines certified at emission levels above the standard for a short period after emission standards begin to apply. However, these companies control the final design of the engines, so we would not approve any exemption unless the manufacturer committed to a plan to make up for any calculated loss in environmental benefit. For example, based on an alternate compliance level for 2004 model year engines, we could calculate the number of 2006 model year engines that would need to be certified early to the 2007 emission standards. Provisions similar to these were adopted for commercial marine diesel engines and will apply equally to recreational marine diesel engines. See the regulatory text in 40 CFR 1068.255 and 40 CFR 94.209 for additional information. D. Imports ( Part 1068, Subpart D) In general, the same certification requirements apply to engines and equipment whether they are produced in the U. S. or are imported. This regulation also includes some additional provisions that apply if someone wants to import an exempted or excluded engine. For example, the importer needs appropriate documentation before importing nonconforming engines; this is true even if an exemption for the same reason doesn't require approval for engines produced in the U. S. These declaration forms are available on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ OMS/ imports/ or by phone at 202 564 9660. All the exemptions described above for new engines also apply to importation, though some of these apply only on a temporary basis. If we approve a temporary exemption, it is available VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68319 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations only for a defined period and could require the importer to post bond while the engine is in the U. S. There are several additional exemptions that apply only to imported engines. Identical configuration: This is a permanent exemption to allow individuals to import engines that were designed and produced to meet applicable emission standards. These engines may not have the emission label only because they were not intended for sale in the United States. This exemption applies to all the engines covered by 40 CFR part 1068. ` ` Antique'' engines: We generally treat used engines as new if they are imported without a certificate of conformity. However, this permanent exemption allows for importation of uncertified engines if they are more than 20 years old and still in their original configuration. Repairs or alterations: This is a temporary exemption to allow companies to repair or modify engines. This exemption does not allow for operating the engine, except as needed to do the intended work. Diplomatic or military: This is a temporary exemption to allow diplomatic or military personnel to use uncertified engines during their term of service in the U. S. Engines subject to other programs: This is a temporary exemption that allows someone to import an uncertified engine that will be converted for use in a different application. For example, someone may want to import a landbased nonroad engine to modify it and eventually sell it as a marine engine. This exemption expires when the engine modifications are complete, since one of the following scenarios will apply ( 1) the company modifying the engine will modify the engine to meet emission standards that apply to the modified engine, ( 2) the company will have a valid exemption under the program that applies to the modified engine, or ( 3) the modified engine will not be subject to emission standards, in which case an exemption is no longer necessary. E. Selective Enforcement Audit ( Part 1068, Subpart E) Clean Air Act section 206( b) gives us the discretion in any program with vehicle or engine emission standards to do selective enforcement auditing of production engines. In selective enforcement auditing, we choose an engine family and give the manufacturer a test order detailing a testing program to show that production­ line engines meet emission standards. The regulation text describes the audit procedures in greater detail. We intend generally to rely on manufacturers' testing of productionline engines to show that their production process is producing engines in compliance they comply with emission standards. However, we reserve our right to do selective enforcement auditing if, for example, we have reason to question the emission testing conducted and reported by the manufacturer. F. Defect Reporting and Recall ( Part 1068, Subpart F) In Part 1068, Subpart F, we are adopting defect reporting requirements that obligate manufacturers to tell us when they learn that emission control systems are defective and to conduct investigations under certain circumstances to determine if an emission­ related defect is present. We are also requiring that manufacturers use warranty information, parts shipments, and any other information which may be available to trigger these investigations. For the purpose of this subpart, we are considering defective any part or system that does not function as originally designed for the regulatory useful life of the engine or the scheduled replacement interval specified in the manufacturer's maintenance instructions. For recreational vehicles and nonroad spark­ ignition engines over 19 kW, this approach to defect reporting takes into account the varying sales volumes of the different products. We believe the investigation requirement in this rule will allow both EPA and the engine manufacturers to fully understand the significance of any unusually high rates of warranty claims and parts replacement for systems or parts that may have an impact on emissions. We believe that any prudent and responsible engine manufacturer would, and should, conduct a thorough investigation as part of its normal product quality practices when in possession of data indicating an usually high number of recurring parts failures. In the past, defect reports were submitted based on a very low threshold with the same threshold applicable to all size engine families and with little information about the full extent of the problem. The new approach should result in fewer overall defect reports being submitted by manufacturers than would otherwise be required under the old defect reporting requirements because the number of defects triggering the submission requirement rises with the engine family size. The defect reporting requirements under other vehicle and engine regulations do not explicitly require investigations or reporting based on information available to the manufacturer about warranty claims or parts shipments. Such information is valuable and readily available to most manufacturers and should be considered when determining whether or not there is a defect of an emissionrelated part. We are aware that counting warranty claims and part shipments will likely include many claims that are not emission­ related or that do not represent defects, so we are establishing a relatively high threshold for triggering the manufacturer's responsibility to investigate whether there is in fact a real occurrence of an emission­ related defect. Manufacturers are not required to count towards the investigation threshold any replacement parts they require to be replaced during the useful life, as specified in the application for certification and maintenance instructions to the owner, because such part shipments clearly do not represent defects. Subpart F is intended to require manufacturers to use information we would expect them to keep in the normal course of business. We believe in most cases manufacturers will not be required to institute new programs or activities to monitor product quality or performance. A manufacturer that does not keep warranty or replacement part information may ask for our approval to use an alternate defect­ reporting methodology that is at least as effective in identifying and tracking potential emissions related defects as the requirements of subpart F. However, until we approve such a request, the thresholds and procedures of subpart F continue to apply. For engines with rated power below 560 kW, the investigation thresholds in 40 CFR 1068.501 are 4 percent of total production, or 4,000 engines, whichever is less, for any single engine family in one model year. The thresholds are reduced by 50 percent for defects related to aftertreatment devices, because these components typically play such a significant role in controlling engine emissions. For example, for an engine family with a sales volume of 20,000 units in a given model year, the manufacturer must investigate for emission­ related defects if there were warranty claims for replacing electronic control units in 800 or more engines or catalytic converters on 400 or more engines. For a family with sales volume of 200,000 units in a given model year, the manufacturer VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68320 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations must investigate for emission­ related defects if there were warranty claims for replacing electronic control units in 4,000 or more engines or catalytic converters on 2,000 or more engines. For engines rated above 560 kW, each engine emits much greater levels of emissions, both because of the higher power rating and the fact that these engines generally operate at high load and for long periods. In addition, the engine family for such engines are typically of smaller volume compared to the lower power engines. We are therefore adopting a requirement that manufacturers investigate defects for these engines if they learn of 5 or more defects that may be emission­ related, or 1 percent of total production, whichever is greater. The second threshold in 40 CFR 1068.501 specifies when a manufacturer must report that there is an emissionrelated defect. This threshold involves a smaller number of engines because each possible occurrence has been screened to confirm that it is an emission­ related defect. In counting engines to compare with the defect­ reporting threshold, the manufacturer must consider a single engine family and model year. However, when a defect report is required, the manufacturer must report all occurrences of the same defect in all engine families and all model years. For engines with rated power below 560 kW, the threshold for reporting a defect is 0.25 percent of total production for any single engine family, or 250 defects, whichever is less. The thresholds are reduced 50 percent for reporting defects related to aftertreatment devices. For engines with rated power greater than 560kW, the threshold for reporting defects is 0.5 percent of total production, or 2 engines, whichever is greater. If the number of engines with a specific defect is found to be less than the threshold for submitting a defect report, but information, such as warranty or parts shipment data, later indicates that there may be additional defective engines, all the information must be considered in determining whether the threshold for submitting a defect report has been met. If a manufacturer has actual knowledge from any source that the threshold for submitting a defect report has been met, a defect report must be submitted even if the trigger for investigating has not yet been met. For example, if manufacturers receive from their dealers, technical staff or other field personnel information showing conclusively that there is a recurring emission­ related defect, they must submit a defect report. At specified times the manufacturer must also report the open investigations as well as recently closed investigations that did not require a defect report. One manufacturer indicated that investigations of potential defects can sometimes take a long time. We agree and, therefore, are not specifying a time limit for manufacturers to complete their investigations. The periodic reports required by the regulations, however, will allow us to monitor these investigations and determine if it is necessary or appropriate for us to take further action. In general, we believe this updated approach to defect reporting will decrease the number of defect reports submitted by manufacturers overall while significantly improving their quality and their value to both EPA and the manufacturer. We are adopting the defect­ reporting requirements for recreational marine diesel engines that already apply to Category 1 commercial marine diesel engines ( 40 CFR 94.403). In general, this requires the manufacturer to report to us if they learn that 25 or more models have a specific defect, without considering what percentage of the total engines that represents. This applies to the occurrence of the same defect and is not constrained by engine family or model year. We believe it would not be appropriate to have different defectreporting requirements for different types of marine diesel engines, so we are not adopting the defect­ reporting provisions described above for recreational marine diesel engines at this time. In the future we may consider whether the defect­ reporting methodology described above should apply to recreational and commercial marine diesel engines. Under Clean Air Act section 207, if we determine that a substantial number of engines within an engine family, though properly used and maintained, do not conform to the appropriate emission standards, the manufacturer will be required to conduct a recall of the noncomplying engine family to remedy the problem. However, we also recognize the practical difficulty in implementing an effective recall program for nonroad engines. It may be difficult to properly identify all the affected owners absent a nationwide registration requirement similar to that for cars and trucks. The response rate for affected owners or operators to an emission­ related recall notice is also a critical issue to consider. We recognize that in some cases, recalling noncomplying nonroad engines may not achieve sufficient environmental protection, so our intent in such situations is generally to allow manufacturers to nominate alternative remedial measures to address most potential noncompliance situations. We expect that successful implementation of appropriate alternative remediation would obviate the need for us to make a determination of substantial nonconformity under section 207 of the Act. Alternatives nominated by a manufacturer will be evaluated based on the following criteria. The alternatives should ( 1) Represent a new initiative that the manufacturer was not otherwise planning to perform at that time, with a clear connection to the emission problem demonstrated by the engine family in question; ( 2) Cost more than foregone compliance costs and consider the time value of the foregone compliance costs and the foregone environmental benefit of the engine family; ( 3) Offset at least 100 percent of the emission exceedance relative to that required to meet emission standards ( or Family Emission Limits); and ( 4) Be possible to implement effectively and expeditiously and to complete in a reasonable time. These criteria, and any other appropriate factors, will guide us in evaluating projects to determine whether their nature and burden is appropriate to remedy the environmental impact of the nonconformity. G. Hearings ( Part 1068, subpart G) Manufacturers have the opportunity to challenge our decisions related to implementing this final rule. We are adopting hearing procedures consistent with those currently in place for highway engines and vehicles. VIII. General Test Procedures This rule establishes new engine testing regulations in 40 CFR part 1065. These regulations will apply to anyone who tests engines to show that they meet the emission standards for snowmobiles, ATV, motorcycles, or Large SI engines. This includes certification testing, as well as all production­ line and in­ use testing. See the program descriptions above for testing provisions that are unique to different engine categories. The regulatory text in 40 CFR part 1065 is written recognizing that we may someday apply these procedures more broadly to other EPA engine testing programs. If we decide to apply these provisions to other engines in future rulemaking, we would incorporate necessary additions or changes at that time. Recreational marine diesel engines VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68321 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 86 See the final rule for commercial marine diesel engines for a broader discussion of maximum test speed ( 64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999). must be tested using the procedures already adopted in 40 CFR part 94. A. General Provisions As we have done in previous programs, we are adopting specific test procedures to define how to measure emissions, but allow alternate procedures if they are shown to be equivalent to our specified procedures. The test procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 are derived from our test procedures in 40 CFR part 86 for highway heavy­ duty gasoline engines and light­ duty vehicles. The procedures have been simplified ( and to some extent generalized) to better fit nonroad engines. B. Laboratory Testing Equipment The regulations do not specify the type of engine or chassis dynamometer to use during testing. Rather, they include performance criteria that must be met during each test. These criteria are intended to ensure that deviations from the specified speed and load duty cycle are small. Measuring emissions during transient operation calls for a greater degree of sophistication than steady­ state testing. For chassis testing of recreational vehicles, we are adopting the specifications established in 40 CFR part 86 for highway engines. For Large SI engines, we based the dynamometer specifications around the capabilities of current dynamometers with enhanced control capabilities. While EPA confirmatory testing with transient duty cycles must meet the prescribed specifications, manufacturers may ask for approval to run tests with relaxed requirements for following the trace of the transient duty cycle. Manufacturers would have an incentive to accurately reproduce the test cycle to ensure compliance with emission standards, but would be able to use otherwise invalidated tests if the degree of variance from the test cycle does not call into question the engine's reported emission levels. In addition, for transient testing with recreational vehicles and any testing with Large SI engines, the regulations specify that emissions must be measured using a full­ dilution constantvolume sampler ( CVS) like those used to measure emissions from highway engines. This means that during a test, an engine's exhaust is routed into a dilution tunnel where it is mixed with air and then sampled using a bag sampler system. After the test, the concentrations of HC, CO, and NOX in the bag is measured using conventional laboratory analyzers. For Large SI engines and snowmobiles, the steady­ state test procedures specify measuring emissions with dilute­ sampling equipment. Some manufacturers have expressed a preference to continue with their established practice of using rawsampling equipment and procedures. While we believe dilute­ sampling is most appropriate for these engines, the provisions for alternate testing procedures may allow for raw­ sampling measurements for steady­ state testing. As specified in 40 CFR 1065.10( c)( 3) of the regulations, we allow manufacturers to use alternate procedures shown to be equivalent to the specified procedures. We are also including an interim provision for snowmobiles to allow manufacturers to use the raw­ sampling procedures in 40 CFR part 91 for a few years before they are required to show equivalence with the dilute­ sampling procedures. This option will allow manufacturers to focus their engineering efforts on reducing emissions during the start of the program. C. Laboratory Testing Procedures The specific procedures for running emission tests are outlined briefly here, with a more detailed description of the most significant aspects. Before testing the engine, it is necessary to operate it enough to stabilize emission levels or to make it more representative of in­ use engines. This is called service accumulation and may take one of two forms. In the first method, a new engine is operated for up to 50 hours as a breakin period. This is done for most or all emission­ data engines. The second method is much longer, up to the full useful life, and is done to determine deterioration factors. Once an engine is ready for testing, it is connected to the dynamometer with its exhaust flowing into the dilution tunnel. The dynamometer is controlled to make the engine follow the specified duty cycle. A continuous sample is collected from the dilution tunnel for each test segment or test mode using sample bags. These bags are then analyzed to determine the concentrations of HC, CO, and NOX. 1. Test Speeds The definition of maximum test speed, where speed is the angular velocity of an engine's crankshaft ( usually expressed in revolutions per minute, or rpm), is an important aspect of most duty cycles. Until recently, we relied on engine manufacturers to declare reasonable rated speeds for their engines and then used the rated speed as the maximum test speed. However, to have a more objective measure of an engine's maximum test speed, we have established a specific procedure for measuring this engine parameter. 86 We define the maximum test speed for any engine to be the single point on an engine's maximum­ power versus speed curve that lies farthest away from the zero­ power, zero­ speed point on a normalized maximum­ power versus speed plot. In other words, consider straight lines drawn between the origin ( speed = 0, load = 0) and each point on an engine's normalized maximumpower versus speed curve. Maximum test speed is defined at that point where the length of this line reaches its maximum value. For constant­ speed engines, maximum test speed is the engine's rated speed. Intermediate speed for steady­ state duty cycles is defined as the speed at which the engine generates its maximum torque value. However, in cases where the maximum torque occurs at a speed that is less than 60 percent or greater than 75 percent of the rated speed, the intermediate speed is often specified as either 60 or 75 percent of rated speed, whichever is closer to the speed of maximum torque. The maximum test speed described above is used to calculate these percentage values relative to rated speed. 2. Maintenance As described in Section II. C. 1, we are limiting the amount of scheduled maintenance manufacturers may prescribe for their customers to ensure that engines continue to meet emission standards. If manufacturers specify unreasonably frequent maintenance, there would be little assurance that inuse engines would continue to operate at certified emission levels. We also apply these minimum maintenance intervals to engines the manufacturer operates for service accumulation before testing for emissions. For example, manufacturers may not install a new catalyst on a Large SI engine after 2,000 hours of operation, then select that engine for the in­ use testing program. Similarly, manufacturers may not replace fuel­ system components on a recreational vehicle during the course of service accumulation for establishing deterioration factors. We do not restrict scheduling of routine maintenance items, such as changing engine oil and replacing oil, fuel, or air filters. We may also allow changing spark plugs, even though we are aware that spark plugs may affect emissions. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68322 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations D. Other Testing Procedures As noted in earlier sections, we are establishing some special test procedures for field testing situations. These special procedures are designed to apply to specific types of engines, and thus do not apply generally to all engines covered by this rulemaking. You should read the specific applicable section to determine if such special test procedures apply to any specific category of engines or vehicles. IX. Projected Impacts This section summarizes the projected impacts of the emission standards. The anticipated reduction in emissions is compared with the projected cost of the program for an assessment of the cost per ton of reducing emissions for this rule. The section includes the results of the analysis for the Final Program. We have also analyzed the impacts of different alternatives for each of the program areas. This analysis of alternatives, for the most part, focused on more or less stringent alternative standards. For recreational marine diesels, the alternatives analyzed were applying draft European standards or implementing our primary program two years earlier. For the Large SI category, the alternative focused on adopting a steady­ state only 2007 requirement. For off­ highway motorcycles, we analyzed a more­ stringent 1.0 g/ km standard and a less­ stringent 4.0 g/ km standard for HC + NOX control. With ATVs, the alternatives presented were a 2.0 g/ km and a 1.0 g/ km HC + NOX standard. For snowmobiles, we analyzed four alternatives, ranging from only adopting one phase of standards in 2006 to a standard that would require, on average, reductions of 85% HC and 50% CO from baseline emissions. Additional detailed discussion on these alternatives and the results of the alternatives analysis are presented in Chapter 11 of the RSD. A. Environmental Impact To estimate nonroad engine and vehicle emission contributions, we used the latest version of our NONROAD emissions model. This model computes emission levels for a wide variety of nonroad engines, and uses information on emission rates, operating data, and population to determine annual emission levels of various pollutants. A more detailed description of the methodology used for projecting inventories and projections for additional years can be found in the Chapter 6 of the Final Regulatory Support Document. Tables IX. A 1 and IX. A 2 contain the projected emission inventories for calendar year 2010 from the engines and vehicles subject to this rulemaking under the base case ( i. e., without the standards taking effect) and assuming the standards take effect. Tables IX. A 3 and IX. A 4 contain the projected emission inventories for calendar year 2020. The percent reductions based on a comparison of estimated emission inventories with and without the emission standards are also presented in each of the tables. TABLE IX. A 1. 2010 PROJECTED HC AND NOX EMISSIONS INVENTORIES [ Thousand short tons] Category HC* NOX Base case With standards Percent reduction Base case With standards Percent reduction Large SI ............................................................................................. 268 88 67 389 118 70 Snowmobiles ...................................................................................... 297 250 16 3 4 ( 16) ATVs .................................................................................................. 308 211 31 7 6 11 Off­ highway motorcycles .................................................................... 193 155 20 1.1 1.2 ( 8) Recreational marine diesel ................................................................ 1.6 1.5 10 49 46 7 Total ........................................................................................ 1,066 705 34 450 174 61 * The estimate for Large SI includes both exhaust HC and evaporative HC emissions. The estimates for snowmobiles, ATVs and Off­ highway motorcycles includes both exhaust HC and permeation HC emissions. The estimate for recreation marine diesel includes exhaust HC emissions. TABLE IX. A 2. 2010 PROJECTED CO AND PM EMISSIONS INVENTORIES [ Thousand short tons] Category CO PM Base case With standards Percent reduction Base case With standards Percent reduction Large SI ................................................................................................... 2,022 945 53 1.9 1.9 0 Snowmobiles ............................................................................................ 775 670 14 7.0 6.7 4 ATVs ........................................................................................................ 1,042 989 5 10.8 7.4 32 Recreational marine diesel ...................................................................... 8 8 0 1.3 1.2 6 Off­ highway motorcycles .......................................................................... 266 239 10 7.3 5.8 20 Total .............................................................................................. 4,113 2,851 31 28.3 23.0 19 TABLE IX. A 3. 2020 HC AND NOX PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORIES [ Thousand short tons] Category HC* NOX Base case With standards Percent reduction Base case With standards Percent reduction Large SI ............................................................................................... 318 34 89 472 43 91 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68323 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 87 For further information on learning curves, see Chapter 5 of the Economic Impact, from Regulatory Impact Analysis­ Control if Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements, EPA420­ R 99 023, December 1999. A copy of this document is included in Air Docket A 2000 01, at Document No. II­ A 83. The interested reader should also refer to previous final rules for Tier 2 highway vehicles ( 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), marine diesel engines ( 64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999), nonroad diesel engines ( 63 FR 56968, October 23, 1998), and highway diesel engines ( 62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997). TABLE IX. A 3. 2020 HC AND NOX PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORIES Continued [ Thousand short tons] Category HC* NOX Base case With standards Percent reduction Base case With standards Percent reduction Snowmobiles ........................................................................................ 358 149 58 5 10 ( 101) ATVs .................................................................................................... 374 53 86 8 6 25 Off­ highway motorcycles ...................................................................... 232 117 50 1.3 1.5 ( 19) Recreational marine diesel .................................................................. 2.0 1.5 28 61 48 21 Total .......................................................................................... 1,284 355 72 547 109 80 * The estimate for Large SI includes both exhaust HC and evaporative HC emissions. The estimates for snowmobiles, ATVs and Off­ highway motorcycles includes both exhaust HC and permeation HC emissions. The estimate for recreation marine diesel includes exhaust HC emissions. TABLE IX. A 4. 2020 PROJECTED CO AND PM EMISSIONS INVENTORIES [ Thousand short tons] Category CO PM Percent reduction Base case With standards Percent reduction Base case With standards Large SI ................................................................................................... 2,336 277 88 2.3 2.3 0 Snowmobiles ............................................................................................ 950 508 46 8.4 4.9 42 ATVs ........................................................................................................ 1,250 1,085 13 13.1 1.9 86 Off­ highway motorcycles .......................................................................... 321 236 26 8.7 4.4 50 Recreational Marine diesel ...................................................................... 9 9 0 1.6 1.3 18 Total .............................................................................................. 4,866 2,115 56 34.2 14.8 57 As described in Section I, we project there will also be environmental benefits associated with reduced haze in many sensitive areas. Finally, anticipated reductions in hydrocarbon emissions correspond with reduced emissions of the toxic air emissions referenced in Section I. B. Cost Estimates In assessing the economic impact of setting emission standards, we have made a best estimate of the necessary technologies and their associated costs. In making our estimates we have relied on our own technology assessment, which includes information supplied by individual manufacturers and our own in­ house testing. Estimated costs include variable costs ( for hardware and assembly time) and fixed costs ( for research and development, retooling, and certification). The analysis also considers total operating costs, including maintenance and fuel consumption. Cost estimates based on the projected technologies represent an expected change in the cost of engines as they begin to comply with new emission standards. All costs are presented in 2001 dollars. Full details of our cost analysis can be found in Chapter 5 of the Final Regulatory Support Document. Cost estimates based on the current projected costs for our estimated technology packages represent an expected incremental cost of vehicles in the near term. For the longer term, we have identified factors that will cause cost impacts to decrease over time. First, we project that manufacturers will generally recover their fixed costs over a five­ year period, so these costs disappear from the analysis after the fifth year of production. Second, the analysis incorporates the expectation that manufacturers and suppliers will apply ongoing research and manufacturing innovation to making emission controls more effective and less costly over time. Research in the costs of manufacturing unrelated to emissions control technologies has consistently shown that as manufacturers gain experience in production and use, they are able to apply innovations to simplify machining and assembly operations, use lower cost materials, and reduce the number or complexity of component parts ( see the Final Regulatory Support Document for additional information). 87 The cost analysis assumes this learning effect applies equally well to the adoption of the technologies associated with this rule by decreasing estimated variable costs by 20 percent starting in the third year of production and an additional 20 percent starting in the sixth year of production. Table IX. B 1 summarizes the projected near­ term per unit average costs to meet the new emission standards. These estimates are based on the manufacturing cost rather than predicting price increase; the costs nevertheless take into account anticipated mark­ ups to present retailprice equivalent figures. Long­ term impacts on engine costs are expected to decrease as manufacturers fully amortize their fixed costs and learn to optimize their designs and production processes to meet the standards more efficiently. The tables also show our projections of reduced operating costs for some engines ( calculated on a net present value basis), which generally results from substantial reductions in fuel consumption. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68324 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 88 Chapter 5 of the Final Regulatory Support Document describes why we believe market forces haven't already led manufacturers to add fuelsaving technologies to their products. 89 The program contains an optional set of standards for off­ highway motorcycles which could result in the use of direct injection two­ stroke technology in some high­ performance applications. Chapter 11.3 provides a cost analysis for this option. The costs are projected to be somewhat higher for this option due to the application of technology to high­ performance competition models. TABLE IX. B 1. ESTIMATED AVERAGE COST IMPACTS OF EMISSION STANDARDS Standards Dates Increased production cost per vehicle* Lifetime operating costs per vehicle ( NPV) Large SI exhaust ............................................................................................................................. 2004 $ 611 $ ¥ 3,981 Large SI exhaust ............................................................................................................................. 2007 55 0 Large SI evaporative ....................................................................................................................... 2007 13 ¥ 56 Snowmobile exhaust ( Phase 1) ....................................................................................................... 2006 73 ¥ 57 Snowmobile exhaust ( Phase 2) ....................................................................................................... 2010 131 ¥ 286 Snowmobile exhaust ( Phase 3) ....................................................................................................... 2012 89 ¥ 191 Snowmobile permeation .................................................................................................................. 2008 7 ¥ 11 ATV exhaust .................................................................................................................................... 2006 84 ¥ 24 ATV permeation ............................................................................................................................... 2008 3 ¥ 6 Off­ highway motorcycle exhaust ..................................................................................................... 2006 155 ¥ 48 Off­ highway motorcycle peermeation .............................................................................................. 2008 3 ¥ 5 Recreational ..................................................................................................................................... 2006 346 0 * These estimates are for near­ term costs. The estimated long­ term costs decrease by about 35 percent. Costs presented for the Large SI and snowmobile second­ phase standards are incremental to the first­ phase standards. Costs for Phase 3 are incremental to Phase 2. These costs numbers may not necessarily reflect actual price increases as manufacturer production costs, perceived product enhancements, and other market impacts will affect actual prices to consumers. We estimate that the anticipated increase in the near­ term cost of producing new Large SI engines for the 2004 standards is estimated to range from $ 550 to $ 800, depending on fuel type, with a composite estimated cost of $ 605. This cost is attributed to upgrading engines to operate with closed­ loop fuel systems and three­ way catalysts. These technologies also improve the overall performance of these engines, including improvements to fuel economy that result in reduced operating costs that fully offset the additional hardware cost. We further estimate additional costs of $ 50 for the 2007 standards, which primarily involve additional development time to optimize engines using the same closedloop systems with three­ way catalysts. While these costs are a small percentage of the cost of industrial equipment, we are aware that this may not be insignificant in this very competitive market. Given the compelling advantages of improved performance and reduced operating expenses, however, we believe manufacturers will generally be able to recover their costs over time. 88 Projected average near­ term costs for ATVs and off­ highway motorcycles are $ 84 and $ 155 per unit, respectively. Standards are based on the emissioncontrol capability of engines four­ stroke engines. 89 Those models that convert from two­ stroke to four­ stroke technology will see substantial fuel savings in addition to greatly reduced emissions. With an averaging program that allows manufacturers to apply varying degrees of technology to different models, we believe they will be able to tailor emission controls in a way that reflects the performance needs for their products. Fuel savings associated with replacing two­ stroke engines with four­ stroke engines partially offsets the additional cost of producing these vehicles. We expect that the near­ term cost of the 2006 snowmobile standards will average $ 73 per snowmobile. These costs are based on a mix of technologies including a small increase in the use of four­ stroke and direct injection technology. For other engines we expect manufacturers to lean out the air­ fuel mixture, improve carburetion for better fuel control and less production variation, and modify the engine to withstand higher temperatures and potential misfire episodes attributed to enleanment. We expect that the 2010 and 2012 standards will be met through inceasing the application of direct injection two­ stroke technology and four­ stroke engines on a significant portion of the fleet. We project that the near­ term incremental cost of the Phase 2 standards will average $ 131 per snowmobile and Phase 3 will be $ 89, although we believe these costs will be fully offset by fuel savings. Recreational marine diesel engines are expected to see increased costs averaging under $ 400 per engine in the near­ term. We expect manufacturers to meet emission standards by improving fuel injection systems and making general design changes to the geometries, configurations, and calibrations of their engines. These figures are somewhat lower than we have projected for the comparable commercial marine engines, since the recreational models generally already have some of the emission­ control technologies needed to meet the emission standards. The above analysis presents unit cost estimates for each type of engine or vehicle. These costs represent the total set of costs the engine or vehicle manufacturers will bear to comply with emission standards. For those categories with engine­ based standards, we do not anticipate significant new costs for equipment manufacturers installing certified engines. Operating costs are also taken into account, but where there is an effect, we project these impacts to involve only cost savings for operators. With current and projected estimates of engine and equipment sales, we translate these costs into projected direct costs to the nation for the new emission standards in any year. A summary of the annualized costs to manufacturers by equipment type is presented in Table IX. B 2. ( The annualized costs are determined over the first twenty years that the standards will be in effect. Because the standards take effect in different years for the various categories of equipment covered by this rule, the aggregate annualized cost is calculated over a slightly longer period of time encompassing the first twenty years of each of the standards. For this reason, the aggregate annualized cost is not the sum of the individual annualized costs.) The annual cost savings due to reduced operating expenses start slowly, then increase as greater numbers of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68325 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations compliant engines enter the fleet. Table IX. B 2 also presents a summary of the annualized reduction in operating costs. Overall, based on currently available information, we project an annualized net savings to the economy of approximately $ 200 million per year. TABLE IX. B 2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST TO MANUFACTURERS AND ANNUAL SAVINGS FROM REDUCED OPERATING COSTS OF EMISSION STANDARDS Engine type Annualized cost to manufacturers ( millions/ year) Annualized savings from reduced operating costs ( millions/ year) Large SI ............................................................................................................................................................... $ 84 $ 324 Snowmobiles ........................................................................................................................................................ 36 47 ATVs .................................................................................................................................................................... 61 31 Off­ highway motorcycles ..................................................................................................................................... 25 14 Marine Diesel ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 0 Aggregate * .......................................................................................................................................................... 192 410 * Because the standards take effect in different years for the various categories of equipment, the aggregate annualized cost is calculated over a slightly longer period of time. For this reason, the aggregate annualized cost is not the sum of the individual annualized costs. C. Cost Per Ton of Emissions Reduced We calculated the cost per ton of emission reductions for the emission standards. For snowmobiles, this calculation is on the basis of HC and CO emissions. For all other engines, we attributed the entire cost of the program to the control of ozone precursor emissions ( HC or NOX or both). Table IX. C 1 presents the near­ term discounted cost­ per­ ton estimates for the various engines covered by the rule. ( The aggregate cost­ per­ ton estimates are over the first 20 years of emission standards.) Reduced operating costs more than offset the increased cost of producing the cleaner engines for Phase 1 Large SI, and Phase 2 and Phase 3 snowmobile engines. The cost to society and the associated cost­ per­ ton figures for these engines, and the aggregate values for all engines covered by this rule, therefore show a net savings resulting from the emission standards. The table presents these as $ 0 per ton, rather than calculating a negative value that has no clear meaning. TABLE IX. C 1. ESTIMATED COST­ PER­ TON OF EMISSION STANDARDS Standards Dates Discounted reductions per vehicle ( short tons) * Discounted cost per ton of HC+ NOX Discounted cost per ton of CO Without fuel savings With fuel savings Without fuel savings With fuel savings Large SI exhaust ( Composite of all fuels) .................................................. 2004 3.07 $ 240 $ 0 Large SI exhaust ( Composite of all fuels) .................................................. 2007 0.80 80 80 Large SI evaporative .................................................................................. 2007 0.13 80 0 Snowmobile exhaust ................................................................................... 2006 HC: 0.40 90 20 $ 40 $ 10 CO: 1.02 Snowmobile exhaust ................................................................................... 2010 HC: 0.10 1,370 0 Snowmobile exhaust ................................................................................... 2012 CO: 0.25 360 0 Snowmobile permeation ............................................................................. 2008 0.03 210 0 ATV exhaust ............................................................................................... 2006 0.21 400 290 ATV permeation .......................................................................................... 2008 0.02 180 0 Off­ highway motorcycle exhaust ................................................................ 2006 0.38 410 280 Off­ highway motorcycle permeation ........................................................... 2008 0.01 230 0 Recreational marine diesel ......................................................................... 2006 0.44 670 670 Aggregate ................................................................................................... 240 0 80 0 * HC reductions for evaporative and permeation, and HC+ NOX reductions for exhaust ( except snowmobiles where CO reductions are also presented). D. Economic Impact Analysis We performed an analysis to estimate the economic impacts of this final rule on producers and consumers of recreational marine diesel vessels ( specifically, diesel inboard cruisers), forklifts, snowmobiles, ATVs, offhighway motorcycles, and society as a whole. This economic impact analysis focuses on market­ level changes in price, quantity, and economic welfare ( social gains or costs) associated with the regulation. A description of the methodology used can be found in Chapter 9 of the Final Regulatory Support Document prepared for this rulemaking. We did not perform an economic impact analysis for categories of Large SI nonroad engines other than forklifts, even though those other Large SI engines are also subject to the standards contained in this final rule. As explained in more detail in Chapter 9 of the Final Regulatory Support Document, this was due to the large number of different types of equipment that use Large SI engines and data availability constraints for those market segments. For the sake of completeness, the following analysis reports separate estimates for Large SI engines other than forklifts. Engineering costs are assumed VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68326 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 90 Consumer and producer surplus losses are measures of the economic welfare loss consumers and producers, respectively are likely to experience as a result of the regulations. Combined these losses represent an estimate of the economic or social costs of the rule. Note that for the Large SI and recreational vehicle rules, fuel efficiency gains must be netted from surplus losses to estimate the social costs or social gains ( in cases where fuel efficiency gains exceed surplus losses) attributable to the rules. 91 Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy­ Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, document EPA420 R 00 026, December 2000. Docket No. A 2000 01, Document No. II A 13. This document is also available at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ diesel. htm# documents. The transfer technique is described in a memorandum, Dr. Bryan Hubbell, Senior Economist, Estimated Nox, Sox, and PM Emissions Health Damages for Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions, April 22, 2002. A copy of this letter can be found in Docket A 2000 01, Document IV A 146. 92 The section 812 studies include: ( 1) U. S. EPA, Report to Congress: The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990, October 1997 ( also known as the `` Section 812 Retrospective Report''); to be equal to economic costs for those engines. This approach slightly overestimates the social costs associated with the relevant standards. Based on the estimated regulatory costs associated with this rule and the predicted changes in prices and quantity produced in the affected industries, the total estimated annual social gains of the rule in the year 2030 is projected to be $ 553.5 million ( in 2000 and 2001 dollars). The net present value of the social gains for the 2002 to 2030 time frame is equal to $ 4.9 billion, using a 3% discount rate. This value would be $ 2.4 billion with a 7% discount rate. The social gains are equal to the fuel savings minus the combined loss in consumer and producer surplus ( see Table IX. D 1), taking into account producers' and consumers' changes in behavior resulting from the costs associated with the rule. 90 Social gains do not account for the social benefits ( the monetized health and environmental effects of the rule). TABLE IX. D 1. SURPLUS LOSSES, FUEL EFFICIENCY GAINS, AND SOCIAL GAINS/ COSTS IN 2030 a Vehicle category Surplus losses in 2030 ($ millions) Fuel efficiency gains in 2030 ($ millions) Social gains/ costs in 2030 b ($ millions) Recreational marine diesel vessels ......................................................................................... $ 6.6 $ 0 ($ 6.6) Forklifts .................................................................................................................................... 47.8 420.1 372.3 Other Large SI ......................................................................................................................... c 48.1 138.4 90.3 Snowmobiles ............................................................................................................................ 41.9 135.0 93.1 ATVs ........................................................................................................................................ 47.2 51.4 4.2 Off­ highway motorcycles ......................................................................................................... 25.0 25.2 0.2 All vehicles total ....................................................................................................................... 216.6 770.1 553.5 NPV of all vehicles total d ........................................................................................................ 3,231.4 8,130.3 4,898.9 NPV of all vehicles total e ......................................................................................................... 1,889.5 4,282.3 2,392.8 a Figures are in 2000 and 2001 dollars. b Figures in this column exclude estimated social benefits. Numbers in parentheses denote social costs. c Figure is engineering costs; see text for explanation. d Net Present Value is calculated over the 2002 to 2030 time frame using a 3 percent discount rate. e Net Present Value is calculated over the 2002 to 2030 time frame using a 7 percent discount rate. For most of the engine categories contained in this rule, we expect there will be a fuel savings as manufacturers redesign their engines to comply with emission standards. For ATVs and offhighway motorcycles, the fuel savings will be realized as manufacturers switch from two­ stroke to four­ stroke technologies. For snowmobiles, the fuel savings will be realized as manufacturers switch some of their engines to more fuel efficient two­ stroke technologies and some of their engines to four­ stroke technologies. For Large SI engines, the fuel savings will be realized as manufacturers adopt more sophisticated and more efficient fuel systems; this is true for all fuels used by Large SI engines. Overall, we project the fuel savings associated with the anticipated changes in technology to be about 800 million gallons per year once the program is fully phased in. These savings are factored into the calculated costs and costs per ton of reduced emissions, as described above. E. Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs of the Standards? While EPA uses relative costeffectiveness as the primary manner to take costs into consideration, further insight regarding the standards can be provided by benefit­ cost analysis. The purpose of this section is to summarize the methods we used and results we obtained in conducting an analysis of the economic benefits of the changes in emissions from engines covered by this rule, and to compare these economic benefits with the estimated economic costs of the rule. In summary, the results of our analysis indicate that the economic benefits of the final standards will exceed the costs of meeting the standards. The annual estimated benefits we were able to quantify were approximately $ 10 billion in 2030. 1. What Was Our Overall Approach to the Benefit­ Cost Analysis? The basic question we sought to answer in the benefit­ cost analysis was, `` What are the net yearly economic benefits to society of the reduction in mobile source emissions likely to be achieved by this final rulemaking?'' In designing an analysis to address this question, we selected a future year for analysis ( 2030) that is representative of full­ implementation of the program ( i. e., when the Large SI and recreational vehicle fleet is composed of virtually only compliant vehicles). To quantify benefits, we evaluated PM­ related health effects ( including directly emitted PM and NOX contribution to particulate nitrate) using a benefits transfer technique. Although we expect economic benefits to exist, we were unable to quantify or to value specific changes in visibility, ozone, CO or air toxics because we did not perform additional air quality modeling. To evaluate the PM­ related health effects, we adopted a benefits transfer technique that relies on the extensive particulate matter air quality and benefits modeling conducted for the highway Heavy Duty Engine/ Diesel Fuel final rule. 91 That RIA used an analytical structure and sequence similar to that used in the `` section 812 studies'' to estimate the total benefits and costs of the full Clean Air Act. 92 In the HD VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68327 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations and ( 2) the first in the ongoing series of prospective studies estimating the total costs and benefits of the Clean Air Act ( see EPA report number: EPA 410 R 99 001, November 1999). See Docket A 99 06, Document II A 21. 93 In the original HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel analysis, we modeled air quality and benefits in 2030. There are sufficient non­ linearities and interactions among pollutants in the atmospheric chemistry that introduce additional uncertainties in the quantitative estimate of the benefits in years that were not fully modeled in the original analysis. 94 SAB advised that the EPA `` continue to use a wage­ risk­ based VSL as its primary estimate, including appropriate sensitivity analyses to reflect the uncertainty of these estimates,'' and that `` the only risk characteristic for which adjustments to the VSL can be made is the timing of the risk'' ( EPASAB EEAC 00 013; a copy of this document can be found in Docket A 99 06, Document No. IV A 19). In developing our primary estimate of the benefits of premature mortality reductions, we have appropriately discounted over the lag period between exposure and premature mortality. However, an empirical basis that meets the SAB's standards of reliability for adjusting the current $ 6 million VSL for many of these factors does not yet exist. A discussion of these factors is contained in the RIA and supporting documents. EPA recognizes the need for additional research by the scientific community to develop additional empirical support for adjustments to VSL for the factors mentioned above. Engine/ Diesel Fuel analysis, we used many of the same models and assumptions used in the section 812 studies as well as other Regulatory Impact Analyses ( RIAs) prepared by the Office of Air and Radiation. By adopting the major design elements, models, and assumptions developed for the section 812 studies and other RIAs, we have largely relied on methods which have already received extensive review by the independent Science Advisory Board ( SAB), by the public, and by other federal agencies. Although the underlying method has experienced significant review, the transfer of values from an existing primary benefits analysis to estimate the benefits of a new program has not had this type of review and the transfer technique introduces additional uncertainties. 2. What Are the Significant Limitations of the Benefit­ Cost Analysis? Every benefit­ cost analysis examining the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities ( such as geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. Deficiencies in the scientific literature often result in the inability to estimate quantitative changes in health and environmental effects, such as potential increases in premature mortality associated with increased exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics literature often result in the inability to assign economic values even to those health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified. While these general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics literatures, which can cause the valuations to be higher or lower, are discussed in detail in the Final Regulatory Support Document and its supporting documents and references, the key uncertainties which have a bearing on the results of the benefit­ cost analysis of this final rule include the following: The exclusion of potentially significant benefit categories ( such as health and ecological benefits of reduction in hazardous air pollutants emissions and ozone; improvements in visibility); Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as population growth; Uncertainties in the estimation of future year emissions inventories and air quality; Uncertainties associated with the transfer of the results of the HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel analysis to this program, especially regarding the assumption of similarity in geographic distribution between emissions and human populations and years of analysis; 93 Variability in the estimated relationships of health and welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations; Uncertainties in exposure estimation; Uncertainties in applying willingness to pay estimates from National Park and Forest visitors to U. S. recreational participants and uncertainties in average number of activity days per year; and Uncertainties associated with the effect of potential future actions to limit emissions. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit­ cost analysis provides a reasonable indication of the expected economic benefits of the final rulemaking in future years under a set of assumptions. One key area of uncertainty is the value of a statistical life ( VSL) for reductions in mortality risk. The adoption of a value for the projected reduction in the risk of premature mortality is the subject of continuing discussion within the economic and public policy analysis community. In accordance with the independent Science Advisory Board advice, 94 we use the value of a statistical life ( VSL) for risk reductions in mortality in our primary estimate. Alternative calculations of adjustment for age and other factors are presented in the RIA for the HD Engine/ Diesel Fuel rule and in the RSD for this rule. The presentation of the other alternative calculations for certain endpoints seeks to demonstrate how much the overall benefit estimate might vary based on the value EPA has given to a parameter ( which has uncertainty associated with it) underlying the estimates for human health and environmental effect incidence and the economic valuation of those effects. These alternative calculations represent conditions that might occur; however, EPA has selected the best values supported by current scientific literature for use in the primary estimate. The primary estimate is the source for our benefits transfer technique. Even with our efforts to fully disclose the uncertainty in our estimate, our uncertainty presentation method does not provide a definitive or complete picture of the true range of monetized benefits estimates. The set of alternative calculations is only representative of those benefits that we were able to quantify and monetize. 3. What Are the benefits In the Years Leading Up to 2030? The final rule has various cost and emission related components, as described earlier in this section. These components would begin at various times and in some cases would phase in over time. This means that during the early years of the program there would not be a consistent match between cost and benefits, especially where the full vehicle cost would be incurred at the time of vehicle purchase, while the fuel savings along with the emission reductions and benefits resulting from all these costs would occur throughout the lifetime of the vehicle. Because of this inconsistency and our desire to more appropriately match the costs and emission reductions of our program, our analysis uses a future year ( 2030) when the fleet is nearly fully turned over. In the years before 2030, the benefits from the final rule will be less than those estimated here, because the compliant vehicle fleet will not be fully phased in, and the overall U. S. population would be smaller. Annualized costs, on the other hand, reach nearly their full value within a few years of program initiation ( once all phase­ ins are completed). Thus, a benefit­ cost ratio computed for the earlier years of the program would be expected to be lower than a ratio based on our 2030 analysis when the fleet has fully turned over. The stream of costs and the limited set of quantified benefits over time are presented in the Final VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68328 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 95 Based upon recent preliminary findings by the Health Effects Institute, the concentration­ response functions used to estimate reductions in hospital admissions may over­ or underestimate the true concentration­ response relationship. See Letter from Dan Greenberg, President, Health Effects Institute, May 30, 2002, attached to letter from Dr. Hopke, dated August 8, 2002. Docket A 2000 01, Document IV A 145. 96 Our estimate also incorporates significant reductions in 27,000 fewer cases of lower respiratory symptoms, and 26,600 fewer cases of upper respiratory symptoms in asthmatic children each year. In addition, we estimate that this final rule will reduce 23,400 incidents of asthma attacks each year in asthmatics of all ages from reduced exposure to particles. Additional incidents would be avoided from reduced ozone exposures. Asthma is the most prevalent chronic disease among children and currently affects over seven percent of children under 18 years of age. Regulatory Support Document. On the other hand, since the estimated benefits are more than 40 times the costs ( excluding fuel savings) in 2030, the emission reduction and cost trends suggest that it is likely that annual benefits would exceed costs from a time early in the life of the program. 4. What Were the Results of the Benefit­ Cost Analysis? The benefit­ cost analysis for the final rule reflects a single year picture of the yearly benefits and costs expected to be realized once the standards have been fully implemented and non­ compliant vehicles have all been retired. Table IX. E 1 presents EPA's primary estimate of the benefits of the rule, both the estimated reductions in incidences and the estimated economic value of those incidence reductions. In interpreting the results, it is important to keep in mind the limited set of effects we are able to monetize. Specifically, the table lists the avoided PM­ related incidences of health effects and the estimated economic value of those avoided incidences. 95 We present estimates for the reductions for the Large SI category only. As the table indicates, we estimate that the final rule will reduce premature mortality associated with fine PM by around 1,000 incidences per year, produce about 600 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, and result in significant reductions in minor restricted activity days ( with an estimated 1 million fewer cases). 96 TABLE IX. E 1. EPA PRIMARY ESTIMATE OF THE ANNUAL QUANTIFIED AND MONETIZED BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVED PM AIR QUALITY RESULTING FROM THE LARGE SI/ RECREATIONAL VEHICLE RULE IN 2030 a PM­ related endpoint Avoided incidence a, c ( cases/ year) Monetary benefits a, d ( millions 2002 $) Premature mortality a, b ( adults, ages 30 and over) ........................................................................ 1,000 .......................... $ 7,510 Chronic bronchitis .......................................................................................................................... 640 ............................. $ 280 Hospital Admissions from Respiratory Causes g ........................................................................... 300 ............................. <$ 10 Hospital Admissions from Cardiovascular Causes g ...................................................................... 300 ............................. <$ 10 Emergency Room Visits for Asthma .............................................................................................. 300 ............................. <$ 1 Acute bronchitis ( children, ages 8 12) .......................................................................................... 2,200 .......................... <$ 1 Upper respiratory symptoms ( asthmatic children, ages 9 11) ...................................................... 20,600 ........................ <$ 1 Lower respiratory symptoms ( children, ages 7 14) ...................................................................... 23,700 ........................ <$ 1 Asthma attacks ( asthmatics, all ages) a ......................................................................................... 20,600 ........................ <$ 1 Work loss days ( adults, ages 18 65) ............................................................................................ 181,300 ...................... $ 20 Minor restricted activity days ( adults, ages 18 65) ( adjusted to exclude asthma attacks) a ........ 944,400 ...................... $ 50 Other health effects e ...................................................................................................................... U1+ U2+ U3+ U4 ............. B1+ B2+ B3+ B4 Monetized Total f ..................................................................................................................... ..................................... $ 7,880 + B a Ozone­ related benefits are not included, thus underestimating national benefits. Relative to PM related benefits, ozone benefits have typically accounted for only a small portion of total benefits. However, ozone reductions can have a significant impact on asthma attacks in asthma sufferers as well as contributing to reductions in the overall number of minor restricted activity days. b The value we are transferring assumes that some of the incidences of premature mortality related to PM exposures occur in a distributed fashion over the five years following exposure, and it embeds an annual three percent discount rate to the value of premature mortality occurring in years after our analysis year. c Incidences are rounded to the nearest 100. d Dollar values are rounded to the nearest 10 million. Monetary benefits account for growth in real GDP per capita through 2030. e The Ui are the incidences and the Bi are the values for the unquantified category i. A detailed listing of unquantified PM, ozone, CO, and HC related health and welfare effects is provided in Table IX E. 2. Many of the HC emitted from these vehicles are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act. f B is equal to the sum of all unmonetized categories, i. e., Ba+ B1+ B2+ * * * + Bn. g Based upon recent preliminary findings by the Health Effects Institute, the concentration­ response functions used to estimate reductions in hospital admissions may over­ or under­ estimate the true concentration­ response relationship. Total monetized benefits are driven primarily by the reduction in premature fatalities each year, which account for over 80 percent of total benefits. This table also indicates with a `` B'' those additional health and environmental benefits which could not be expressed in quantitative incidence and/ or economic value terms. A full listing of the benefit categories that could not be quantified or monetized in our estimate are provided in Table IX. E 2. The final rule may also provide some visibility improvements in Class I areas and near where people live, work, and recreate. A full appreciation of the overall economic consequences of the final standards requires consideration of all benefits and costs expected to result from the new standards, not just those benefits and costs which could be expressed here in dollar terms. TABLE IX. E 2. ADDITIONAL, NONMONETIZED BENEFITS OF THE LARGE SI/ RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STANDARDS Pollutant Unquantified effects Ozone Health Premature mortality. a Increased airway responsiveness to stimuli. Inflammation in the lung. Chronic respiratory damage. Premature aging of the lungs. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68329 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE IX. E 2. ADDITIONAL, NONMONETIZED BENEFITS OF THE LARGE SI/ RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STANDARDS Continued Pollutant Unquantified effects Acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage. Increased susceptibility to respiratory infection. Non­ asthma respiratory emergency room visits. Increased school absence rates Ozone Welfare Decreased yields for commercial forests ( for example Western US). Decreased yields for fruits and vegetables. Decreased yields for noncommercial crops. Damage to urban ornamental plants. Impacts on recreational demand from damaged forest aesthetics. Damage to ecosystem functions PM Health ...... Infant mortality. Low birth weight. Changes in pulmonary function Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis Cardiac endpoints. Morphological changes. Altered host defense mechanisms Cancer. Non­ asthma respiratory emergency room visits PM Welfare .... Visibility in Class I areas. Residential and recreational visibility in non­ Class I areas. Soiling and materials damage Damage to ecosystem functions Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare Impacts of acidic sulfate and nitrate deposition on commercial forests Impacts of acidic deposition to commercial freshwater fishing. Impacts of acidic deposition to recreation in terrestrial ecosystems. Reduced existence values for currently healthy ecosystems Impacts of nitrogen deposition on commercial fishing, agriculture, and forests. TABLE IX. E 2. ADDITIONAL, NONMONETIZED BENEFITS OF THE LARGE SI/ RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STANDARDS Continued Pollutant Unquantified effects Impacts of nitrogen deposition on recreation in estuarine ecosystems. Damage to ecosystem functions CO Health ...... Premature mortalitya. Behavioral effects. Hospital admissions respiratory cardiovascular, and other. Other cardiovascular effects Developmental effects. Decreased time to onset of angina. Non­ asthma respiratory ER visits HC Health b .... Cancer ( benzene, 1,3­ butadiene formaldehyde, acetaldehyde Anemia ( benzene). Disruption of production of blood components ( benzene). Reduction in the number of blood platelets ( benzene). Excessive bone marrow formation ( benzene). Depression of lymphocyte counts ( benzene) Reproductive and developmental effects ( 1,3­ butadiene Irritation of eyes and mucus membranes ( formaldehyde). Respiratory irritation ( formaldehyde). Asthma attacks in asthmatics ( formaldehyde). Asthma­ like symptoms in non­ asthmatics ( formaldehyde). Irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract ( acetaldehyde). Upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion ( acrolein) TABLE IX. E 2. ADDITIONAL, NONMONETIZED BENEFITS OF THE LARGE SI/ RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STANDARDS Continued Pollutant Unquantified effects HC Welfare .... Direct toxic effects to animals Bioaccumulation in the food chain. Damage to ecosystem function a Premature mortality associated with ozone and carbon monoxide is not separately included in this analysis. In this analysis, we assume that the ACS/ Krewski, et al. C R function for premature mortality captures both PM mortality benefits and any mortality benefits associated with other air pollutants. A copy of Krewski, et al., can be found in Docket A 99 06, Document No. IV G 75. b Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this rule are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act. In summary, EPA's primary estimate of the benefits of the final rule is approximately $ 7.8 billion in 2030. This estimate accounts for growth in real gross domestic product ( GDP) per capita between the present and 2030. The estimated social cost ( measured as changes in consumer and producer surplus) in 2030 to implement the final rule from Table IX. D 1 above is $ 217 million ( 2001$). The net social gain, considering fuel efficiency, is $ 554 million. The monetized benefits are approximately $ 7.8 billion, and EPA believes there is considerable value to the public of the benefits it could not monetize. The net benefit that can be monetized is $ 8.4 billion. Therefore, implementation of the final rule is expected to provide society with a net gain in social welfare based on economic efficiency criteria. Table IX. E 3 summarizes the costs, benefits, and net benefits. The net present value of the future benefits have been calculated using a 3% discount rate over the 2002 to 2030 time frame. The net present value of the social gains is $ 4,899 million and the net present value of the total annual benefits is $ 77,177 million + B. Consequently, the net present value of the monetized net benefits of this program is $ 82,076 million. If a discount rate of 7% is used, the values above change to $ 2,393 million for social gains and $ 40,070 million + B for total benefits, giving a total of $ 42,463 million. TABLE IX. E 3. 2030 ANNUAL MONETIZED COSTS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE FINAL RULE Millions of 2001 $ a Social Gains f ..................................................................................................................................................... $ 550 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68330 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE IX. E 3. 2030 ANNUAL MONETIZED COSTS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE FINAL RULE Continued Millions of 2001 $ a Monetized PM­ related benefits b, c ...................................................................................................................... $ 7,880 + BPM Monetized Ozone­ related benefits b, d ................................................................................................................. Not monetized ( BOzone) HC­ related benefits ............................................................................................................................................ Not monetized ( BHC) CO­ related benefits ............................................................................................................................................ Not monetized ( BCO) Total annual benefits .......................................................................................................................................... $ 7,880 + BPM + BOzone + BHC + BCO Monetized net benefits e ..................................................................................................................................... $ 8,430 + B a For this section, all costs and benefits are rounded to the nearest 10 million. Thus, figures presented in this chapter may not exactly equal benefit and cost numbers presented in earlier sections of the chapter. b Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis. Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized are listed in Table IX E. 2. Unmonetized PM­ and ozone­ related benefits are indicated by BPM. and BOzone, respectively. c Based upon recent preliminary findings by the Health Effects Institute, the concentration­ response functions used to estimate reductions in hospital admissions may over­ or under­ estimate the true concentration­ response relationship. d There are substantial uncertainties associated with the benefit estimates presented here, as compared to other EPA analyses that are supported by specific modeling. This analysis used a benefits transfer technique described in the RSD. e B is equal to the sum of all unmonetized benefits, including those associated with PM, ozone, CO, and HC. f The social gains are equal to the fuel savings minus the combined loss in consumer and producer surplus. X. Public Participation A wide variety of interested parties participated in the rulemaking process that culminates with this final rule. This process provided several opportunities for public comment over a period of more than two years. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( 65 FR 76797, December 7, 2000) announced our intent to address emissions from these engines. Comments received during this period were considered in the development of the proposal and are discussed in that document. These comments included information received from small businesses as a part of the inter­ agency Small Business Advocacy Review Panel process which was completed before we published the proposal and is described below under the discussion of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The formal comment period and public hearing associated with the proposal provided another opportunity for public input. We have also met with a variety of stakeholders at various points in the process, including state and environmental organizations, engine manufacturers, and equipment manufacturers. We have prepared a detailed Summary and Analysis of Comments document, which describes the comments we received on the proposal and our response to each of these comments. The Summary and Analysis of Comments is available in the docket for this rule and on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality internet home page at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ . XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a `` significant regulatory action'' as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: 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; Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. A Final Regulatory Support Document has been prepared and is available in the docket for this rulemaking and at the internet address listed under ADDRESSES above. This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under Executive Order 12866. Annual initial costs of this rulemaking are estimated to be over $ 100 million per year but this is offset by operating cost savings of over $ 400 million dollars per year. Even so, this rule is considered economically significant. Written comments from OMB and responses from EPA to OMB comments are in the public docket for this rulemaking. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements ( ICR) in this rule will be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor an information collection, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information, unless the information collection request displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The reporting requirements in this final rule do not apply until the Office of Management has approved them. We will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing that the information­ collection requirements are approved. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business that meet the definition for business based on SBA size standards; ( 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. This rulemaking will affect only the small businesses. In accordance with section 609 of the RFA, EPA conducted an outreach to small entities and convened a Small VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68331 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 97 59 FR 31306 ( July 17, 1994). Business Advocacy Review ( SBAR) Panel prior to proposing this rule, to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. Through the Panel process, we gathered advice and recommendations from small­ entity representatives who would be affected by the provisions in the rule relating to large SI engines and land­ based recreational vehicles, and published the results in a Final Panel Report, dated July 17, 2001. EPA had previously convened a separate Panel for marine engines and vessels. This panel also produced a report, dated August 25, 1999. We also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ( IRFA) in accordance with section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA is found in chapter 8 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. Both Panel reports and the IRFA have been placed in the docket for this rulemaking ( Public Docket A 2000 01, items II A 85, II F 22, and III B 01). EPA proposed the majority of the Panel recommendations, and took comments on these and other recommendations. The information we received during this rulemaking process indicated that fewer small entities would be significantly impacted by the rule than we had originally estimated. During the SBAR Panel process, a concern was raised that importers would have limited access to certified models for import. We received no comments regarding this concern and believe that the supply of four­ stroke engines for ATVs and off­ highway motorcycles will continue to increase. As a result, we believe all these companies should be able to find manufacturers that are able to supply them with compliant engines. These importers incur no development costs, and they are not involved in adding emission­ control hardware or other variable costs to provide a finished product to market. We also expect that the vehicles they import would have fuel tanks and hoses that comply with the permeation standards. However, even if this were not the case, the additional two or three dollars that it would cost to make them compliant with the permeation standards is trifling in comparison with the normal selling price for these vehicles. They should therefore expect to buy and sell their products with the normal markup to cover their costs and profit. As noted below, we expect all 21 known smallbusiness importers to face compliance costs of less than one percent of their revenues. Thus, EPA has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We also made some changes as a result of comments received on the proposal that we believe will further reduce the level of impact to small entities directly regulated by the rule. These can be found below in Section 5, `` Steps Taken to Minimize the Impact on Small Entities.'' Although this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has prepared a Small Business Flexibility Analysis that examines the impact of the rule on small entities, along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact. This analysis would meet the requirements for a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ( FRFA), had that analysis been required. The Small Business Flexibility Analysis can be found in Chapter 8 of the Final Regulatory Support Document, which is available for review in the docket and is summarized below. The key elements of our Small Business Flexibility Analysis include: The need for, and objectives of, the rule. The significant issues raised by public comments, a summary of the Agency's assessment of those issues, and a statement of any changes made to the proposed rule as a result of those comments. The types and number of small entities to which the rule will apply. The reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirement of the rule. The steps taken to minimize the impact of the rule on small entities, consistent with the stated objectives of the applicable statute. A fuller discussion of each of these elements can be found in the Small Business Flexibility Analysis ( Chapter 8 of the Final Regulatory Support Document). 1. The Need for and Objectives of This Rule EPA began a study of emissions from new and existing nonroad engines, equipment, and vehicles in 1991. In 1994, EPA finalized its finding that nonroad engines as a whole `` are significant contributors to ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations'' in more than one ozone or carbon monoxide nonattainment area. 97 Clean Air Act section 213 ( a)( 3) then requires EPA to establish standards for all classes and categories of new nonroad engines that cause or contribute to ozone or CO concentrations in more than one ozone or CO nonattainment area that achieve the greatest degree of emissions reductions achievable taking cost and other factors into account. Since the finding in 1994, EPA has been engaged in the process of establishing programs to control emissions from nonroad engines used in many different applications. Nonroad categories already regulated include: Land­ based compression­ ignition ( CI) engines ( such as farm and construction equipment), Small land­ based spark­ ignition ( SI) engines ( such as lawn and garden equipment and string trimmers), Marine engines ( outboards, personal watercraft, commercial marine diesel, marine diesel engines under 37 kW), Locomotive engines. EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( ANPRM) on December 7, 2000, and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM) on September 14, 2001, which continued the process of establishing standards for nonroad engines and vehicles, with proposed new emission standards for recreational marine diesel engines, recreational vehicles, and other nonroad spark­ ignition engines over 19 kW. This final rule includes emission standards and related requirements for these vehicles and engines that are consistent with the requirements of the Act. 2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments We received comments from engine and equipment manufacturers and consumers, both during the SBAR Panel process and during the comment period after we issued the proposal. Smallvolume engine and equipment manufacturers commented on the financial hardships they would face in complying with the proposed regulations. Most requested that we consider hardship provisions, primarily an exemption from or a delay in the implementation of the proposed standards, or certain flexibilities in the certification process. Due to the wide variety of engines, vehicles, and equipment covered by this rulemaking, we decided that a variety of provisions were needed to address the concerns of the small entities involved. Changes to the proposal as a result of comments from small­ entity representatives or others are noted below in Section 5 for each of the sectors affected by this rule. The NPRM proposed only exhaust emission controls for recreational vehicles. However, several commenters raised the issue of control of evaporative VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68332 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations emissions related to permeation from fuel tanks and fuel hoses. They maintained that our obligations under section 213 of the Clean Air Act included control of permeation emissions, and pointed to work done by the California ARB on emissions from plastic fuel tanks and rubber fuel line hoses, as well as from portable plastic fuel containers. Our own investigation into hydrocarbon emissions related to permeation of fuel tanks and fuel hoses from recreational land­ based and marine applications also supported the concerns raised by the commenters. Therefore, on May 1, 2002, we published a notice in the Federal Register reopening the comment period and requesting comment on possible approaches to regulating permeation emissions from recreational vehicles. The notice also included the expected costs and emission reductions resulting from these approaches. Commenters were given thirty days from May 1, 2002 to provide comments on the notice. We received comments from several affected businesses, including at least one small entity. These comments have been addressed in this final rulemaking, including several changes made to the provisions as a result of the comments. c. Numbers and Types of Small Entities Affected The following table provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected by this regulation. TABLE XI. C 1: PRIMARY SBA SMALL BUSINESS CATEGORIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS REGULATION Industry NAICSa Codes Defined by SBA as a small business if: b Motorcycles and motorcycle parts manufacturers ........................................................................................ 336991 < 500 employees. Snowmobile and ATV manufacturers ........................................................................................................... 336999 < 500 employees. Independent Commercial Importers of Vehicles and parts .......................................................................... 421110 < 100 employees. Nonroad SI engines ...................................................................................................................................... 333618 < 1,000 employees. Internal Combustion Engines ....................................................................................................................... 333618 < 1,000 employees. Boat Building and Repairing ......................................................................................................................... 336612 < 500 employees. Fuel Tank Manufacturers .............................................................................................................................. 336211 < 1,000 employees. a North American Industry Classification System b According to SBA's regulations ( 13 CFR part 121), businesses with no more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are considered `` small entities'' for purposes of a regulatory flexibility analysis. The small entities directly regulated by this rule are the following: a. Recreational Vehicles ( ATVs, snowmobiles, and off­ highway motorcycles). The ATV sector has the broadest assortment of manufacturers. There are seven large companies representing over 95 percent of total domestic ATV sales. The remaining 5 percent come from small manufacturers or importers, who tend to import inexpensive, youth­ oriented ATVs from China and other Asian nations. We have identified 21 small companies that offer off­ highway motorcycles, ATVs, or both products. Annual unit sales for these companies can range from a few hundred to several thousand units per year. There are three small businesses manufacturing off­ highway motorcycles in the U. S. Two of these make only competition models, so do not need to certify their products under this regulation. The remaining off­ highway motorcycle manufacturer already offers engines that should be meeting the new emission standards, especially under our provisions allowing design­ based certification. There is one small business manufacturing two separate youth ATV models. This company already uses four­ stroke engines. Also, the standards are based on emissions per watt hour, which are less costly to meet for models with smalldisplacement engines. As a result, we expect both of these manufacturers to face compliance costs less than one percent of their revenues. We expect all 21 small­ business importers to face compliance costs less than one percent of their revenues. These companies incur no development costs and they are not involved in adding emission­ control hardware or other variable costs to provide a finished product to market. As a result, they should expect to buy and sell their products with the normal mark­ up to cover their costs and profit. During the SBAR Panel process, the concern was raised that importers might have limited access to certified models for import. We received no comments confirming this concern and believe that the supply of four­ stroke engines for ATVs and offhighway motorcycles will continue to increase; as a result all these companies should be able to find manufacturers that are able to supply compliant engines into the U. S. market. We further believe that compliance with the permeation standards will not place a significant burden on either the small manufacturers or on the importers. We have estimated the incremental cost of compliance for ATVs and off­ highway motorcycles at roughly three dollars per vehicle. This estimate includes shipping, and is based on buying the necessary lowpermeability hoses and surface treatment for the fuel tanks from outside suppliers. Thus, no capital outlays are required, and the increase in vehicle cost is insignificant, so that it can easily be passed along to the ultimate consumer. However, to ensure that these requirements do not adversely affect small manufacturers, we are implementing, where they are applicable to permeation, the same flexibility options we proposed for the exhaust emission standards. Based on available industry information, four major manufacturers account for over 99 percent of all domestic snowmobile sales. The remaining one percent comes from very small manufacturers who tend to specialize in unique and highperformance designs. One potential manufacturer is not a small business, but hopes to produce snowmobiles within the next year. Most of these manufacturers build less than 50 units per year. We have identified three small manufacturers of snowmobiles who are still in business ( of five originally identified). Two of these companies specialize in high­ performance versions of standard recreational snowmobile types ( i. e., travel and mountain sleds). The other manufacturer produces a unique design, which is a small scooterlike snowmobile designed to be ridden standing up. This manufacturer provided no response to repeated outreach efforts to determine potential economic effects of the final rule, but could be expected to use production engines certified to the Small SI standards. There are thus three small businesses currently producing snowmobiles for VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68333 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations the U. S. market. One of these currently makes a mix of two­ stroke and fourstroke models and will likely rely on the provision allowing separate standards for certain manufacturers to produce low­ emitting engines with a streamlined development effort. Estimated compliance costs for this company are less than one percent of revenues. Costs for the company producing the standup snowmobile should also be less than one percent. The third manufacturer sells a single snowmobile model in addition to a sizable business of supplying aftermarket parts for snowmobiles from other manufacturers. We don't have revenue information for the whole company, but with such low sales volumes, we estimate that this company's compliance costs could reach 4 10 percent of annual snowmobile revenues. Control of permeation emissions was not part of the SBAR Panel process. We received comments from one small snowmobile manufacturer who stated that it would experience additional hardship due to the permeation standards, because they do not have the sales volume to install the barrier treatment for fuel tanks in­ house. They also commented that if shipping and processing of fuel tanks took 3 4 months, it would be difficult for a small business to tie up funds for so long. However, we believe that the permeation control requirements should be relatively easy for small businesses to meet, given the relatively low costs involved ($ 5 to $ 7 per sled, based on outside vendor costs). This is insignificant in comparison to the cost of the high­ end sleds that this company produces and should not materially affect the company's cash flow. We also believe it is not necessary, or costeffective for a small entity to make the capital investments for in­ house treatment facilities. Low permeation fuel hoses are available from vendors today, and we would expect that surface treatment would be applied through an outside company, rather than installing a treatment facility in house. In any event, to make sure that these requirements do not adversely affect small manufacturers, we are implementing, where they are applicable to permeation, the same flexibility options we proposed for the exhaust emission standards. b. Marine Vessels. Marine vessels include the boat, engine, and fuel system. Exhaust emission controls including NTE requirements, as addressed in the August 29, 1999 and July 17, 2001 SBAR Panel Reports, may affect the engine manufacturers and may affect boat builders. We have determined that at least 16 companies manufacture marine diesel engines for recreational vessels. Nearly 75 percent of diesel engines sales for recreational vessels in 2000 can be attributed to three large companies. Six of the 16 identified companies are considered small businesses as defined by SBA. Based on sales estimates for 2000, these six companies represent approximately 4 percent of recreational marine diesel engine sales. The remaining companies each comprise between two and seven percent of sales for 2000. We are thus aware of six small businesses producing marine diesel engines that may be considered recreational. Three of these companies produce both commercial and recreational models without significant differences, so we expect them to meet the standards in this final rule with little more than the administrative expenses associated with including recreational models in their commercial engine families. High­ performance recreational marine diesel engines already include technologies that help control NOX emissions, so our cost estimates include relatively modest development costs to add new technologies. Moreover, the smallbusiness provisions allowing substantial additional lead time provide an opportunity for these companies to spread development and certification costs over several years. As a result, we expect one small business to have compliance costs approaching one percent and one to have compliance costs between 1 and 3 percent. One very small business could have compliance costs of about four percent of annual revenues. c. Large Spark­ ignition Engines. We are aware of two manufacturers of Large SI engines qualifying as small businesses. One of these companies plans to produce engines that meet the standards adopted by California ARB in 2004, with the possible exception of one engine family. The other company is attempting to restart the production of engines from another failed company. This company did not exist during the SBAR Panel process associated with this rule. The established company will face relatively small compliance costs as a result of this rule, since Californiacompliant engines will need only a small amount of additional development effort to meet long­ term standards. These costs should be less than one percent of revenues. The start­ up company faces significant development costs, though much of this effort is required to improve the engine enough to sustain a market presence as other manufacturers continue to make improvements to competitive engines. Under the hardship provisions, we expect the start­ up company to spread compliance costs over several years to reduce the impact of emission standards. We nevertheless estimate that the compliance costs associated with meeting EPA emission standards are about 5 percent of revenues. Since this manufacturer is operating in a niche market, with customers providing public comments citing the need for these engines, we expect that most of the increased cost of production will be recovered by increased revenues. d. Result for all Small Entities. For this regulation as a whole, we expect 32 small businesses to have total compliance costs less than 1 percent of their annual revenues. We estimate that one company will have compliance costs between 1 and 3 percent of revenues. Three companies will likely have compliance costs exceeding 3 percent of revenues, but at least one will likely be able to benefit from the relief provisions outlined below. These estimates include the costs for compliance with the permeation standards. 4. Reporting, Record Keeping, and Compliance Requirements For any emission­ control program, we need assurance that the regulated engines will meet the standards. Historically, EPA programs have assigned manufacturers the responsibility to provide these assurances. This final rule includes testing, reporting, and record keeping requirements. Testing requirements for some manufacturers include certification ( including deterioration testing) and production­ line testing. Reporting and record keeping requirements include test data and technical data on the engines, including defect reporting. 5. Steps Taken To Minimize the Impact on Small Entities The two SBAR Panels considered a variety of provisions to reduce the burden of complying with new emission standards and related requirements. Some of these provisions ( such as emission­ credit programs) would apply to all companies, while others would be targeted at the unique circumstances faced by small businesses. A complete discussion of the regulatory alternatives recommended by the Panels can be found in the Final Panel Reports. Summaries of the Panels' recommended alternatives for each of the sectors VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68334 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations subject to this action can also be found in their respective sections of the preamble. The following Panel recommendations are being finalized by the Agency, except for a few items as noted below: ( A) Related Federal Rules The Panel recommended that EPA continue to consult with the CPSC in developing the rule to better understand the scope of the Commission's regulations as they may relate to the competition exemption. ( B) Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives The Panel recommended that EPA consider and seek comments on a wide range of alternatives, including the flexibility options described below. As noted above, we issued a subsequent Federal Register notice dated May 1, 2002 ( 67 FR 21613), seeking comment on applying permeation control standards for fuel tanks and fuel hoses used on recreational vehicles. The flexibilities listed below for recreational vehicles would generally also apply to those controls, which would effectively extend the panel recommendations to the permeation controls as well. ( 1) Large SI Engines The Panel recommended that EPA propose several possible provisions to address concerns that the new EPA standards could potentially place small businesses at a competitive disadvantage to larger entities in the industry. These provisions are described below. ( a) Using Certification and Emission Standards From Other EPA Programs. The Panel made several recommendations for this provision. First, the Panel recommended that EPA temporarily expand this arrangement to allow small numbers of constant­ speed engines up to 2.5 liters ( up to 30kW) to be certified to the Small SI standards. Second, the Panel further recommended that EPA seek comment on the appropriateness of limiting the sales level of 300. Third, the Panel recommended that EPA request comment on the anticipated cap of 30 kW on the special treatment provisions outlined above, or whether a higher cap on power rating is appropriate. Finally, the Panel recommended that EPA propose to allow small­ volume manufacturers producing engines up to 30kW to certify to the Small SI standards during the first 3 model years of the program. Thereafter, the standards and test procedures which could apply to other companies at the start of the program would apply to small businesses. We are not adopting this provision and are instead relying on the hardship provisions in the final rule, which will allow us to accomplish the objective of the proposed provision with more flexibility. ( b) Delay of Emission Standards. The Panel recommended that EPA propose to delay the applicability of the longterm standards to small­ volume manufacturers for three years beyond the date at which they would generally apply to accommodate the possibility that small companies need to undertake further design work to adequately optimize their designs and to allow them to recover the costs associated with the near­ term emission standards. We are also folding this provision into the scope of the hardship provision, but have decided to increase the delay to up to four years, depending on the nature of the hardship involved. ( c) Production­ Line Testing. The Panel made several recommendations for this provision. First, the Panel recommended that EPA adopt provisions allowing more flexibility than is available under the California Large SI program or other EPA programs in general to address the concern that production­ line testing is another area where small­ volume manufacturers typically face a difficult testing burden. Second, the Panel recommended that EPA allow small­ volume manufacturers to have a reduced testing rate if they have consistently good test results from testing production­ line engines. Finally, the Panel recommended that EPA allow small­ volume manufacturers to use alternative low­ cost testing options to show that production­ line engines meet emission standards. ( d) Deterioration Factors. The Panel recommended that EPA allow smallvolume manufacturers to develop deterioration factors based on available emission measurements and good engineering judgment. ( e) Hardship Provision. The Panel recommended that EPA propose two types of hardship provisions for Large SI engines. First the Panel recommended that EPA allow small businesses to petition EPA for up to three years of additional lead time to comply with the standards. Second, the Panel recommended that EPA allow small businesses to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply ( such as a supply contract broken by a parts supplier) and if the failure to sell the subject engines would have a major impact on the company's solvency. ( 2) Off­ Highway Motorcycles and ATVs The NPRM for this rule discussed several flexibility options for small businesses manufacturing recreational vehicles, based on the SBAR Panel process. When we reopened the comment period on May 1, 2002 to request comment on possible approaches to regulating permeation emissions from recreational vehicles, we did not specifically discuss small business issues. However, it is our intent that these provisions carry over to permeation controls as well. The Panel made the following recommendations for this subcategory: ( a) General Recommendations. ( 1) The Panel recommended that EPA propose to apply the flexibilities described below to engines produced or imported by small entities with combined offhighway motorcycle and ATV annual sales of less than 5,000 units per model year. ( 2) The Panel recommended that EPA request comment on the appropriateness of the 5,000 unit per model year threshold. ( 3) The Panel recommended that EPA request comment on allowing small entities with sales in excess of 5,000 units to certify using the flexible approaches described below for a number of engines equal to their 2000 or 2001 sales level. ( 4) The Panel recommended that EPA describe and seek comment on the effect of the standards on these entities, including a request for any data and/ or related studies to estimate the extent to which sales of their products are likely to be reduced as a result of changes in product price that are attributable to the emission standards. ( 5) The Panel recommended that, in the final rule, EPA assess any information received in response to this request for purposes of informing the final rule decision making process on whether additional flexibility ( beyond that considered in this report) is warranted. ( b) Additional Lead­ Time To Meet Emission Standards. First, the Panel recommended that EPA propose at least a two­ year delay, but seek comment on whether a larger time period is appropriate given the costs of compliance for small businesses and the relationship between importers and their suppliers. Second, the Panel recommended that EPA provide additional time for small­ volume manufacturers to revise their manufacturing process, and would allow importers to change their supply chain to acquire complying products. Third, the Panel recommended that EPA VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68335 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations request comment on the appropriate length for a delay ( lead­ time). ( c) Design Certification. The Panel recommended that EPA propose to permit small entities to use designbased certification. The Panel also recommended that EPA work with the small­ entity representatives and other members of the industry to develop appropriate criteria for such designbased certification. ( d) Broaden Engine Families. The Panel recommended that EPA request comment on engine family flexibility and conducting design­ based certification emissions testing. ( e) Production­ Line Testing Waiver. The Panel recommended that EPA propose to provide small manufacturers and small importers a waiver from manufacturer production­ line testing. The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on whether limits or the scope of this waiver are appropriate. ( f) Use of Assigned Deterioration Factors During Certification. The Panel recommended that EPA propose to provide small business with the option to use assigned deterioration factors. ( g) Using Certification and Emission Standards from Other EPA Programs. The Panel recommended that EPA propose to provide small business with this flexibility through the fifth year of the program and request comment on which of the already established standards and programs are believed to be a useful certification option for the small businesses. ( h) Averaging, Banking, and Trading. The Panel recommended that EPA propose to provide small business with the same averaging, banking, and trading program flexibilities that would apply for large manufacturers and request comment on how the provisions could be enhanced for small business to make them more useful. ( i) Hardship Provisions. The Panel recommended that EPA propose two types of hardship program for offhighway motorcycles and ATVs: First, EPA should allow small manufacturers and small importers to petition EPA for limited additional lead­ time to comply with the standards. Second, EPA should allow small manufacturers and small importers to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply ( such as a supply contract broken by a parts supplier) and if failure to sell the subject engines or vehicles would have a major impact on the company's solvency. The Panel also recommended that EPA propose both aspects of the hardship provisions for small offhighway motorcycle and ATV manufacturers and importers and seek comment on the implementation provisions. ( 3) Marine Vessels ( a) Delay Standards for Five Years. The Panel recommended that EPA delay the standards for five years for small businesses. ( b) Design­ Based Certification. The Panel recommended that EPA allow manufacturers to certify by design and to be able use this to generate credits under this approach. The Panel also recommended that EPA provide adequately detailed design specifications and associated emission levels for several technology options that could be used to certify. Although we proposed this approach, we were unable to specify any technology options for diesel engines that could be used for design­ based certification. We requested comment on such designs and received no comment. Therefore, we are not finalizing a design­ based certification option. However, we are finalizing the engine dresser provisions and expanding these provisions to include water­ cooled turbocharging. This will allow some engines to be exempt from the standards based on design. ( c) Broadly Defined Product Certification Families. The Panel recommended that EPA take comment on the need for broadly defined emission families and how these families should be defined. ( d) Hardship Provisions. The Panel recommended that EPA propose two types of hardship programs for marine engine manufacturers, boat builders and fuel tank manufacturers: First, that we should allow small businesses to petition us for additional lead time to comply with the standards. Second, EPA should allow small businesses to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply ( such as a supply contract broken by a parts supplier) and if the failure to sell the subject fuel tanks or boats would have a major impact on the company's solvency. The Panel also recommended that EPA work with small manufacturers to develop these criteria and how they would be used. ( e) Burden Reduction Approaches Designed for Small Marinizers of Marine Engines With Respect to NTE Provisions. The Panel recommended that EPA specifically include NTE in a design­ based approach. ( 4) Snowmobiles As noted above, permeation standards were not part of the original NPRM for this rule, which incorporated recommendations from the SBAR Panel process. When we reopened the comment period on May 1, 2002 to request comment on possible approaches to regulating permeation emissions from recreational vehicles, which would apply to snowmobiles as well as to off­ highway motorcycles and ATVs, we did not specifically discuss small business issues. However, it is our intent that the proposed flexibilities for exhaust emissions carry over to permeation controls for all three vehicle categories, to the extent that they are applicable. ( a) Delay of Emission Standards. The Panel recommended that EPA propose to delay the standards for small snowmobile manufacturers by two years from the date at which other manufacturers would be required to comply. The Panel also recommended that EPA propose that the emission standards for small snowmobile manufacturers be phased in over an additional two year ( four years to fully implement the standard). Thus, the 2006 Phase 1 standards would be phased in at 50/ 100 percent in 2008/ 2009, the Phase 2 standards would be phased in at 50/ 100 percent in 2012/ 2013, and the Phase 3 standards would be phased in at 50/ 100 percent in 2014/ 2015. ( b) Design­ Based Certification. The Panel recommended that EPA take comment on how design­ based certification could be applied to small snowmobile manufacturers, and that EPA work with the small entities in the design and implementation of this concept. ( c) Broader Engine Families. The Panel recommended that EPA propose a provision for small snowmobile manufactures that would use relaxed criteria for what constitutes an engine or vehicle family. ( d) Elimination of Production­ Line Testing Requirements. The Panel recommended that EPA propose that small snowmobile manufacturers not be subject to production­ line testing requirements. ( e) Use of Assigned DF During Certification. The Panel recommended that EPA propose to allow small snowmobile manufacturers to elect to use deterioration factors determined by EPA to demonstrate end of useful life emission levels, thus reducing development/ testing burdens, rather than performing a durability demonstration for each engine family as part of the certification testing requirement. ( f) Using Certification and Emission Standards From Other EPA Programs. The Panel recommended that EPA VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68336 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations propose to provide small business with the flexibility to use an engine certified to another EPA program without recertifying it in its new application provided that the manufacturer does not alter the engine in such a way as to cause it to exceed the emission standards it was originally certified to meet. ( g) Averaging, Banking and Trading. The Panel recommended that EPA propose an averaging, banking and trading program for snowmobiles, and seek comment on additional flexibilities related to emission credits that should be considered for small snowmobile manufacturers. ( h) Hardship Provisions. The Panel recommended that EPA propose two types of hardship programs for small snowmobile manufacturers. First, EPA should allow small snowmobile manufacturers to petition EPA for additional lead time to comply with the standards. Second, EPA should allow small snowmobile manufacturers to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply ( such as a supply contract broken by a parts supplier) and if failure to sell the subject engines or vehicles would have a major impact on the company's solvency. ( i) Unique Snowmobile Engines. The Panel recommended that EPA seek comment on an additional provision, which would allow a small snowmobile manufacturer to petition EPA for relaxed standards for one or more engine families. The Panel also recommended that EPA allow a provision for EPA to set an alternative standard at a level between the prescribed standard and the baseline level until the engine family is retired or modified in such a way as to increase emission and for the provision to be extended for up to 300 engines per year per manufacturer would assure it is sufficiently available for those manufacturers for whom the need is greatest. However, we received comment that the limit of 300 is too restrictive to be of much assistance to small businesses. Based on this comment we are adopting a limit for this provision of 600 snowmobiles per year. Finally, the Panel recommended that EPA seek comment on initial and deadline dates for the submission of such petitions. We received no comments in this area, but for clarity have decided to require at least nine months lead time by the petitioner. ( 5) Conclusion In summary, considering both exhaust emission and permeation regulations, we have found that only three small entities are likely to be impacted by more than 3 percent of their sales, and the degree of impact is likely to be further reduced by the flexibilities that are being finalized in this rulemaking. Therefore, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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, EPA 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 one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA 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 EPA 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 of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this rule contains federal mandates that may result in expenditures of more than $ 100 million to the private sector in any single year. EPA believes that this rule represents the least costly, most costeffective approach to achieve the air quality goals of the rule. The costs and benefits associated with the rule are discussed in Section IX and in the Small Business Support Document, as required by the UMRA. E. 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'' are 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.'' Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not have federalism implications ( i. e., the rules 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). Those requirements include providing all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68337 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations This 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. Although Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with representatives of various State and local governments in developing this rule. EPA has also consulted representatives from STAPPA/ ALAPCO, which represents state and local air pollution officials. F. 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 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. The emission standards and other related requirements for private businesses in this rule have national applicability and therefore do not uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal Governments. Further, no circumstances specific to such communities exist that would cause an impact on these communities beyond those discussed in the other sections of this rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, Section 5 501 of the Order directs the Agency to 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 considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. The effects of ozone and PM on children's health were addressed in detail in EPA's rulemaking to establish the NAAQS for these pollutants, and EPA is not revisiting those issues here. EPA believes, however, that the emission reductions from the strategies in this rulemaking will further reduce air toxics and the related adverse impacts on children's health. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The aim to reduce emissions from certain nonroad engines and have no effect on fuel formulation, distribution, or use. Generally, the final rule leads to reduced fuel usage due to the improvements in engine­ based emission­ control technologies. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule involves technical standards. The following paragraphs describe how we specify testing procedures for engines subject to this rule. The International Organization for Standardization ( ISO) has a voluntary consensus standard that can be used to test Large SI engines. However, the current version of that standard ( ISO 8178) is applicable only for steady­ state testing, not for transient testing. As described in the Final Regulatory Support Document, transient testing is an important part of the emissioncontrol program for these engines. We are therefore not adopting the ISO procedures in this rulemaking. Underwriters Laboratories ( UL) has adopted voluntary consensus standards for forklifts that are relevant to the new requirements for Large SI engines. UL sets a maximum temperature specification for gasoline and, for forklifts used in certain applications, defines requirements to avoid venting from gasoline fuel tanks. We are adopting a different temperature limit, because the maximum temperature specified by UL does not prevent fuel boiling. We are adopting separate measures to address venting of gasoline vapors, because of UL's provisions to allow venting with an orifice up to 1.78 mm ( 0.070 inches). We believe forklifts with such a vent would have unnecessarily high evaporative emissions. If the UL standard is revised to address these technical concerns, it would be appropriate to reference the UL standard in our regulations. An additional concern relates to the fact that the UL requirements apply only to forklifts ( and not all forklifts in the case of the restriction on vapor venting). EPA regulations would therefore need to, at a minimum, extend any published UL standards to other engines and equipment to which the UL standards would otherwise not apply. The Gas Processors Association has adopted standards with fuel specifications for liquefied petroleum gas. However, there is no existing regulations requiring suppliers to meet these specifications. Comments received on the rule indicate a high level of concern that in­ use fuel quality does not meet the published voluntary standards, so we are not relying on these fuel specifications to define fuels for certification testing. We are adopting requirements to test off­ highway motorcycles and all­ terrain vehicles with the Federal Test Procedure, a chassis­ based transient test. There is no voluntary consensus VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68338 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations standard that would adequately address engine or vehicle operation for suitable emission measurement. Furthermore, we are interested in pursuing an enginebased test procedure for all­ terrain vehicles. We intend to develop a new duty cycle for this, because there is no acceptable engine duty cycle today that would adequately represent the way these engines operate. For snowmobiles, we are adopting test procedures based on work that has been published, but not yet adopted as a voluntary consensus standard. For recreational marine diesel engines, we are adopting the same test procedures that we have established for commercial marine diesel engines ( with a new duty cycle appropriate for recreational applications). We are again adopting these procedures in place of the ISO 8178 standard that would apply to these engines. We believe that ISO 8178 relies too heavily on reference testing conditions. Because our test procedures need to represent in­ use operation typical of operation in the field, they must be based on a range of ambient conditions. We determined that the ISO procedures are not broadly usable in their current form, and therefore should not be adopted by reference. We remain hopeful that future ISO test procedures will be developed that are usable and accurate for the broad range of testing needed, and that such procedures could then be adopted. We expect that any such development of revised test procedures will be done in accordance with ISO procedures and in a balanced and transparent manner that includes the involvement of all interested parties, including industry, U. S. EPA, foreign government organizations, state governments, and environmental groups. In so doing, we believe that the resulting procedures would be `` global'' test procedures that can facilitate the free flow of international commerce for these products. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). K. Plain Language This document follows the guidelines of the June 1, 1998 Executive Memorandum on Plain Language in Government Writing. To read the text of the regulations, it is also important to understand the organization of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR). The CFR uses the following organizational names and conventions. Title 40 Protection of the Environment Chapter I Environmental Protection Agency Subchapter C Air Programs. This contains parts 50 to 99, where the Office of Air and Radiation has usually placed emission standards for motor vehicle and nonroad engines. Subchapter U Air Programs Supplement. This contains parts 1000 to 1299, where we intend to place regulations for air programs in future rulemakings. Part 1048 Control of Emissions from New, Large, Nonrecreational, Nonroad Spark­ ignition Engines. Most of the provisions in this part apply only to engine manufacturers. Part 1051 Control of Emissions from Recreational Engines and Vehicles. Most of the provisions in this part apply only to vehicle manufacturers. Part 1065 General Test Procedures for Engine Testing. Provisions of this part apply to anyone who tests engines to show that they meet emission standards. Part 1068 General Compliance Provisions for Engine Programs. Provisions of this part apply to everyone. Each part in the CFR has several subparts, sections, and paragraphs. The following illustration shows how these fit together. Part 1048 Subpart A Section 1048.1 ( a) ( b) ( 1) ( 2) ( i) ( ii) A cross reference to § 1048.1( b) in this illustration would refer to the parent paragraph ( b) and all its subordinate paragraphs. A reference to § 1048.1( b) introductory text'' would refer only to the single, parent paragraph ( b). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 89 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Vessels, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 90 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 91 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 94 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 1048 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 1051 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 1065 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research. 40 CFR Part 1068 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Imports, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68339 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Dated: September 13, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below. PART 89 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN­ USE NONROAD COMPRESSION­ IGNITION ENGINES 1. The authority for part 89 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601( a). Subpart A [ Amended] 2. Section 89.2 is amended by adding definitions for `` Aircraft'', `` Sparkignition and `` United States'' in alphabetic order and revising the definition of `` Compression­ ignition'' to read as follows: § 89.2 Definitions. * * * * * Aircraft means any vehicle capable of sustained air travel above treetop heights. * * * * * Compression­ ignition means relating to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion engine that is not a sparkignition engine. * * * * * Spark­ ignition means relating to a gasoline­ fueled engine or other engines with a spark plug ( or other sparking device) and with operating characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical Otto combustion cycle. Spark­ ignition engines usually use a throttle to regulate intake air flow to control power during normal operation. * * * * * United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. * * * * * Subpart B [ Amended] 3. Section 89.106 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) read as follows: § 89.106 Prohibited controls. * * * * * ( b) You may not design your engines with emission­ control devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety while operating. For example, this would apply if the engine emits a noxious or toxic substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes to such an unreasonable risk. PART 90 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK­ IGNITION ENGINES AT OR BELOW 19 KILOWATTS 4. The heading to part 90 is revised to read as set forth above. 5. The authority for part 90 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601( a). Subpart A [ Amended] 6. Section 90.1 is revised to read as follows: § 90.1 Applicability. ( a) This part applies to new nonroad spark­ ignition engines and vehicles with gross power output at or below 19 kilowatts ( kW) used for any purpose, unless we exclude them under paragraph ( d) of this section. ( b) This part also applies to engines with a gross power output above 19 kW if the manufacturer uses the provisions of 40 CFR 1048.615 or 1051.145( a)( 3) to exempt them from the requirements of 40 CFR part 1048 or 1051, respectively. Compliance with the provisions of this part is a required condition of those exemptions. ( c) [ Reserved] ( d) The following nonroad engines and vehicles are not subject to the provisions of this part: ( 1) Engines certified to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 1051 ( e. g., engines used in snowmobiles). This part nevertheless applies to engines used in recreational vehicles if the manufacturer uses the provisions of 40 CFR 1051.145( a)( 3) to exempt them from the requirements of 40 CFR part 1051. Compliance with the provisions of this part is a required condition of that exemption. ( 2) Engines used in highway motorcycles. See 40 CFR part 86, subpart E. ( 3) Propulsion marine engines. See 40 CFR part 91. This part applies with respect to auxiliary marine engines. ( 4) Engines used in aircraft. See 40 CFR part 87. ( 5) Engines certified to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 1048. ( 6) Hobby engines. ( 7) Engines that are used exclusively in emergency and rescue equipment where no certified engines are available to power the equipment safely and practically, but not including generators, alternators, compressors or pumps used to provide remote power to a rescue tool. The equipment manufacturer bears the responsibility to ascertain on an annual basis and maintain documentation available to the Administrator that no appropriate certified engine is available from any source. ( e) Engines subject to the provisions of this subpart are also subject to the provisions found in subparts B through N of this part, except that Subparts C, H, M and N of this part apply only to Phase 2 engines as defined in this subpart. ( f) Certain text in this part is identified as pertaining to Phase 1 or Phase 2 engines. Such text pertains only to engines of the specified Phase. If no indication of Phase is given, the text pertains to all engines, regardless of Phase. 7. Section 90.2 is amended by adding a new paragraph ( c) to read as follows: § 90.2 Effective dates. * * * * * ( c) Notwithstanding paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section, engines used in recreational vehicles with engine rated speed greater than or equal to 5,000 rpm and with no installed speed governor are not subject to the provisions of this part through the 2005 model year. Starting with the 2006 model year, all the requirements of this part apply to engines used in these vehicles if they are not included in the scope of 40 CFR part 1051. 8. Section 90.3 is amended by adding definitions for `` Aircraft'', `` Hobby engines'', `` Marine engine'', `` Marine vessel'', `` Recreational'', and `` United States'' in alphabetical order, to read as follows: § 90.3 Definitions. * * * * * Aircraft means any vehicle capable of sustained air travel above treetop heights. * * * * * Hobby engines means engines used in reduced­ scale models of vehicles that are not capable of transporting a person ( for example, model airplanes). Marine engine means an engine that someone installs or intends to install on a marine vessel. There are two kinds of marine engines: ( 1) Propulsion marine engine means a marine engine that moves a vessel through the water or directs the vessel's movement. ( 2) Auxiliary marine engine means a marine engine not used for propulsion. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68340 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Marine vessel means a vehicle that is capable of operation in water but is not capable of operation out of water. Amphibious vehicles are not marine vessels. * * * * * Recreational means, for purposes of this part, relating to a vehicle intended by the vehicle manufacturer to be operated primarily for pleasure. * * * * * United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. * * * * * Subpart B [ Amended] 9. Section 90.103 is amended by redesignating paragraph ( a)( 2)( v) as paragraph ( a)( 2)( vi) and adding a new paragraph ( a)( 2)( v) to read as follows: § 90.103 Exhaust emission standards. ( a)* * * ( 2)* * * ( v) The engine must be used in a recreational application, with a combined total vehicle dry weight under 20 kilograms; * * * * * 10. Section 90.110 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) to read as follows: § 90.110 Requirement of certification prohibited controls. * * * * * ( b) You may not design your engines with emission­ control devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety while operating. For example, this would apply if the engine emits a noxious or toxic substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes to such an unreasonable risk. PART 91 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM MARINE SPARK IGNITION ENGINES 11. The authority for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601( a). Subpart A [ Amended] 12. Section 91.3 is amended by adding the definition for `` United States'' in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 91.3 Definitions. * * * * * United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. * * * * * Subpart B [ Amended] 13. Section 91.110 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) to read as follows: § 91.110 Requirement of certification prohibited controls. * * * * * ( b) You may not design your engines with emission­ control devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety while operating. For example, this would apply if the engine emits a noxious or toxic substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes to such an unreasonable risk. Subpart E [ Amended] 14. Section 91.419 is amended in paragraph ( b) by revising the equations for MHCexh and Mexh to read as follows: § 91.419 Raw emission sampling calculations. * * * * * ( b) * * * MHCexh = 12.01 + 1.008 × a * * * * * M K) 28 ( 1 exh = × + × + × + × + × + × + × × M WHC WCO WCO WNO WH WHC WCO WCO WNO WH K HC x x exh 10 28 01 10 44 1 10 46 01 10 2 016 10 18 01 1 01 100 10 10 100 10 6 2 2 2 6 2 2 4 2 4 2 2 . . . . . ( . ) * * * * * Subpart G [ Amended] 15. Appendix A to Subpart G of part 91 is amended by revising Table 1 to read as follows: Appendix A to Subpart G of Part 91 Sampling Plans for Selective Enforcement Auditing of Marine Engines TABLE 1. SAMPLING PLAN CODE LETTER Annual engine family sales Code letter 20 50 ..................................... AA1 TABLE 1. SAMPLING PLAN CODE LETTER Continued Annual engine family sales Code letter 20 99 ..................................... A1 100 299 ................................. B 300 499 ................................. C 500 or greater ........................ D 1 A manufacturer may optionally use either the sampling plan for code letter `` AA'' or sampling plan for code letter `` A'' for Selective Enforcement Audits of engine families with annual sales between 20 and 50 engines. Additional the manufacturers may switch between these plans during the audit. * * * * * Subpart I [ Amended] 16. Section 91.803 is amended by revising paragraph ( a) to read as follows: § 91.803 Manufacturer in­ use testing program. ( a) EPA shall annually identify engine families and those configurations within families which the manufacturers must then subject to in­ use testing. For each model year, EPA may identify the following number of engine families for testing, based on the number of the manufacturer's engine families to which this subpart is applicable produced in that model year: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08NO02.001</ MATH> 68341 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 1) For manufactures with three or fewer engine families, EPA may identify a single engine family. ( 2) For manufacturers with four or more engine families, EPA may identify a number of engine families that is no greater than twenty­ five percent of the number of engine families to which this subpart is applicable that are produced by the manufacturer in that model year. * * * * * PART 94 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM MARINE COMPRESSIONIGNITION ENGINES 17. The heading to part 94 is revised to read as set forth above. 18. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7549, 7550 and 7601( a). Subpart A [ Amended] 19. Section 94.1 is revised to read as follows: § 94.1 Applicability. ( a) Except as noted in paragraphs ( b) and ( c) of this section, the provisions of this part apply to manufacturers ( including post­ manufacture marinizers and dressers), rebuilders, owners and operators of: ( 1) Marine engines that are compression­ ignition engines manufactured ( or that otherwise become new) on or after January 1, 2004; ( 2) Marine vessels manufactured ( or that otherwise become new) on or after January 1, 2004 and which include a compression­ ignition marine engine. ( b) Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph ( c) of this section, the requirements and prohibitions of this part do not apply to three types of marine engines: ( 1) Category 3 marine engines; ( 2) Marine engines with rated power below 37 kW; or ( 3) Marine engines on foreign vessels. ( c) The provisions of Subpart L of this part apply to everyone with respect to the engines identified in paragraph ( a) of this section. 20. Section 94.2 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) introductory text, removing the definition for `` Commercial marine engine'', revising definitions for `` Compression­ ignition'', `` Designated officer'', `` Passenger'', `` Recreational marine engine'', `` Recreational vessel'', and `` United States'', and adding new definitions for `` Commercial'', `` Small­ volume boat builder'', `` Small­ volume manufacturer'', and `` Spark­ ignition'' in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 94.2 Definitions. * * * * * ( b) As used in this part, all terms not defined in this section shall have the meaning given them in the Act: * * * * * Commercial means relating to an engine or vessel that is not a recreational marine engine or a recreational vessel. * * * * * Compression­ ignition means relating to an engine that is not a spark­ ignition engine. * * * * * Designated Officer means the Manager, Engine Programs Group ( 6403 J), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. * * * * * Passenger has the meaning given by 46 U. S. C. 2101 ( 21) and ( 21a). In the context of commercial vessels, this generally means that a passenger is a person that pays to be on the vessel. * * * * * Recreational marine engine means a Category 1 propulsion marine engine that is intended by the manufacturer to be installed on a recreational vessel, and which is permanently labeled as follows: `` THIS ENGINE IS CATEGORIZED AS A RECREATIONAL MARINE ENGINE UNDER 40 CFR PART 94. INSTALLATION OF THIS ENGINE IN ANY NONRECREATIONAL VESSEL IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY.''. Recreational vessel has the meaning given in 46 U. S. C. 2101 ( 25), but excludes `` passenger vessels'' and `` small passenger vessels'' as defined by 46 U. S. C. 2101 ( 22) and ( 35) and excludes vessels used solely for competition. In general, for this part, `` recreational vessel'' means a vessel that is intended by the vessel manufacturer to be operated primarily for pleasure or leased, rented or chartered to another for the latter's pleasure, excluding the following vessels: ( 1) Vessels of less than 100 gross tons that carry more than 6 passengers ( as defined in this section). ( 2) Vessels of 100 gross tons or more that carry one or more passengers ( as defined in this section). ( 3) Vessels used solely for competition. * * * * * Small­ volume boat builder means a boat manufacturer with fewer than 500 employees and with annual U. S.­ directed production of fewer than 100 boats. For manufacturers owned by a parent company, these limits apply to the combined production and number of employees of the parent company and all its subsidiaries. Small­ volume manufacturer means a manufacturer with annual U. S.­ directed production of fewer than 1,000 internal combustion engines ( marine and nonmarine). For manufacturers owned by a parent company, the limit applies to the production of the parent company and all its subsidiaries. Spark­ ignition means relating to a gasoline­ fueled engine or other engines with a spark plug ( or other sparking device) and with operating characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical Otto combustion cycle. Spark­ ignition engines usually use a throttle to regulate intake air flow to control power during normal operation. * * * * * United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. * * * * * 21. Section 94.7 is amended by revising paragraphs ( c), ( d), and ( e) to read as follows: § 94.7 General standards and requirements. * * * * * ( c) You may not design your engines with emission­ control devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety while operating. For example, this would apply if the engine emits a noxious or toxic substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes to such an unreasonable risk. ( d) All engines subject to the emission standards of this part shall be equipped with a connection in the engine exhaust system that is located downstream of the engine and before any point at which the exhaust contacts water ( or any other cooling/ scrubbing medium) for the temporary attachment of gaseous and/ or particulate emission sampling equipment. This connection shall be internally threaded with standard pipe threads of a size not larger than one­ half inch, and shall be closed by a pipe­ plug when not in use. Equivalent connections are allowed. Engine manufacturers may comply with this requirement by providing vessel manufacturers with clear instructions explaining how to meet this requirement, and noting in the instructions that failure to comply may VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68342 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations invalidate a certificate and subject the vessel manufacturer to federal penalties. ( e) Electronically controlled engines subject to the emission standards of this part shall broadcast on engine's controller area networks engine torque ( as percent of maximum torque at that speed) and engine speed. 22. Section 94.8 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a), ( e), ( f) introductory text, and ( f)( 1) to read as follows: § 94.8 Exhaust emission standards. ( a) Exhaust emissions from marine compression­ ignition engines shall not exceed the applicable exhaust emission standards contained in Table A 1 as follows: TABLE A 1. PRIMARY TIER 2 EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS ( G/ KW­ HR) Engine size liters/ cylinder, rated power Category Model yeara THC+ NOX g/ kW­ hr CO g/ kW­ hr PM g/ kWhr Disp. < 0.9 and .......................................................................... power 37 kW .......................................................................... Category 1, Commercial ......... 2005 7.5 5.0 0.40 Category 1, Recreational ........ 2007 7.5 5.0 0.40 0.9 disp. < 1.2 ........................................................................ All power levels ......................................................................... Category 1, Commercial ......... 2004 7.2 5.0 0.30 Category 1, Recreational ........ 2006 7.2 5.0 0.30 1.2 disp. < 2.5 ........................................................................ All power levels ......................................................................... Category 1, Commercial ......... 2004 7.2 5.0 0.20 Category 1, Recreational ........ 2006 7.2 5.0 0.20 2.5 disp. < 5.0 ........................................................................ All power levels ......................................................................... Category 1, Commercial ......... 2007 7.2 5.0 0.20 Category 1, Recreational ........ 2009 7.2 5.0 0.20 5.0 disp. < 15.0 ...................................................................... All power levels ......................................................................... Category 2 .............................. 2007 7.8 5.0 0.27 15.0 disp. < 20.0 .................................................................... Power < 3300 kW ...................................................................... Category 2 .............................. 2007 8.7 5.0 0.50 15.0 disp. < 20.0 .................................................................... Power < 3300 kW ...................................................................... Category 2 .............................. 2007 9.8 5.0 0.50 20.0 disp. < 25.0 .................................................................... All power levels ......................................................................... Category 2 .............................. 2009 9.8 5.0 0.50 25.0 disp. < 30.0 .................................................................... All power levels ......................................................................... Category 2 .............................. 2007 11.0 5.0 0.50 a The dates listed indicate the model years for which the specified standards start. * * * * * ( e) Exhaust emissions from propulsion engines subject to the standards ( or FELs) in paragraph ( a), ( c), or ( f) of this section shall not exceed: ( 1) Commercial marine engines. ( i) 1.20 times the applicable standards ( or FELs) when tested in accordance with the supplemental test procedures specified in § 94.106 at loads greater than or equal to 45 percent of the maximum power at rated speed or 1.50 times the applicable standards ( or FELs) at loads less than 45 percent of the maximum power at rated speed. ( ii) As an option, the manufacturer may choose to comply with limits of 1.25 times the applicable standards ( or FELs) when tested over the whole power range in accordance with the supplemental test procedures specified in § 94.106, instead of the limits in paragraph ( e)( 1)( i) of this section. ( 2) Recreational marine engines. ( i) 1.20 times the applicable standards ( or FELs) when tested in accordance with the supplemental test procedures specified in § 94.106 at loads greater than or equal to 45 percent of the maximum power at rated speed and speeds less than 95 percent of maximum test speed, or 1.50 times the applicable standards ( or FELs) at loads less than 45 percent of the maximum power at rated speed, or 1.50 times the applicable standards ( or FELs) at any loads for speeds greater than or equal to 95 percent of the maximum test speed. ( ii) As an option, the manufacturer may choose to comply with limits of 1.25 times the applicable standards ( or FELs) when tested over the whole power range in accordance with the supplemental test procedures specified in § 94.106, instead of the limits in paragraph ( e)( 2)( i) of this section. ( f) The following defines the requirements for low­ emitting Blue Sky Series engines: ( 1) Voluntary standards. Engines may be designated `` Blue Sky Series'' engines through the 2012 model year by meeting the voluntary standards listed in Table A 2, which apply to all certification and in­ use testing, as follows: TABLE A 2. VOLUNTARY EMISSION STANDARDS ( G/ KW­ HR) Rated brake power ( kW) THC+ NOX PM Power 37 kW, and displ.< 0.9 ................................................................................................................................ 4.0 0.24 0.9 displ.< 1.2 .......................................................................................................................................................... 4.0 0.18 1.2 displ.< 2.5 .......................................................................................................................................................... 4.0 0.12 2.5 displ.< 5 ............................................................................................................................................................. 5.0 0.12 5 displ.< 15 .............................................................................................................................................................. 5.0 0.16 15 disp.< 20, and power < 3300 kW ..................................................................................................................... 5.2 0.30 15 disp.< 20, and power 3300 kW ..................................................................................................................... 5.9 0.30 20 disp.< 25 ........................................................................................................................................................... 5.9 0.30 25 disp.< 30 ........................................................................................................................................................... 6.6 0.30 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68343 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations * * * * * 23. Section 94.9 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a) introductory text and ( a)( 1) to read as follows: § 94.9 Compliance with emission standards. ( a) The general standards and requirements in § 94.7 and the emission standards in § 94.8 apply to each new engine throughout its useful life period. The useful life is specified both in years and in hours of operation, and ends when either of the values ( hours of operation or years) is exceeded. ( 1) The minimum useful life is: ( i) 10 years or 1,000 hours of operation for recreational Category 1 engines; ( i) 10 years or 10,000 hours of operation for commercial Category 1 engines; ( iii) 10 years or 20,000 hours of operation for Category 2 engines. * * * * * 24. Section 94.12 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs ( a), ( b)( 1), and ( e) and adding new paragraphs ( f) and ( g) to read as follows: § 94.12 Interim provisions. This section contains provisions that apply for a limited number of calendar years or model years. These provisions apply instead of the other provisions of this part. ( a) Compliance date of standards. Certain companies may delay compliance with emission standards. Companies wishing to take advantage of this provision must inform the Designated Officer of their intent to do so in writing before the date that compliance with the standards would otherwise be mandatory. ( 1) Post­ manufacture marinizers may elect to delay the model year of the Tier 2 standards for commercial engines as specified in § 94.8 by one year for each engine family. ( 2) Small­ volume manufacturers may elect to delay the model year of the Tier 2 standards for recreational engines as specified in § 94.8 by five years for each engine family. ( b) Early banking of emission credits. ( 1) A manufacturer may optionally certify engines manufactured before the date the Tier 2 standards take effect to earn emission credits under the averaging, banking, and trading program. Such optionally certified engines are subject to all provisions relating to mandatory certification and enforcement described in this part. Manufacturers may begin earning credits for recreational engines on December 9, 2002. * * * * * ( e) Compliance date of NTE requirements ( 1) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this part, the requirements of § 94.8( e) for commercial marine engines start with 2010 model year engines for postmanufacture marinizers and 2007 model year engines for all other engine manufacturers. ( 2) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this part, the requirements of § 94.8( e) for recreational marine engines start with 2012 model year engines for post­ manufacture marinizers and 2009 model year engines for all other engine manufacturers. ( f) Flexibility for small­ volume boat builders. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this part, manufacturers may sell uncertified recreational engines to small­ volume boat builders during the first five years for which the emission standards in § 94.8 apply, subject to the following provisions: ( 1) The U. S.­ directed production volume of boats from any small­ volume boat builder using uncertified engines during the total five­ year period may not exceed 80 percent of the manufacturer's average annual production for the three years prior to the general applicability of the recreational engine standards in § 94.8, except as allowed in paragraph ( f)( 2) of this section. ( 2) Small­ volume boat builders may exceed the production limits in paragraph ( f)( 1) of this section, provided they do not exceed 20 boats during the five­ year period or 10 boats in any single calendar year. This does not apply to boats powered by engines with displacement greater than 2.5 liters per cylinder. ( 3) Small­ volume boat builders must keep records of all the boats and engines produced under this paragraph ( f), including boat and engine model numbers, serial numbers, and dates of manufacture. Records must also include information verifying compliance with the limits in paragraph ( f)( 1) or ( f)( 2) of this section. Keep these records until at least two full years after you no longer use the provisions in this paragraph ( f). ( 4) Manufacturers must add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in English, to a readily visible part of each engine exempted under this paragraph ( f). This label must include at least the following items: ( i) The label heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( ii) Your corporate name and trademark. ( iii) Engine displacement ( in liters), rated power, and model year of the engine or whom to contact for further information. ( iv) The statement `` THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 94.12( f) FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''. ( g) Flexibility for engines over 560kW. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this part, manufacturers may choose to delay certification of marine engines with less than 2.5 liters per cylinder and rated power above 560 kW, that are derived from a land­ based nonroad engine with a rated power greater than 560 kW, if they do all of the following: ( 1) Certify all of their applicable marine engines with less than 2.5 liters per cylinder and rated power above 560 kW to a NOX standard of 6.4 g/ kW­ hr for model years 2008 through 2012. ( 2) Notify EPA in writing before 2004 of their intent to use this provision. This notification must include a signed statement certifying that the manufacturer will comply with all the provisions of this paragraph ( g). ( 3) Add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in English, to a readily visible part of each engine exempted under this paragraph ( f). This label must include at least the following items: ( i) The label heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( ii) Your corporate name and trademark. ( iii) Engine displacement ( in liters), rated power, and model year of the engine or whom to contact for further information. ( iv) The statement `` THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 94.12( g) FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''. Subpart B [ Amended] 25. Section 94.104 is amended by redesignating paragraph ( c) as paragraph ( d) and adding a new paragraph ( c) to read as follows: § 94.104 Test procedures for Category 2 marine engines. * * * * * ( c) Conduct testing at ambient temperatures from 13 ° C to 30 ° C. * * * * * 26. Section 94.105 is amended by revising paragraph ( b) text preceding Table B 1, revising ``#'' to read `` ± ' ' in footnotes 1 and 2 in the tables in paragraphs ( b), ( c)( 1), ( c)( 2), and ( d)( 1), and adding a new paragraph ( e) to read as follows: § 94.105 Duty cycles. * * * * * ( b) General cycle. Propulsion engines that are used with ( or intended to be VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68344 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations used with) fixed­ pitch propellers, and any other engines for which the other duty cycles of this section do not apply, shall be tested using the duty cycle described in the following Table B 1: * * * * * ( e) Recreational. For the purpose of determining compliance with the emission standards of § 94.8, recreational engines shall be tested using the duty cycle described in Table B 5, which follows: TABLE B 5. RECREATIONAL MARINE DUTY CYCLE Mode No. Engine speed( 1) ( percent of maximum test speed) Percent of maximum test power( 2) Minimum time in mode ( minutes) Weighting factors 1 ....................................................................................................................... 100 100 5.0 0.08 2 ....................................................................................................................... 91 75 5.0 0.13 3 ....................................................................................................................... 80 50 5.0 0.17 4 ....................................................................................................................... 63 25 5.0 0.32 5 ....................................................................................................................... idle 0 5.0 0.30 1 Engine speed: ± 2 percent of point. 2 Power: ± 2 percent of engine maximum value. 27. Section 94.106 is amended by revising paragraphs ( b) introductory text, ( b)( 1) introductory text, ( b)( 2) introductory text, ( b)( 3) introductory text, and ( b)( 4) and adding a new paragraph ( b)( 5) to read as follows: § 94.106 Supplemental test procedures. * * * * * ( b) The specified Not to Exceed Zones for marine engines are defined as follows. These Not to Exceed Zones apply, unless a modified zone is established under paragraph ( c) of this section. ( 1) For commercial Category 1 engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 94.105( b), the Not to Exceed zones are defined as follows: * * * * * ( 2) For Category 2 engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 94.105( b), the Not to Exceed zones are defined as follows: * * * * * ( 3) For engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 94.105( c)( 2), the Not to Exceed zones are defined as follows: * * * * * ( 4) For engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 94.105( c)( 1), the Not to Exceed zone is defined as any load greater than or equal to 25 percent of maximum power at rated speed, and any speed at which the engine operates in use. ( 5) For recreational marine engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 94.105( e), the Not to Exceed zones are defined as follows: ( i) The Not to Exceed zone is the region between the curves power = 1.15 × SPD2 and power = 0.85 × SPD4, excluding all operation below 25% of maximum power at rated speed and excluding all operation below 63% of maximum test speed. ( ii) This zone is divided into three subzones, one below 45% of maximum power at maximum test speed; one above 95% of maximum test speed; and a third area including all of the remaining area of the NTE zone. ( iii) SPD in paragraph ( b)( 5)( i) of this section refers to percent of maximum test speed. ( iv) See Figure B 4 for an illustration of this Not to Exceed zone as follows: BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68345 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations BILLING CODE 6560 50 C 28. Section 94.108 is amended in paragraph ( a)( 1) by revising footnote 1 in Table B 5 to read as follows: § 94.108 Test fuels. ( a) * * * ( 1) * * * TABLE B 5. FEDERAL TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS * * * * * * * 1 All ASTM procedures in this table have been incorporated by reference. See § 94.5. * * * * * * * VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08NO02.003</ GPH> 68346 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations * * * * * Subpart C [ Amended] 29. Section 94.203 is amended by revising paragraphs ( d)( 14) and ( d)( 16) to read as follows: § 94.203 Application for certification. * * * * * ( d) * * * ( 14) A statement that all the engines included in the engine family comply with the Not To Exceed standards specified in § 94.8( e) when operated under all conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal operation and use; the manufacturer also must provide a detailed description of all testing, engineering analyses, and other information which provides the basis for this statement. * * * * * ( 16) A statement indicating duty­ cycle and application of the engine ( e. g., used to propel planing vessels, use to propel vessels with variable­ pitch propellers, constant­ speed auxiliary, recreational, etc.). * * * * * 30. Section 94.204 is amended by removing `` and'' at the end of paragraph ( b)( 9), adding ``; and'' at the end of paragraph ( b)( 10), adding a new paragraph ( b)( 11), and revising paragraph ( e) to read as follows: § 94.204 Designation of engine families. * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 11) Class ( commercial or recreational). * * * * * ( e) Upon request by the manufacturer, the Administrator may allow engines that would be required to be grouped into separate engine families based on the criteria in paragraph ( b) or ( c) of this section to be grouped into a single engine family if the manufacturer demonstrates that the engines will have similar emission characteristics; however, recreational and commercial engines may not be grouped in the same engine family. This request must be accompanied by emission information supporting the appropriateness of such combined engine families. 31. Section 94.209 is revised to read as follows: § 94.209 Special provisions for postmanufacture marinizers and small­ volume manufacturers. ( a) Broader engine families. Instead of the requirements of § 94.204, an engine family may consist of any engines subject to the same emission standards. This does not change any of the requirements of this part for showing that an engine family meets emission standards. To be eligible to use the provisions of this paragraph ( a), the manufacturer must demonstrate one of the following: ( 1) It is a post­ manufacture marinizer and that the base engines used for modification have a valid certificate of conformity issued under 40 CFR part 89 or 40 CFR part 92 or the heavy­ duty engine provisions of 40 CFR part 86. ( 2) It is a small­ volume manufacturer. ( b) Hardship relief. Post­ manufacture marinizers, small­ volume manufacturers, and small­ volume boat builders may take any of the otherwise prohibited actions identified in § 94.1103( a)( 1) if approved in advance by the Administrator, subject to the following requirements: ( 1) Application for relief must be submitted to the Designated Officer in writing prior to the earliest date in which the applying manufacturer would be in violation of § 94.1103. The manufacturer must submit evidence showing that the requirements for approval have been met. ( 2) The conditions causing the impending violation must not be substantially the fault of the applying manufacturer. ( 3) The conditions causing the impending violation must jeopardize the solvency of the applying manufacturer if relief is not granted. ( 4) The applying manufacturer must demonstrate that no other allowances under this part will be available to avoid the impending violation. ( 5) Any relief may not exceed one year beyond the date relief is granted. ( 6) The Administrator may impose other conditions on the granting of relief including provisions to recover the lost environmental benefit. ( 7) The manufacturer must add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in English, to a readily visible part of each engine exempted under this paragraph ( b). This label must include at least the following items: ( i) The label heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( ii) Your corporate name and trademark. ( iii) Engine displacement ( in liters), rated power, and model year of the engine or whom to contact for further information. ( iv) The statement `` THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 94.209( b) FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''. ( c) Extension of deadlines. Smallvolume manufacturers may use the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250 to ask for an extension of a deadline to meet emission standards. We may require that you use available base engines that have been certified to emission standards for land­ based engines until you are able to produce engines certified to the requirements of this part. 32. Section 94.212 is amended by revising paragraph ( b)( 10) to read as follows: § 94.212 Labeling. * * * * * ( b) Engine labels. * * * ( 10) The application for which the engine family is certified. ( For example: constant­ speed auxiliary, variable­ speed propulsion engines used with fixedpitch propellers, recreational, etc.) * * * * * 33. Section 94.218 is amended by adding a new paragraph ( d)( 2)( iv) to read as follows: § 94.218 Deterioration factor determination. * * * * * ( d) * * * ( 2) * * * ( iv) Assigned deterioration factors. Small­ volume manufacturers may use deterioration factors established by EPA. Subpart D [ Amended] 34. Section 94.304 is amended by revising paragraph ( k) to read as follows: § 94.304 Compliance requirements. * * * * * ( k) The following provisions limit credit exchanges between different types of engines: ( 1) Credits generated by Category 1 engine families may be used for compliance by Category 1 or Category 2 engine families. Credits generated from Category 1 engine families for use by Category 2 engine families must be discounted by 25 percent. ( 2) Credits generated by Category 2 engine families may be used for compliance only by Category 2 engine families. ( 3) Credits may not be exchanged between recreational and commercial engines. * * * * * Subpart F [ Amended] 35. Section 94.501 is amended by revising paragraph ( a) to read as follows: § 94.501 Applicability. ( a) The requirements of this subpart are applicable to manufacturers of engines subject to the provisions of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68347 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Subpart A of this part, excluding smallvolume manufacturers. * * * * * 36. Section 94.503 is amended by adding a new paragraph ( d) to read as follows: § 94.503 General requirements. * * * * * ( d) If you certify an engine family with carryover emission data, as described in § 94.206( c), and these equivalent engine families consistently pass the production­ line testing requirements over the preceding twoyear period, you may ask for a reduced testing rate for further production­ line testing for that family. The minimum testing rate is one engine per engine family. If we reduce your testing rate, we may limit our approval to any number of model years. In determining whether to approve your request, we may consider the number of engines that have failed the emission tests. Subpart J [ Amended] 37. Section 94.907 is amended by revising paragraphs ( d) and ( g) to read as follows: § 94.907 Engine dressing exemption. * * * * * ( d) New marine engines that meet all the following criteria are exempt under this section: ( 1) You must produce it by marinizing an engine covered by a valid certificate of conformity from one of the following programs: ( i) Heavy­ duty highway engines ( 40 CFR part 86). ( ii) Land­ based nonroad diesel engines ( 40 CFR part 89). ( iii) Locomotive engines ( 40 CFR part 92). ( 2) The engine must have the label required under 40 CFR part 86, 89, or 92. ( 3) You must not make any changes to the certified engine that could reasonably be expected to increase its emissions. For example, if you make any of the following changes to one of these engines, you do not qualify for the engine dressing exemption: ( i) Changing any fuel system parameters from the certified configuration. ( ii) Replacing an original turbocharger, except that small­ volume manufacturers of recreational engines may replace an original turbocharger with one that matches the performance of the original turbocharger. ( iii) Modify or design the marine engine cooling or aftercooling system so that temperatures or heat rejection rates are outside the original engine manufacturer's specified ranges. ( 4) You must make sure that fewer than 50 percent of the engine model's total sales, from all companies, are used in marine applications. * * * * * ( g) If your engines do not meet the criteria listed in paragraphs ( d)( 2) through ( d)( 4) of this section, they will be subject to the standards and prohibitions of this part. Marinization without a valid exemption or certificate of conformity would be a violation of § 94.1103( a)( 1) and/ or the tampering prohibitions of the applicable landbased regulations ( 40 CFR part 86, 89, or 92). * * * * * Subpart L [ Amended] 38. Section 94.1103 is amended by revising paragraph ( a)( 5) to read as follows: § 94.1103 Prohibited acts. ( a) * * * ( 5) For a manufacturer of marine vessels to distribute in commerce, sell, offer for sale, or deliver for introduction into commerce a new vessel containing an engine not covered by a certificate of conformity applicable for an engine model year the same as or later than the calendar year in which the manufacture of the new vessel is initiated. This prohibition covers improper installation in a manner such that the installed engine would not be covered by the engine manufacturer's certificate. Improper installation would include, but is not limited to, failure to follow the engine manufacturer's instructions related to engine cooling, exhaust aftertreatment, emission sampling ports, or any other emission­ related component, parameter, or setting. In general, you may use up your normal inventory of engines not certified to new emission standards if they were built before the date of the new standards. However, we consider stockpiling of these engines to be a violation of paragraph ( a)( 1)( i)( A) of this section. ( Note: For the purpose of this paragraph ( a)( 5), the manufacture of a vessel is initiated when the keel is laid, or the vessel is at a similar stage of construction.) * * * * * 39. A new subchapter U is added to chapter I, consisting of parts 1048, 1051, 1065, and 1068, to read as follows: SUBCHAPTER U AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS PART 1048 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW, LARGE NONROAD SPARK­ IGNITION ENGINES Subpart A Determining How to Follow This Part Sec. 1048.1 Does this part apply to me? 1048.5 Which engines are excluded or exempted from this part's requirements? 1048.10 What main steps must I take to comply with this part? 1048.15 Do any other regulation parts affect me? 1048.20 What requirements from this part apply to my excluded engines? Subpart B Emission Standards and Related Requirements 1048.101 What exhaust emission standards must my engines meet? 1048.105 What evaporative emissions standards and requirements apply? 1048.110 How must my engines diagnose malfunctions? 1048.115 What other requirements must my engines meet? 1048.120 What warranty requirements apply to me? 1048.125 What maintenance instructions must I give to buyers? 1048.130 What installation instructions must I give to equipment manufacturers? 1048.135 How must I label and identify the engines I produce? 1048.140 What are the provisions for certifying Blue Sky Series engines? 1048.145 What provisions apply only for a limited time? Subpart C Certifying Engine Families 1048.201 What are the general requirements for submitting a certification application? 1048.205 What must I include in my application? 1048.210 May I get preliminary approval before I complete my application? 1048.215 What happens after I complete my application? 1048.220 How do I amend the maintenance instructions in my application? 1048.225 How do I amend my application to include new or modified engines? 1048.230 How do I select engine families? 1048.235 What emission testing must I perform for my application for a certificate of conformity? 1048.240 How do I demonstrate that my engine family complies with exhaust emission standards? 1048.245 How do I demonstrate that my engine family complies with evaporative emission standards? 1048.250 What records must I keep and make available to EPA? 1048.255 When may EPA deny, revoke, or void my certificate of conformity? Subpart D Testing Production­ line Engines 1048.301 When must I test my productionline engines? VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68348 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 1048.305 How must I prepare and test my production­ line engines? 1048.310 How must I select engines for production­ line testing? 1048.315 How do I know when my engine family fails the production­ line testing requirements? 1048.320 What happens if one of my production­ line engines fails to meet emission standards? 1048.325 What happens if an engine family fails the production­ line requirements? 1048.330 May I sell engines from an engine family with a suspended certificate of conformity? 1048.335 How do I ask EPA to reinstate my suspended certificate? 1048.340 When may EPA revoke my certificate under this subpart and how may I sell these engines again? 1048.345 What production­ line testing records must I send to EPA? 1048.350 What records must I keep? Subpart E Testing In­ use Engines 1048.401 What testing requirements apply to my engines that have gone into service? 1048.405 How does this program work? 1048.410 How must I select, prepare, and test my in­ use engines? 1048.415 What happens if in­ use engines do not meet requirements? 1048.420 What in­ use testing information must I report to EPA? 1048.425 What records must I keep? Subpart F Test Procedures 1048.501 What procedures must I use to test my engines? 1048.505 What steady­ state duty cycles apply for laboratory testing? 1048.510 What transient duty cycles apply for laboratory testing? 1048.515 Field­ testing procedures. Subpart G Compliance Provisions 1048.601 What compliance provisions apply to these engines? 1048.605 What are the provisions for exempting engines from the requirements of this part if they are already certified under the motor­ vehicle program? 1048.610 What are the provisions for producing nonroad equipment with engines already certified under the motor­ vehicle program? 1048.615 What are the provisions for exempting engines designed for lawn and garden applications? 1048.620 What are the provisions for exempting large engines fueled by natural gas? 1048.625 What special provisions apply to engines using noncommercial fuels? Subpart H [ Reserved] Subpart I Definitions and Other Reference Information 1048.801 What definitions apply to this part? 1048.805 What symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations does this part use? 1048.810 What materials does this part reference? 1048.815 How should I request EPA to keep my information confidential? 1048.820 How do I request a hearing? Appendix I to Part 1048 Large Sparkignition ( SI) Transient Cycle for Constant­ Speed Engines Appendix II to Part 1048 Large Sparkignition ( SI) Composite Transient Cycle Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 7671( q). Subpart A Determining How to Follow This Part § 1048.1 Does this part apply to me? ( a) This part applies to you if you manufacture or import new, sparkignition nonroad engines ( defined in § 1048.801) with maximum brake power above 19 kW, unless we exclude them under § 1048.5. See § 1048.20 for the requirements that apply to excluded engines. ( b) If you manufacture or import engines with maximum brake power at or below 19 kW that would otherwise be covered by 40 CFR part 90, you may choose to meet the requirements of this part instead. In this case, all the provisions of this part apply for those engines. ( c) As noted in subpart G of this part, 40 CFR part 1068 applies to everyone, including anyone who manufactures, installs, owns, operates, or rebuilds any of the engines this part covers or equipment containing these engines. ( d) You need not follow this part for engines you produce before January 1, 2004, unless you certify voluntarily. See § § 1048.101 through 1048.115 and § 1048.145 and the definition of model year in § 1048.801 for more information about the timing of new requirements. ( e) See § § 1048.801 and 1048.805 for definitions and acronyms that apply to this part. The definition section contains significant regulatory provisions and it is very important that you read them. § 1048.5 Which engines are excluded or exempted from this part's requirements? ( a) This part does not apply to the following nonroad engines: ( 1) Engines certified to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 1051 ( for example, engines used in snowmobiles and all­ terrain vehicles). ( 2) Propulsion marine engines. See 40 CFR part 91. This part applies with respect to auxiliary marine engines. ( b) See subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, for exemptions of specific engines. ( c) Send the Designated Officer a written request if you want us to determine whether this part covers or excludes certain engines. Excluding engines from this part's requirements does not affect other requirements that may apply to them. Note: See 40 CFR part 87 for engines used in aircraft.) ( d) As defined in § 1048.801, stationary engines are not required to comply with this part ( because they are not nonroad engines), except that you must meet the requirements in § 1048.20. In addition, the prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101 restrict the use of stationary engines for non­ stationary purposes. § 1048.10 What main steps must I take to comply with this part? ( a) You must have a certificate of conformity from us for each engine family before you do any of the following with a new nonroad engine covered by this part: sell, offer for sale, introduce into commerce, distribute or deliver for introduction into commerce, or import it into the United States. `` New'' engines may include some already placed in service ( see the definition of `` new nonroad engine'' and `` new nonroad equipment'' in § 1048.801). You must get a new certificate of conformity for each new model year. ( b) To get a certificate of conformity and comply with its terms, you must do six things: ( 1) Meet the emission standards and other requirements in subpart B of this part. ( 2) Perform preproduction emission tests. ( 3) Apply for certification ( see subpart C of this part). ( 4) Do routine emission testing on production engines as required by subpart D of this part. ( 5) Do emission testing on in­ use engines, as we direct under subpart E of this part. ( 6) Follow our instructions throughout this part. ( c) Subpart F of this part describes how to test your engines ( including references to other parts). ( d) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068 describe requirements and prohibitions that apply to engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, owners, operators, rebuilders, and all others. § 1048.15 Do any other regulation parts affect me? ( a) Part 1065 of this chapter describes procedures and equipment specifications for testing engines. Subpart F of this part describes how to apply the provisions of part 1065 of this chapter to show you meet the emission standards in this part. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68349 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( b) Part 1068 of this chapter describes general provisions, including these seven areas: ( 1) Prohibited acts and penalties for engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, and others. ( 2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket changes. ( 3) Exclusions and exemption for certain engines. ( 4) Importing engines. ( 5) Selective enforcement audits of your production. ( 6) Defect reporting and recall. ( 7) Procedures for hearings. ( c) Other parts of this chapter affect you if referenced in this part. § 1048.20 What requirements from this part apply to my excluded engines? ( a) Engine manufacturers producing an engine excluded under § 1048.5( d) must add a permanent label or tag identifying each engine. This applies equally to importers. To meet labeling requirements, you must do the following things: ( 1) Attach the label or tag in one piece so no one can remove it without destroying or defacing it. ( 2) Make sure it is durable and readable for the engine's entire life. ( 3) Secure it to a part of the engine needed for normal operation and not normally requiring replacement. ( 4) Write it in block letters in English. ( 5) Instruct equipment manufacturers that they must place a duplicate label as described in 40 CFR 1068.105 if they obscure the engine's label. ( b) Engine labels or tags required under this section must have the following information: ( 1) Include the heading `` Emission Control Information''. ( 2) Include your full corporate name and trademark. ( 3) State the engine displacement ( in liters) and maximum brake power. ( 4) State: `` THIS ENGINE IS EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR PART 1048 AS A `` STATIONARY ENGINE.'' INSTALLING OR USING THIS ENGINE IN ANY OTHER APPLICATION MAY BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY.''. Subpart B Emission Standards and Related Requirements § 1048.101 What exhaust emission standards must my engines meet? Apply the exhaust emission standards in this section by model year. You may choose to certify engines earlier than we require. The Tier 1 standards apply only to steady­ state testing, as described in paragraph ( b) of this section. The Tier 2 standards apply to steady­ state, transient, and field testing, as described in paragraphs ( a), ( b), and ( c) of this section. ( a) Standards for transient testing. Starting in the 2007 model year, Tier 2 exhaust emission standards apply for transient measurement of emissions with the duty­ cycle test procedures in subpart F of this part: ( 1) The Tier 2 HC+ NOX standard is 2.7 g/ kW­ hr and the Tier 2 CO standard is 4.4 g/ kW­ hr. For severe­ duty engines, the Tier 2 HC+ NOX standard is 2.7 g/ kW­ hr and the Tier 2 CO standard is 130.0 g/ kW­ hr. The standards in this paragraph ( a) do not apply for transient testing of high­ load engines. ( 2) You may optionally certify your engines according to the following formula instead of the standards in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section: ( HC+ NOX) × CO0.784 8.57. The HC+ NOX and CO emission levels you select to satisfy this formula, rounded to the nearest 0.1 g/ kW­ hr, become the emission standards that apply for those engines. You may not select an HC+ NOX emission standard higher than 2.7 g/ kWhr or a CO emission standard higher than 20.6 g/ kW­ hr. The following table illustrates a range of possible values under this paragraph ( a)( 2): TABLE 1 OF § 1048.101. EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE TIER 2 DUTY­ CYCLE EMISSION STANDARDS HC+ NOX ( g/ kW­ hr) CO ( g/ kW­ hr) 2.7 ............................................. 4.4 2.2 ............................................. 5.6 1.7 ............................................. 7.9 1.3 ............................................. 11.1 1.0 ............................................. 15.5 0.8 ............................................. 20.6 ( b) Standards for steady­ state testing. Except as we allow in paragraph ( d) of this section, the following exhaust emission standards apply for steadystate measurement of emissions with the duty­ cycle test procedures in subpart F of this part: ( 1) The following table shows the Tier 1 exhaust emission standards that apply to engines from 2004 through 2006 model years: TABLE 2 OF § 1048.101. TIER 1 EMISSION STANDARDS ( G/ KW­ HR) Testing General emission standards Alternate emission standards for severe­ duty engines HC+ NOX CO HC+ NOX CO Certification and production­ line testing .......................................................................... 4.0 50.0 4.0 130.0 In­ use testing ................................................................................................................... 5.4 50.0 5.4 130.0 ( 2) Starting in the 2007 model year, engines must meet the Tier 2 exhaust emission standards in paragraph ( a) of this section for both steady­ state and transient testing. See paragraph ( d) of this section for alternate standards that apply for certain engines. ( c) Standards for field testing. Starting in 2007, the following Tier 2 exhaust emission standards apply for emission measurements with the field­ testing procedures in subpart F of this part: ( 1) The HC+ NOX standard is 3.8 g/ kW­ hr and the CO standard is 6.5 g/ kWhr For severe­ duty engines, the HC+ NOX standard is 3.8 g/ kW­ hr and the CO standard is 200.0 g/ kW­ hr. For natural gas­ fueled engines, you are not required to measure nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions or total hydrocarbon emissions for testing to show that the engine meets the emission standards of this paragraph ( c); that is, you may assume HC emissions are equal to zero. ( 2) You may apply the following formula to determine alternate emission standards that apply to your engines instead of the standards in paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section: ( HC+ NOX) × CO0.791 16.78. HC+ NOX emission levels may not exceed 3.8 g/ kW­ hr and CO emission levels may not exceed 31.0 g/ kW­ hr. The following table illustrates a range of possible values under this paragraph ( c)( 2): VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68350 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 3 OF § 1048.101. EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE TIER 2 FIELD­ TESTING EMISSION STANDARDS HC+ NOX ( g/ kW­ hr) CO ( g/ kW­ hr) 3.8 ............................................. 6.5 3.1 ............................................. 8.5 2.4 ............................................. 11.7 1.8 ............................................. 16.8 1.4 ............................................. 23.1 1.1 ............................................. 31.0 ( d) Engine protection. For engines that require enrichment at high loads to protect the engine, you may ask to meet alternate Tier 2 standards of 2.7 g/ kWhr for HC+ NOX and 31.0 g/ kW­ hr for CO instead of the emission standards described in paragraph ( b)( 2) of this section for steady­ state testing. If we approve your request, you must still meet the transient testing standards in paragraph ( a) of this section and the field­ testing standards in paragraph ( c) of this section. To qualify for this allowance, you must do all the following things: ( 1) Show that enrichment is necessary to protect the engine from damage. ( 2) Show that you limit enrichment to operating modes that require additional cooling to protect the engine from damage. ( 3) Show in your application for certification that enrichment will rarely occur in use in the equipment in which your engines are installed. For example, an engine that is expected to operate 5 percent of the time in use with enrichment would clearly not qualify. ( 4) Include in your installation instructions any steps necessary for someone installing your engines to prevent enrichment during normal operation ( see § 1048.130). ( e) Fuel types. Apply the exhaust emission standards in this section for engines using each type of fuel specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, for which they are designed to operate. You must meet the numerical emission standards for hydrocarbons in this section based on the following types of hydrocarbon emissions for engines powered by the following fuels: ( 1) Gasoline­ and LPG­ fueled engines: THC emissions. ( 2) Natural gas­ fueled engines: NMHC emissions. ( 3) Alcohol­ fueled engines: THCE emissions. ( f) Small engines. Certain engines with total displacement at or below 1000 cc may comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 90 instead of complying with the requirements of this part, as described in § 1048.615. ( g) Useful life. Your engines must meet the exhaust emission standards in paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section over their full useful life ( § 1048.240 describes how to use deterioration factors to show this). The minimum useful life is 5,000 hours of operation or seven years, whichever comes first. ( 1) Specify a longer useful life in hours for an engine family under either of two conditions: ( i) If you design, advertise, or market your engine to operate longer than the minimum useful life ( your recommended hours until rebuild may indicate a longer design life). ( ii) If your basic mechanical warranty is longer than the minimum useful life. ( 2) You may request a shorter useful life for an engine family if you have documentation from in­ use engines showing that these engines will rarely operate longer than the alternate useful life. The useful life value may not be shorter than any of the following: ( i) 1,000 hours of operation. ( ii) Your recommended overhaul interval. ( iii) Your mechanical warranty for the engine. ( h) Applicability for testing. The standards in this subpart apply to all testing, including production­ line and in­ use testing, as described in subparts D and E of this part. § 1048.105 What evaporative emissions standards and requirements apply? ( a) Starting in the 2007 model year, engines that run on a volatile liquid fuel ( such as gasoline), must meet the following evaporative emissions standards and requirements: ( 1) Evaporative hydrocarbon emissions may not exceed 0.2 grams per gallon of fuel tank capacity when measured with the test procedures for evaporative emissions in subpart F of this part. ( 2) For nonmetallic fuel lines, you must specify and use products that meet the Category 1 specifications in SAE J2260 ( incorporated by reference in § 1048.810). ( 3) Liquid fuel in the fuel tank may not reach boiling during continuous engine operation in the final installation at an ambient temperature of 30 ° C. Note that gasoline with a Reid vapor pressure of 62 kPa ( 9 psi) begins to boil at about 53 ° C. ( b) Note that § 1048.245 allows you to use design­ based certification instead of generating new emission data. ( c) If other companies install your engines in their equipment, give them any appropriate instructions, as described in § 1048.130. § 1048.110 How must my engines diagnose malfunctions? ( a) Equip your engines with a diagnostic system. Starting in the 2007 model year, equip each engine with a diagnostic system that will detect significant malfunctions in its emissioncontrol system using one of the following protocols: ( 1) If your emission­ control strategy depends on maintaining air­ fuel ratios at stoichiometry, an acceptable diagnostic design would identify malfunction whenever the air­ fuel ratio does not cross stoichiometry for one minute of intended closed­ loop operation. You may use other diagnostic strategies if we approve them in advance. ( 2) If the protocol described in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section does not apply to your engine, you must use an alternative approach that we approve in advance. Your alternative approach must generally detect when the emission­ control system is not functioning properly. ( b) Use a malfunction­ indicator light ( MIL). The MIL must be readily visible to the operator; it may be any color except red. When the MIL goes on, it must display `` Check Engine,'' `` Service Engine Soon,'' or a similar message that we approve. You may use sound in addition to the light signal. The MIL must go on under each of these circumstances: ( 1) When a malfunction occurs, as described in paragraph ( a) of this section. ( 2) When the diagnostic system cannot send signals to meet the requirement of paragraph ( b)( 1) of this section. ( 3) When the engine's ignition is in the `` key­ on'' position before starting or cranking. The MIL should go out after engine starting if the system detects no malfunction. ( c) Control when the MIL can go out. If the MIL goes on to show a malfunction, it must remain on during all later engine operation until servicing corrects the malfunction. If the engine is not serviced, but the malfunction does not recur for three consecutive engine starts during which the malfunctioning system is evaluated and found to be working properly, the MIL may stay off during later engine operation. ( d) Store trouble codes in computer memory. Record and store in computer memory any diagnostic trouble codes showing a malfunction that should illuminate the MIL. The stored codes must identify the malfunctioning system or component as uniquely as possible. Make these codes available through the data link connector as described in VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68351 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations paragraph ( g) of this section. You may store codes for conditions that do not turn on the MIL. The system must store a separate code to show when the diagnostic system is disabled ( from malfunction or tampering). ( e) Make data, access codes, and devices accessible. Make all required data accessible to us without any access codes or devices that only you can supply. Ensure that anyone servicing your engine can read and understand the diagnostic trouble codes stored in the onboard computer with generic tools and information. ( f) Consider exceptions for certain conditions. Your diagnostic systems may disregard trouble codes for the first three minutes after engine starting. You may ask us to approve diagnosticsystem designs that disregard trouble codes under other conditions that would produce an unreliable reading, damage systems or components, or cause other safety risks. This might include operation at altitudes over 8,000 feet. ( g) Follow standard references for formats, codes, and connections. Follow conventions defined in the following documents ( incorporated by reference in § 1048.810) or ask us to approve using updated versions of ( or variations from) these documents: ( 1) ISO 9141 2 Road vehicles­ Diagnostic systems Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange of digital information, February 1994. ( 2) ISO 14230 4 Road vehicles Diagnostic systems Keyword Protocol 2000 Part 4: Requirements for emission­ related systems, June 2000. § 1048.115 What other requirements must my engines meet? Your engines must meet the following requirements: ( a) Closed crankcase. Your engines may not vent crankcase emissions into the atmosphere throughout their useful life, with the following exception: your engines may vent crankcase emissions if you measure and include these crankcase emissions with all measured exhaust emissions. ( b) Torque broadcasting. Electronically controlled engines must broadcast their speed and output shaft torque ( in newton­ meters) on their controller area networks. Engines may alternatively broadcast a surrogate value for torque that can be read with a remote device. This information is necessary for testing engines in the field ( see 40 CFR 1065.515). This requirement applies beginning in the 2007 model year. Small­ volume engine manufacturers may omit this requirement. ( c) EPA access to broadcast information. If we request it, you must provide us any hardware or tools we would need to readily read, interpret, and record all information broadcast by an engine's on­ board computers and electronic control modules. If you broadcast a surrogate parameter for torque values, you must provide us what we need to convert these into torque units. We will not ask for hardware or tools if they are readily available commercially. ( d) Emission sampling capability. Produce all your engines to allow sampling of exhaust emissions in the field without damaging the engine or equipment. Show in your application for certification how this can be done in a way that prevents diluting the exhaust sample with ambient air. To do this, you might simply allow for extending the exhaust pipe by 20 cm; you might also install exhaust ports downstream of any aftertreatment devices. ( e) Adjustable parameters. Engines that have adjustable parameters must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the physically adjustable range. ( 1) We do not consider an operating parameter adjustable if you permanently seal it or if ordinary tools cannot readily access it. ( 2) We may require that you set adjustable parameters to any specification within the adjustable range during certification testing, productionline testing, selective enforcement auditing, or any in­ use testing. ( f) Prohibited controls. You may not design your engines with emissioncontrol devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety while operating. For example, this would apply if the engine emits a noxious or toxic substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes to such an unreasonable risk. ( g) Defeat devices. You may not equip your engines with a defeat device. A defeat device is an auxiliary emissioncontrol device that reduces the effectiveness of emission controls under conditions you may reasonably expect the engine to encounter during normal operation and use. This does not apply to auxiliary emission­ control devices you identify in your certification application if any of the following is true: ( 1) The conditions of concern were substantially included in your prescribed duty cycles. ( 2) You show your design is necessary to prevent catastrophic engine ( or equipment) damage or accidents. ( 3) The reduced effectiveness applies only to starting the engine. § 1048.120 What warranty requirements apply to me? ( a) General requirements. You must warrant to the ultimate buyer that the new nonroad engine meets two conditions: ( 1) It is designed, built, and equipped it to conform at the time of sale with the requirements of this part. ( 2) It is free from defects in materials and workmanship that may keep it from meeting these requirements. ( b) Warranty period. Your emissionrelated warranty must be valid for at least 50 percent of the engine's useful life in hours of operation or at least three years, whichever comes first. In the case of a high­ cost warranted part, the warranty must be valid for at least 70 percent of the engine's useful life in hours of operation or at least five years, whichever comes first. You may offer an emission­ related warranty more generous than we require. This warranty may not be shorter than any published or negotiated warranty you offer for the engine or any of its components. If an engine has no hour meter, we base the warranty periods in this paragraph ( b) only on the engine's age ( in years). ( c) Components covered. The emission­ related warranty must cover components whose failure would increase an engine's emissions, including electronic controls, fuel injection ( for liquid or gaseous fuels), exhaust­ gas recirculation, aftertreatment, or any other system you develop to control emissions. We generally consider replacing or repairing other components to be the owner's responsibility. ( d) Scheduled maintenance. You may schedule emission­ related maintenance for a component named in paragraph ( c) of this section, subject to the restrictions of § 1048.125. You are not required to cover this scheduled maintenance under your warranty if the component meets either of the following criteria: ( 1) The component was in general use on similar engines, and was subject to scheduled maintenance, before January 1, 2000. ( 2) Failure of the component would clearly degrade the engine's performance enough that the operator would need to repair or replace it. ( e) Limited applicability. You may deny warranty claims under this section if the operator caused the problem, as described in 40 CFR 1068.115. ( f) Aftermarket parts. As noted 40 CFR 1068.101, it is a violation of the Act to manufacture an engine part if one of its main effects is to reduce the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68352 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations effectiveness of the engine's emission controls. If you make an aftermarket part, you may but do not have to certify that using the part will still allow engines to meet emission standards, as described in 40 CFR 85.2114. § 1048.125 What maintenance instructions must I give to buyers? Give the ultimate buyer of each new nonroad engine written instructions for properly maintaining and using the engine, including the emission­ control system. The maintenance instructions also apply to service accumulation on your test engines, as described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart E. ( a) Critical emission­ related maintenance. Critical emission­ related maintenance includes any adjustment, cleaning, repair, or replacement of airinduction fuel­ system, or ignition components, aftertreatment devices, exhaust gas recirculation systems, crankcase ventilation valves, sensors, or electronic control units. This may also include any other component whose only purpose is to reduce emissions or whose failure will increase emissions without significantly degrading engine performance. You may schedule critical emission­ related maintenance on these components if you meet the following conditions: ( 1) You may ask us to approve critical emission­ related maintenance only if it meets two criteria: ( i) Operators are reasonably likely to do the maintenance you call for. ( ii) Engines need the maintenance to meet emission standards. ( 2) We will accept scheduled maintenance as reasonably likely to occur in use if you satisfy any of four conditions: ( i) You present data showing that, if a lack of maintenance increases emissions, it also unacceptably degrades the engine's performance. ( ii) You present survey data showing that 80 percent of engines in the field get the maintenance you specify at the recommended intervals. ( iii) You provide the maintenance free of charge and clearly say so in maintenance instructions for the customer. ( iv) You otherwise show us that the maintenance is reasonably likely to be done at the recommended intervals. ( 3) You may not schedule critical emission­ related maintenance more frequently than the following intervals, except as specified in paragraph ( a)( 4) of this section: ( i) For catalysts, fuel injectors, electronic control units, superchargers, and turbochargers: the useful life of the engine family. ( ii) For gaseous fuel­ system components ( cleaning without disassembly only) and oxygen sensors: 2,500 hours. ( 4) If your engine family has an alternate useful life shorter than the period specified in paragraph ( a)( 3)( ii) of this section, you may not schedule maintenance on those components more frequently than the alternate useful life ( see § 1048.101( g)). ( b) Recommended additional maintenance. You may recommend any additional amount of maintenance on the components listed in paragraph ( a) of this section, as long as you make clear that these maintenance steps are not necessary to keep the emission­ related warranty valid. If operators do the maintenance specified in paragraph ( a) of this section, but not the recommended additional maintenance, this does not allow you to disqualify them from in­ use testing or deny a warranty claim. ( c) Special maintenance. You may specify more frequent maintenance to address problems related to special situations such as substandard fuel or atypical engine operation. For example, you may specify more frequent cleaning of fuel system components for engines you have reason to believe will be using fuel that causes substantially more engine performance problems than commercial fuels of the same type that are generally available across the United States. ( d) Noncritical emission­ related maintenance. For engine parts not listed in paragraph ( a) of this section, you may schedule any amount of emissionrelated inspection or maintenance. But you must state clearly that these steps are not necessary to keep the emissionrelated warranty valid. Also, do not take these inspection or maintenance steps during service accumulation on your test engines. ( e) Maintenance that is not emissionrelated For maintenance unrelated to emission controls, you may schedule any amount of inspection or maintenance. You may also take these inspection or maintenance steps during service accumulation on your test vehicles or engines. This might include adding engine oil or changing air, fuel, or oil filters. ( f) Source of parts and repairs. Print clearly on the first page of your written maintenance instructions that any repair shop or person may maintain, replace, or repair emission­ control devices and systems. Your instructions may not require components or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name. Also, do not directly or indirectly condition your warranty on a requirement that the vehicle be serviced by your franchised dealers or any other service establishments with which you have a commercial relationship. You may disregard the requirements in this paragraph ( f) if you do one of two things: ( 1) Provide a component or service without charge under the purchase agreement. ( 2) Get us to waive this prohibition in the public's interest by convincing us the engine will work properly only with the identified component or service. § 1048.130 What installation instructions must I give to equipment manufacturers? ( a) If you sell an engine for someone else to install in a piece of nonroad equipment, give the buyer of the engine written instructions for installing it consistent with the requirements of this part. Include all information necessary to ensure that engines installed this way will meet emission standards. ( b) Make sure these instructions have the following information: ( 1) Include the heading: `` Emissionrelated installation instructions''. ( 2) State: `` Failing to follow these instructions when installing a certified engine in a piece of nonroad equipment violates federal law ( 40 CFR 1068.105( b)), subject to fines or other penalties as described in the Clean Air Act.''. ( 3) Describe any other instructions needed to install an exhaust aftertreatment device and to locate exhaust sampling ports consistent with your application for certification. ( 4) Describe the steps needed to control evaporative emissions, as described in § § 1048.105 and 1048.245. ( 5) Describe any necessary steps for installing the diagnostic system described in § 1048.110. ( 6) Describe any limits on the range of applications needed to ensure that the engine operates consistently with your application for certification. For example, if your engines are certified only for constant­ speed operation, tell equipment manufacturers not to install the engines in variable­ speed applications. Also, if you need to avoid sustained high­ load operation to meet the field­ testing emission standards we specify in § 1048.101( c) or to comply with the provisions of § 1048.101( d), describe how the equipment manufacturer must properly size the engines for a given application. ( 7) Describe any other instructions to make sure the installed engine will operate according to design specifications in your application for certification. ( 8) State: `` If you install the engine in a way that makes the engine's emission VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68353 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations control information label hard to read during normal engine maintenance, you must place a duplicate label on the vehicle, as described in 40 CFR 1068.105.''. ( c) You do not need installation instructions for engines you install in your own equipment. § 1048.135 How must I label and identify the engines I produce? ( a) Assign each production engine a unique identification number and permanently and legibly affix, engrave, or stamp it on the engine. ( b) At the time of manufacture, add a permanent emission control information label identifying each engine. To meet labeling requirements, do four things: ( 1) Attach the label in one piece so it is not removable without being destroyed or defaced. ( 2) Design and produce it to be durable and readable for the engine's entire life. ( 3) Secure it to a part of the engine needed for normal operation and not normally requiring replacement. ( 4) Write it in block letters in English. ( c) On your engine's emission control information label, do 13 things: ( 1) Include the heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( 2) Include your full corporate name and trademark. ( 3) State: `` THIS ENGINE IS CERTIFIED TO OPERATE ON [ specify operating fuel or fuels].''. ( 4) Identify the emission­ control system; your identifiers must use names and abbreviations consistent with SAE J1930 ( incorporated by reference in § 1048.810). ( 5) List all requirements for fuel and lubricants. ( 6) State the date of manufacture ( DAY ( optional), MONTH, and YEAR); if you stamp this information on the engine and print it in the owner's manual, you may omit it from the emission control information label. ( 7) State: `` THIS ENGINE MEETS U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS FOR ( MODEL YEAR) LARGE NONROAD SI ENGINES.''. ( 8) Include EPA's standardized designation for the engine family ( and subfamily, where applicable). ( 9) State the engine's displacement ( in liters) and maximum brake power. ( 10) State the engine's useful life ( see § 1048.101( g)). ( 11) List specifications and adjustments for engine tuneups; show the proper position for the transmission during tuneup and state which accessories should be operating. ( 12) Describe other information on proper maintenance and use. ( 13) Identify the emission standards to which you have certified the engine. ( d) Some of your engines may need more information on the emission control information label. ( 1) If you have an engine family that has been certified only for constantspeed engines, add to the engine label `` CONSTANT­ SPEED ONLY''. ( 2) If you have an engine family that has been certified only for variablespeed engines, add to the engine label `` VARIABLE­ SPEED ONLY''. ( 3) If you have an engine family that has been certified only for high­ load engines, add to the engine label `` THIS ENGINE IS NOT INTENDED FOR OPERATION AT LESS THAN 75 PERCENT OF FULL LOAD.''. ( 4) If you certify an engine to the voluntary standards in § 1048.140, add to the engine label `` BLUE SKY SERIES''. ( 5) If you produce an engine we exempt from the requirements of this part, see subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068, subparts C and D, for more label information. ( 6) If you certify an engine family under § 1048.101( d) ( and show in your application for certification that in­ use engines will experience infrequent highload operation), add to the engine label `` THIS ENGINE IS NOT INTENDED FOR OPERATION AT MORE THAN l PERCENT OF FULL LOAD.''. Specify the appropriate percentage of full load based on the nature of the engine protection. You may add other statements to discourage operation in engine­ protection modes. ( e) Some engines may not have enough space for an emission control information label with all the required information. In this case, you may omit the information required in paragraphs ( c)( 3), ( c)( 4), ( c)( 5), and ( c)( 12) of this section if you print it in the owner's manual instead. ( f) If you are unable to meet these labeling requirements, you may ask us to modify them consistent with the intent of this section. § 1048.140 What are the provisions for certifying Blue Sky Series engines? This section defines voluntary standards for a recognized level of superior emission control for engines designated as `` Blue Sky Series'' engines. Blue Sky Series engines must meet one of the following standards: ( a) For the 2003 model year, to receive a certificate of conformity, a `` Blue Sky Series'' engine family must meet all the requirements in this part that apply to 2004 model year engines. This includes all testing and reporting requirements. ( b) For the 2003 through 2006 model years, to receive a certificate of conformity, a `` Blue Sky Series'' engine family must meet all the requirements in this part that apply to 2007 model year engines. This includes all testing and reporting requirements. ( c) For any model year, to receive a certificate of conformity as a `` Blue Sky Series'' engine family must meet all the requirements in this part, while certifying to the following exhaust emission standards: ( 1) 0.8 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX and 4.4 g/ kW­ hr CO using steady­ state and transient test procedures, as described in subpart F of this part. ( 2) 1.1 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX and 6.6 g/ kW­ hr CO using field­ testing procedures, as described in subpart F of this part. ( d) If you certify an engine family under this section, it is subject to all the requirements of this part as if these voluntary standards were mandatory. § 1048.145 What provisions apply only for a limited time? The provisions in this section apply instead of other provisions in this part. This section describes when these interim provisions expire. ( a) Family banking. You may certify an engine family to comply with Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards earlier than necessary. For each model year of early compliance for an engine family, you may delay compliance with the same standards for an equal number of engines from another engine family ( or families) for one model year. If you certify engines under the voluntary standards of § 1048.140, you may not use them in your calculation under this paragraph ( a). Base your calculation on actual power­ weighted nationwide sales for each family. You may delay compliance for up to three model years. For example, if you sell 1,000 engines with an average power rating of 60 kW certified a year early, you may delay certification to that tier of standards for up to 60,000 kW­ engine­ years in any of the following ways: ( 1) Delay certification of another engine family with an average power rating of 100 kW of up to 600 engines for one model year. ( 2) Delay certification of another engine family with an average power rating of 100 kW of up to 200 engines for three model years. ( 3) Delay certification of one engine family with an average power rating of 100 kW of up to 400 engines for one model year and a second engine family with an average power rating of 200 kW of up to 50 engines for two model years. ( b) Hydrocarbon standards. For 2004 through 2006 model years, engine manufacturers may use nonmethane VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68354 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations hydrocarbon measurements to demonstrate compliance with applicable emission standards. ( c) Transient emission testing. Engines rated over 560 kW are exempt from the transient emission standards in § 1048.101( a). ( d) Tier 1 deterioration factors. For Tier 1 engines, base the deterioration factor from § 1048.240 on 3500 hours of operation. We may assign a deterioration factor for a Tier 1 engine family, but this would not affect your need to meet all emission standards that apply. ( e) [ Reserved] ( f) Optional early field testing. You may optionally use the field­ testing procedures in subpart F of this part for any in­ use testing required under subpart E of this part to show that you meet Tier 1 standards. In this case, the same Tier 1 in­ use emission standards apply to both steady­ state testing in the laboratory and field testing. ( g) Small­ volume provisions. If you qualify for the hardship provisions in § 1068.250 of this chapter, we may approve extensions of up to four years total. ( h) 2004 certification. For the 2004 model year, you may choose to have the emission standards and other requirements that apply to these engines in California serve as the emission standards and other requirements applicable under this part, instead of those in subpart A of this part. To ask for a certificate under this paragraph ( h), send us the application for certification that you prepare for the California Air Resources Board instead of the information we otherwise require in § 1048.205. ( i) Recreational vehicles. Engines or vehicles identified in the scope of 40 CFR part 1051 that are not yet regulated under that part are excluded from the requirements of this part. For example, snowmobiles produced in 2004 are not subject to the emission standards in this part. Once emission standards apply to these engines and vehicles, they are excluded from the requirements of this part under § 1048.5( a)( 1). Subpart C Certifying Engine Families § 1048.201 What are the general requirements for submitting a certification application? ( a) Send us an application for a certificate of conformity for each engine family. Each application is valid for only one model year. ( b) The application must not include false or incomplete statements or information ( see § 1048.255). ( c) We may choose to ask you to send us less information than we specify in this subpart, but this would not change your recordkeeping requirements. ( d) Use good engineering judgment for all decisions related to your application ( see 40 CFR 1068.5). ( e) An authorized representative of your company must approve and sign the application. § 1048.205 What must I include in my application? In your application, do all the following things unless we ask you to send us less information: ( a) Describe the engine family's specifications and other basic parameters of the engine's design. List the types of fuel you intend to use to certify the engine family ( for example, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, or natural gas). ( b) Explain how the emission­ control systems operate. ( 1) Describe in detail all the system components for controlling exhaust emissions, including auxiliary emissioncontrol devices and all fuel­ system components you will install on any production or test engine. Explain why any auxiliary emission­ control devices are not defeat devices ( see § 1048.115( g)). Do not include detailed calibrations for components unless we ask for them. ( 2) Describe the evaporative emission controls. ( c) Explain how the engine diagnostic system works, describing especially the engine conditions ( with the corresponding diagnostic trouble codes) that cause the malfunction­ indicator light to go on. Propose what you consider to be extreme conditions under which the diagnostic system should disregard trouble codes, as described in § 1048.110. ( d) Describe the engines you selected for testing and the reasons for selecting them. ( e) Describe any special or alternate test procedures you used ( see § 1048.501). ( f) Describe how you operated the engine or vehicle prior to testing, including the duty cycle and the number of engine operating hours used to stabilize emission levels. Describe any scheduled maintenance you did. ( g) List the specifications of the test fuel to show that it falls within the required ranges we specify in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C. ( h) Identify the engine family's useful life. ( i) Propose maintenance and use instructions for the ultimate buyer of each new nonroad engine ( see § 1048.125). ( j) Propose emission­ related installation instructions if you sell engines for someone else to install in a piece of nonroad equipment ( see § 1048.130). ( k) Identify each high­ cost warranted part and show us how you calculated its replacement cost, including the estimated retail cost of the part, labor rates, and labor hours to diagnose and replace defective parts. ( l) Propose an emission control information label. ( m) Present emission data to show that you meet emission standards. ( 1) Present exhaust emission data for HC, NOX, and CO on a test engine to show your engines meet the duty­ cycle emission standards we specify in § 1048.101( a) and ( b). Show these figures before and after applying deterioration factors for each engine. Starting in the 2007 model year, identify the duty­ cycle emission standards to which you are certifying engines in the engine family. Include test data for each type of fuel from 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, on which you intend for engines in the engine family to operate ( for example, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, or natural gas). If we specify more than one grade of any fuel type ( for example, a summer grade and winter grade of gasoline), you only need to submit test data for one grade, unless the regulations of this part specify otherwise for your engine. Note that § 1048.235 allows you to submit an application in certain cases without new emission data. ( 2) If your engine family includes a volatile liquid fuel ( and you do not use design­ based certification under § 1048.245) present evaporative test data to show your vehicles meet the evaporative emission standards we specify in subpart B of this part. Show these figures before and after applying deterioration factors, where applicable. ( n) Report all test results, including those from invalid tests or from any nonstandard tests ( such as measurements based on exhaust concentrations in parts per million). ( o) Identify the engine family's deterioration factors and describe how you developed them. Present any emission test data you used for this. ( p) Describe all adjustable operating parameters ( see § 1048.115( e)), including the following: ( 1) The nominal or recommended setting. ( 2) The intended physically adjustable range, including production tolerances if they affect the range. ( 3) The limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges. ( q) Describe everything we need to read and interpret all the information broadcast by an engine's onboard VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68355 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations computers and electronic control modules and state that you will give us any hardware or tools we would need to do this. You may reference any appropriate publicly released standards that define conventions for these messages and parameters. Format your information consistent with publicly released standards. ( r) State whether your engine will operate in variable­ speed applications, constant­ speed applications, or both. If your certification covers only constantspeed or only variable­ speed applications, describe how you will prevent use of these engines in the applications for which they are not certified. ( s) Starting in the 2007 model year, state that all the engines in the engine family comply with the field­ testing emission standards we specify in § 1048.101( c) for all normal operation and use ( see § 1048.515). Describe in detail any testing, engineering analysis, or other information on which you base this statement. ( t) State that you operated your test engines according to the specified procedures and test parameters using the fuels described in the application to show you meet the requirements of this part. ( u) State unconditionally that all the engines in the engine family comply with the requirements of this part, other referenced parts, and the Clean Air Act. ( v) Include estimates of U. S.­ directed production volumes. ( w) Show us how to modify your production engines to measure emissions in the field ( see § 1048.115( d)). ( x) Add other information to help us evaluate your application if we ask for it. § 1048.210 May I get preliminary approval before I complete my application? If you send us information before you finish the application, we will review it and make any appropriate determinations listed in § 1048.215( b)( 1) through ( 7). Decisions made under this section are considered to be preliminary approval. We will generally not disapprove applications under § 1048.215( b)( 1) through ( 5) where we have given you preliminary approval, unless we find new and substantial information supporting a different decision. ( a) If you request preliminary approval related to the upcoming model year or the model year after that, we will make a `` best­ efforts'' attempt to make the appropriate determinations as soon as possible. We will generally not provide preliminary approval related to a future model year more than two years ahead of time. ( b) You may consider full compliance with published guidance to be preliminary approval only if the guidance includes a statement that we intend you to consider it as such. § 1048.215 What happens after I complete my application? ( a) If any of the information in your application changes after you submit it, amend it as described in § 1048.225. ( b) We may deny your application ( that is, determine that we cannot approve it without revision) if the engine family does not meet the requirements of this part or the Act. For example: ( 1) If you inappropriately use the provisions of § 1048.230( c) or ( d) to define a broader or narrower engine family, we will require you to redefine your engine family. ( 2) If we determine you did not appropriately select the useful life under § 1048.101( g), we will require you to lengthen it. ( 3) If we determine you did not appropriately select deterioration factors under § 1048.240( c), we will require you to revise them. ( 4) If your diagnostic system is inadequate for detecting significant malfunctions in emission­ control systems, as described in § 1048.110( b), we will require you to make the system more effective. ( 5) If your diagnostic system inappropriately disregards trouble codes under certain conditions, as described in § 1048.110( f), we will require you to change the system to operate under broader conditions. ( 6) If your proposed emission control information label is inconsistent with § 1048.135, we will require you to change it ( and tell you how, if possible). ( 7) If you require or recommend maintenance and use instructions inconsistent with § 1048.125, we will require you to change them. ( 8) If we find any other problem with your application, we will tell you what the problem is and what needs to be corrected. ( c) If we determine your application is complete and shows that the engine family meets all the requirements of this part and the Act, we will issue a certificate of conformity for your engine family for that model year. If we deny the application, we will explain why in writing. You may then ask us to hold a hearing to reconsider our decision ( see § 1048.820). § 1048.220 How do I amend the maintenance instructions in my application? Send the Designated Officer a request to amend your application for certification for an engine family if you want to change the emission­ related maintenance instructions in a way that could affect emissions. In your request, describe the proposed changes to the maintenance instructions. ( a) If you are decreasing the specified level of maintenance, you may distribute the new maintenance instructions to your customers 30 days after we receive your request, unless we disapprove your request. We may approve a shorter time or waive this requirement. ( b) If your requested change would not decrease the specified level of maintenance, you may distribute the new maintenance instructions anytime after you send your request. ( c) If you are correcting or clarifying your maintenance instructions or if you are changing instructions for maintenance unrelated to emission controls, the requirements of this section do not apply. § 1048.225 How do I amend my application to include new or modified engines? ( a) You must amend your application for certification before you take either of the following actions: ( 1) Add an engine to a certificate of conformity ( this includes any changes you make in selecting emission standards under § 1048.205( m)( 1)). ( 2) Make a design change for a certified engine family that may affect emissions or an emission­ related part over the engine's lifetime. ( b) Send the Designated Officer a request to amend the application for certification for an engine family. In your request, do all of the following: ( 1) Describe the engine model or configuration you are adding or changing. ( 2) Include engineering evaluations or reasons why the original test engine is or is not still appropriate. ( 3) If the original test engine for the engine family is not appropriate to show compliance for the new or modified nonroad engine, include new test data showing that the new or modified nonroad engine meets the requirements of this part. ( c) You may start producing the new or modified nonroad engine anytime after you send us your request. If we determine that the affected engines do not meet applicable requirements, we will require you to cease production of the engines and to recall and correct the engines at no expense to the owner. If VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68356 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations you choose to produce engines under this paragraph ( c), we will consider that to be consent to recall all engines that we determine do not meet applicable standards or other requirements and to remedy the nonconformity at no expense to the owner. ( d) You must give us test data within 30 days if we ask for more testing, or stop producing the engine if you cannot do this. You may give us an engineering evaluation instead of test data if we agree that you can address our questions without test data. ( e) If we determine that the certificate of conformity would not cover your new or modified nonroad engine, we will send you a written explanation of our decision. In this case, you may no longer produce these engines, though you may ask for a hearing for us to reconsider our decision ( see § 1048.820). § 1048.230 How do I select engine families? ( a) Divide your product line into families of engines that you expect to have similar emission characteristics. Your engine family is limited to a single model year. ( b) Group engines in the same engine family if they are the same in all of the following aspects: ( 1) The combustion cycle. ( 2) The cooling system ( water­ cooled vs. air­ cooled). ( 3) Configuration of the fuel system ( for example, fuel injection vs. carburetion). ( 4) Method of air aspiration. ( 5) The number, location, volume, and composition of catalytic converters. ( 6) The number, arrangement, and approximate bore diameter of cylinders. ( 7) Evaporative emission controls. ( c) In some cases you may subdivide a group of engines that is identical under paragraph ( b) of this section into different engine families. To do so, you must show you expect emission characteristics to be different during the useful life or that any of the following engine characteristics are different: ( 1) Method of actuating intake and exhaust timing ( poppet valve, reed valve, rotary valve, etc.). ( 2) Location or size of intake and exhaust valves or ports. ( 3) Configuration of the combustion chamber. ( 4) Cylinder stroke. ( 5) Exhaust system. ( 6) Type of fuel. ( d) If your engines are not identical with respect to the things listed in paragraph ( b) of this section, but you show that their emission characteristics during the useful life will be similar, we may approve grouping them in the same engine family. ( e) If you cannot appropriately define engine families by the method in this section, we will define them based on features related to emission characteristics. ( f) You may ask us to create separate families for exhaust emissions and evaporative emissions. If we do this, list both families on the emission control information label. ( g) Where necessary, you may divide an engine family into sub­ families to meet different emission standards, as specified in § 1048.101( a)( 2). For issues related to compliance and prohibited actions, we will generally apply decisions to the whole engine family. For engine labels and other administrative provisions, we may approve your request for separate treatment of sub­ families. § 1048.235 What emission testing must I perform for my application for a certificate of conformity? This section describes the emission testing you must perform to show compliance with the emission standards in § § 1048.101( a) and ( b) and 1048.105 during certification. See § 1048.205( s) regarding emission testing related to the field­ testing emission standards. ( a) Test your emission­ data engines using the procedures and equipment specified in subpart F of this part. For any testing related to evaporative emissions, use good engineering judgment to include a complete fuel system with the engine. ( b) Select engine families according to the following criteria: ( 1) For exhaust testing, select from each engine family a test engine for each fuel type with a configuration that is most likely to exceed the exhaust emission standards, using good engineering judgment. Consider the emission levels of all exhaust constituents over the full useful life of the engine when operated in a piece of equipment. ( 2) For evaporative testing, select from each engine family a test fuel system for each fuel type with a configuration that is most likely to exceed the evaporative emission standards, using good engineering judgment. ( c) You may use previously generated emission data in either of the following cases: ( 1) You may submit emission data for equivalent engine families from previous years instead of doing new tests, but only if the data show that the test engine would meet all the requirements for the latest engine models. We may require you to do new emission testing if we believe the latest engine models could be substantially different from the previously tested engine. ( 2) You may submit emission data for equivalent engine families performed to show compliance with other standards ( such as California standards) instead of doing new tests, but only if the data show that the test engine would meet all of this part's requirements. ( d) We may choose to measure emissions from any of your test engines ( or other engines from the engine family). ( 1) If we do this, you must provide the test engine at the location we select. We may decide to do the testing at your plant or any other facility. If we choose to do the testing at your plant, you must schedule it as soon as possible and make available the instruments and equipment we need. ( 2) If we measure emissions on one of your test engines, the results of that testing become the official data for the engine. Unless we later invalidate this data, we may decide not to consider your data in determining if your engine family meets the emission standards. ( 3) Before we test one of your engines, we may set its adjustable parameters to any point within the physically adjustable ranges ( see § 1048.115( e)). ( 4) Calibrate the test engine within normal production tolerances for anything we do not consider an adjustable parameter ( see § 1048.205( p)). § 1048.240 How do I demonstrate that my engine family complies with exhaust emission standards? ( a) For certification, your engine family is considered in compliance with the numerical emission standards in § 1048.101 ( a) and ( b), if all emissiondata engines representing that family have test results showing emission levels at or below these standards. ( b) Your engine family does not comply if any emission­ data engine representing that family has test results showing emission levels above the standards from § 1048.101 ( a) and ( b) for any pollutant. ( c) To compare emission levels from the test engine with the emission standards, apply deterioration factors to the measured emission levels. The deterioration factor is a number that shows the relationship between exhaust emissions at the end of useful life and at the low­ hour test point. Specify the deterioration factors based on emission measurements using four significant figures, consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, deterioration factors must be consistent with emission increases observed from in­ use testing with similar engines ( see subpart E of this part). Small­ volume VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68357 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations engine manufacturers may use assigned deterioration factors that we establish. Apply the deterioration factors as follows: ( 1) For engines that use aftertreatment technology, such as catalytic converters, the deterioration factor is the ratio of exhaust emissions at the end of useful life to exhaust emissions at the low­ hour test point. Adjust the official emission results for each tested engine at the selected test point by multiplying the measured emissions by the deterioration factor. If the factor is less than one, use one. ( 2) For engines that do not use aftertreatment technology, the deterioration factor is the difference between exhaust emissions at the end of useful life and exhaust emissions at the low­ hour test point. Adjust the official emission results for each tested engine at the selected test point by adding the factor to the measured emissions. If the factor is less than zero, use zero. ( d) After adjusting the emission levels for deterioration, round them to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each test engine. § 1048.245 How do I demonstrate that my engine family complies with evaporative emission standards? ( a) For certification, your engine family is considered in compliance with the evaporative emission standards in subpart B of this part if you do either of the following: ( 1) You have test results showing that evaporative emissions in the family are at or below the standards throughout the useful life. ( 2) Where applicable, you comply with the design specifications in paragraph ( e) of this section. ( b) Your engine family does not comply if any fuel system representing that family has test results showing emission levels above the standards. ( c) Use good engineering judgment to develop a test plan to establish deterioration factors to show how much emissions increase at the end of useful life. ( d) If you adjust the emission levels for deterioration, round them to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each test fuel system. ( e) You may demonstrate that your engine family complies with the evaporative emission standards by demonstrating that you use the following control technologies: ( 1) For certification to the standards specified in § 1048.105( a)( 1), with the following technologies: ( i) Use a tethered or self­ closing gas cap on a fuel tank that stays sealed up to a positive pressure of 24.5 kPa ( 3.5 psig) or a vacuum pressure of 10.5 kPa ( 1.5 psig). ( ii) [ Reserved] ( 2) For certification to the standards specified in § 1048.105( a)( 3), demonstrating that you use design features to prevent fuel boiling under all normal operation. You may do this using fuel temperature data measured during normal operation. ( 3) We may establish additional options for design­ based certification where we find that new test data demonstrate that a technology will ensure compliance with the emission standards in this section. § 1048.250 What records must I keep and make available to EPA? ( a) Organize and maintain the following records to keep them readily available; we may review these records at any time: ( 1) A copy of all applications and any summary information you sent us. ( 2) Any of the information we specify in § 1048.205 that you did not include in your application. ( 3) A detailed history of each emission­ data engine. In each history, describe all of the following: ( i) The test engine's construction, including its origin and buildup, steps you took to ensure that it represents production engines, any components you built specially for it, and all emission­ related components. ( ii) How you accumulated engine operating hours, including the dates and the number of hours accumulated. ( iii) All maintenance ( including modifications, parts changes, and other service) and the dates and reasons for the maintenance. ( iv) All your emission tests, including documentation on routine and standard tests, as specified in part 40 CFR part 1065, and the date and purpose of each test. ( v) All tests to diagnose engine or emission­ control performance, giving the date and time of each and the reasons for the test. ( vi) Any other significant events. ( b) Keep data from routine emission tests ( such as test cell temperatures and relative humidity readings) for one year after we issue the associated certificate of conformity. Keep all other information specified in paragraph ( a) of this section for eight years after we issue your certificate. ( c) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. ( d) Send us copies of any engine maintenance instructions or explanations if we ask for them. § 1048.255 When may EPA deny, revoke, or void my certificate of conformity? ( a) We may deny your application for certification if your engine family fails to comply with emission standards or other requirements of this part or the Act. Our decision may be based on any information available to us showing you do not meet emission standards or other requirements, including any testing that we conduct under paragraph ( f) of this section. If we deny your application, we will explain why in writing. ( b) In addition, we may deny your application or revoke your certificate if you do any of the following: ( 1) Refuse to comply with any testing or reporting requirements. ( 2) Submit false or incomplete information ( paragraph ( d) of this section applies if this is fraudulent). ( 3) Render inaccurate any test data. ( 4) Deny us from completing authorized activities despite our presenting a warrant or court order ( see 40 CFR 1068.20). ( 5) Produce engines for importation into the United States at a location where local law prohibits us from carrying out authorized activities. ( c) We may void your certificate if you do not keep the records we require or do not give us information when we ask for it. ( d) We may void your certificate if we find that you intentionally submitted false or incomplete information. ( e) If we deny your application or revoke or void your certificate, you may ask for a hearing ( see § 1048.820). Any such hearing will be limited to substantial and factual issues. ( f) We may conduct confirmatory testing of your engines as part of certification. We may deny your application for certification or revoke your certificate if your engines fail to comply with emission standards or other requirements during confirmatory testing. Subpart D Testing Production­ line Engines § 1048.301 When must I test my production­ line engines? ( a) If you produce engines that are subject the requirements of this part, you must test them as described in this subpart. ( b) We may suspend or revoke your certificate of conformity for certain engine families if your production­ line engines do not meet the requirements of this part or you do not fulfill your VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68358 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations obligations under this subpart ( see § § 1048.325 and 1048.340). ( c) Other requirements apply to engines that you produce. Other regulatory provisions authorize us to suspend, revoke, or void your certificate of conformity, or order recalls for engines families without regard to whether they have passed these production­ line testing requirements. The requirements of this part do not affect our ability to do selective enforcement audits, as described in part 1068 of this chapter. Individual engines in families that pass these productionline testing requirements must also conform to all applicable regulations of this part and part 1068 of this chapter. ( d) You may ask to use an alternate program for testing production­ line engines. In your request, you must show us that the alternate program gives equal assurance that your production­ line engines meet the requirements of this part. If we approve your alternate program, we may waive some or all of this subpart's requirements. ( e) If you certify an engine family with carryover emission data, as described in § 1048.235( c), and these equivalent engine families consistently pass the production­ line testing requirements over the preceding two­ year period, you may ask for a reduced testing rate for further production­ line testing for that family. The minimum testing rate is one engine per engine family. If we reduce your testing rate, we may limit our approval to any number of model years. In determining whether to approve your request, we may consider the number of engines that have failed the emission tests. ( f) We may ask you to make a reasonable number of production­ line engines available for a reasonable time so we can test or inspect them for compliance with the requirements of this part. § 1048.305 How must I prepare and test my production­ line engines? ( a) Test procedures. Test your production­ line engines using either the steady­ state or transient testing procedures in subpart F of this part to show you meet the emission standards in § 1048.101( a) or ( b), respectively. We may require you to test engines using the transient testing procedures to show you meet the emission standards in § 1048.101( a). ( b) Modifying a test engine. Once an engine is selected for testing ( see § 1048.310), you may adjust, repair, prepare, or modify it or check its emissions only if one of the following is true: ( 1) You document the need for doing so in your procedures for assembling and inspecting all your production engines and make the action routine for all the engines in the engine family. ( 2) This subpart otherwise specifically allows your action. ( 3) We approve your action in advance. ( c) Engine malfunction. If an engine malfunction prevents further emission testing, ask us to approve your decision to either repair the engine or delete it from the test sequence. ( d) Setting adjustable parameters. Before any test, we may adjust or require you to adjust any adjustable parameter to any setting within its physically adjustable range. ( 1) We may adjust idle speed outside the physically adjustable range as needed only until the engine has stabilized emission levels ( see paragraph ( e) of this section). We may ask you for information needed to establish an alternate minimum idle speed. ( 2) We may make or specify adjustments within the physically adjustable range by considering their effect on emission levels, as well as how likely it is someone will make such an adjustment with in­ use engines. ( e) Stabilizing emission levels. Before you test production­ line engines, you may operate the engine to stabilize the emission levels. Using good engineering judgment, operate your engines in a way that represents the way production engines will be used. You may operate each engine for no more than the greater of two periods: ( 1) 50 hours. ( 2) The number of hours you operated your emission­ data engine for certifying the engine family ( see 40 CFR part 1065, subpart E). ( f) Damage during shipment. If shipping an engine to a remote facility for production­ line testing makes necessary an adjustment or repair, you must wait until after the after the initial emission test to do this work. We may waive this requirement if the test would be impossible or unsafe, or if it would permanently damage the engine. Report to us, in your written report under § 1048.345, all adjustments or repairs you make on test engines before each test. ( g) Retesting after invalid tests. You may retest an engine if you determine an emission test is invalid. Explain in your written report reasons for invalidating any test and the emission results from all tests. If you retest an engine and, within ten days after testing, ask to substitute results of the new tests for the original ones, we will answer within ten days after we receive your information. § 1048.310 How must I select engines for production­ line testing? ( a) Use test results from two engines for each engine family to calculate the required sample size for the model year. Update this calculation with each test. ( b) Early in each calendar quarter, randomly select and test two engines from the end of the assembly line for each engine family. ( c) Calculate the required sample size for each engine family. Separately calculate this figure for HC+ NOX and for CO. The required sample size is the greater of these two calculated values. Use the following equation: N t x = × + ( ) ( 95 2 STD) 1 Where: N = Required sample size for the model year. t95 = 95% confidence coefficient, which depends on the number of tests completed, n, as specified in the table in paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section. It defines 95% confidence intervals for a one­ tail distribution. x = Mean of emission test results of the sample. STD = Emission standard. s = Test sample standard deviation ( see paragraph ( c)( 2) of this section). ( 1) Determine the 95% confidence coefficient, t95, from the following table: n t95 n t95 n t95 2 6.31 121.80 221.72 3 2.92 131.78 231.72 4 2.35 141.77 241.71 5 2.13 151.76 251.71 6 2.02 161.75 261.71 7 1.94 171.75 271.71 8 1.90 181.74 281.70 9 1.86 191.73 291.70 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08no02.004</ MATH> 68359 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations n t95 n t95 n t95 10 1.83 201.73 30+ 1.70 11 1.81 211.72 ( 2) Calculate the standard deviation, s, for the test sample using the following formula: = ( X x) n i 2 1 Where: Xi = Emission test result for an individual engine. n = The number of tests completed in an engine family. ( d) Use final deteriorated test results to calculate the variables in the equations in paragraph ( c) of this section ( see § 1048.315( a)). ( e) After each new test, recalculate the required sample size using the updated mean values, standard deviations, and the appropriate 95­ percent confidence coefficient. ( f) Distribute the remaining engine tests evenly throughout the rest of the year. You may need to adjust your schedule for selecting engines if the required sample size changes. Continue to randomly select engines from each engine family; this may involve testing engines that operate on different fuels. ( g) Continue testing any engine family for which the sample mean, x, is greater than the emission standard. This applies if the sample mean for either HC+ NOX or for CO is greater than the emission standard. Continue testing until one of the following things happens: ( 1) The sample size, n, for an engine family is greater than the required sample size, N, and the sample mean, x, is less than or equal to the emission standard. For example, if N = 3.1 after the third test, the sample­ size calculation does not allow you to stop testing. ( 2) The engine family does not comply according to § 1048.325. ( 3) You test 30 engines from the engine family. ( 4) You test one percent of your projected annual U. S.­ directed production volume for the engine family. ( 5) You choose to declare that the engine family does not comply with the requirements of this subpart. ( h) If the sample­ size calculation allows you to stop testing for a pollutant, you must continue measuring emission levels of that pollutant for any additional tests required under this section. However, you need not continue making the calculations specified in this section for that pollutant. This paragraph ( h) does not affect the requirements in section § 1048.320. ( i) You may elect to test more randomly chosen engines than we require. Include these engines in the sample­ size calculations. § 1048.315 How do I know when my engine family fails the production­ line testing requirements? This section describes the pass/ fail criteria for the production­ line testing requirements. We apply this criteria on an engine­ family basis. See § 1048.320 for the requirements that apply to individual engines that fail a production­ line test. ( a) Calculate your test results. Round them to the number of decimal places in the emission standard expressed to one more decimal place. ( 1) Initial and final test results. Calculate and round the test results for each engine. If you do several tests on an engine, calculate the initial test results, then add them together and divide by the number of tests and round for the final test results on that engine. ( 2) Final deteriorated test results. Apply the deterioration factor for the engine family to the final test results ( see § 1048.240( c)). ( b) Construct the following CumSum Equation for each engine family ( for HC+ NOX and for CO emissions): C X ( STD ) i ­ 1 i = + + × Ci 0 25 . Where: Ci = The current CumSum statistic. Ci­ 1 = The previous CumSum statistic. For the first test, CumSum statistic is 0 ( i. e. C1 = 0). Xi = The current emission test result for an individual engine. STD = Emission standard. ( c) Use final deteriorated test results to calculate the variables in the equation in paragraph ( b) of this section ( see § 1048.315( a)). ( d) After each new test, recalculate the CumSum statistic. ( e) If you test more than the required number of engines, include the results from these additional tests in the CumSum Equation. ( f) After each test, compare the current CumSum statistic, Ci, to the recalculated Action Limit, H, defined as H = 5.0 × s. ( g) If the CumSum statistic exceeds the Action Limit in two consecutive tests, the engine family fails the production­ line testing requirements of this subpart. Tell us within ten working days if this happens. ( h) If you amend the application for certification for an engine family ( see § 1048.225), do not change any previous calculations of sample size or CumSum statistics for the model year. § 1048.320 What happens if one of my production­ line engines fails to meet emission standards? If you have a production­ line engine with final deteriorated test results exceeding one or more emission standards ( see § 1048.315( a)), the certificate of conformity is automatically suspended for that failing engine. You must take the following actions before your certificate of conformity can cover that engine: ( a) Correct the problem and retest the engine to show it complies with all emission standards. ( b) Include in your written report a description of the test results and the remedy for each engine ( see § 1048.345). § 1048.325 What happens if an engine family fails the production­ line requirements? ( a) We may suspend your certificate of conformity for an engine family if it fails under § 1048.315. The suspension may apply to all facilities producing engines from an engine family, even if you find noncompliant engines only at one facility. ( b) We will tell you in writing if we suspend your certificate in whole or in part. We will not suspend a certificate until at least 15 days after the engine family fails. The suspension is effective when you receive our notice. ( c) Up to 15 days after we suspend the certificate for an engine family, you may ask for a hearing ( see § 1048.820). If we agree before a hearing that we used erroneous information in deciding to suspend the certificate, we will reinstate the certificate. ( d) Section § 1048.335 specifies steps you must take to remedy the cause of the production­ line failure. All the engines you have produced since the end of the last test period are presumed noncompliant and should be addressed in your proposed remedy. We may require you to apply the remedy to engines produced earlier if we determine that the cause of the failure is likely to have affected the earlier engines. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08no02.005</ MATH> ER08no02.006</ MATH> 68360 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations § 1048.330 May I sell engines from an engine family with a suspended certificate of conformity? You may sell engines that you produce after we suspend the engine family's certificate of conformity under § 1048.315 only if one of the following occurs: ( a) You test each engine you produce and show it complies with emission standards that apply. ( b) We conditionally reinstate the certificate for the engine family. We may do so if you agree to recall all the affected engines and remedy any noncompliance at no expense to the owner if later testing shows that the engine family still does not comply. § 1048.335 How do I ask EPA to reinstate my suspended certificate? ( a) Send us a written report asking us to reinstate your suspended certificate. In your report, identify the reason for noncompliance, propose a remedy for the engine family, and commit to a date for carrying it out. In your proposed remedy include any quality control measures you propose to keep the problem from happening again. ( b) Give us data from production­ line testing that shows the remedied engine family complies with all the emission standards that apply. § 1048.340 When may EPA revoke my certificate under this subpart and how may I sell these engines again? ( a) We may revoke your certificate for an engine family in the following cases: ( 1) You do not meet the reporting requirements. ( 2) Your engine family fails to comply with the requirements of this subpart and your proposed remedy to address a suspended certificate under § 1048.325 is inadequate to solve the problem or requires you to change the engine's design or emission­ control system. ( b) To sell engines from an engine family with a revoked certificate of conformity, you must modify the engine family and then show it complies with the requirements of this part. ( 1) If we determine your proposed design change may not control emissions for the engine's full useful life, we will tell you within five working days after receiving your report. In this case we will decide whether production­ line testing will be enough for us to evaluate the change or whether you need to do more testing. ( 2) Unless we require more testing, you may show compliance by testing production­ line engines as described in this subpart. ( 3) We will issue a new or updated certificate of conformity when you have met these requirements. § 1048.345 What production­ line testing records must I send to EPA? Do all the following things unless we ask you to send us less information: ( a) Within 30 calendar days of the end of each calendar quarter, send us a report with the following information: ( 1) Describe any facility used to test production­ line engines and state its location. ( 2) State the total U. S.­ directed production volume and number of tests for each engine family. ( 3) Describe how you randomly selected engines. ( 4) Describe your test engines, including the engine family's identification and the engine's model year, build date, model number, identification number, and number of hours of operation before testing for each test engine. ( 5) Identify where you accumulated hours of operation on the engines and describe the procedure and schedule you used. ( 6) Provide the test number; the date, time and duration of testing; test procedure; initial test results before and after rounding; final test results; and final deteriorated test results for all tests. Provide the emission results for all measured pollutants. Include information for both valid and invalid tests and the reason for any invalidation. ( 7) Describe completely and justify any nonroutine adjustment, modification, repair, preparation, maintenance, or test for the test engine if you did not report it separately under this subpart. Include the results of any emission measurements, regardless of the procedure or type of equipment. ( 8) Provide the CumSum analysis required in § 1048.315 for each engine family. ( 9) Report on each failed engine as described in § 1048.320. ( 10) State the date the calendar quarter ended for each engine family. ( b) We may ask you to add information to your written report, so we can determine whether your new nonroad engines conform with the requirements of this subpart. ( c) An authorized representative of your company must sign the following statement: We submit this report under Sections 208 and 213 of the Clean Air Act. Our production­ line testing conformed completely with the requirements of 40 CFR part 1048. We have not changed production processes or quality­ control procedures for the engine family in a way that might affect the emission control from production engines. All the information in this report is true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge. I know of the penalties for violating the Clean Air Act and the regulations. ( Authorized Company Representative) ( d) Send electronic reports of production­ line testing to the Designated Officer using an approved information format. If you want to use a different format, send us a written request with justification for a waiver. ( e) We will send copies of your reports to anyone from the public who asks for them. See § 1048.815 for information on how we treat information you consider confidential. § 1048.350 What records must I keep? ( a) Organize and maintain your records as described in this section. We may review your records at any time, so it is important to keep required information readily available. ( b) Keep paper records of your production­ line testing for one full year after you complete all the testing required for an engine family in a model year. You may use any additional storage formats or media if you like. ( c) Keep a copy of the written reports described in § 1048.345. ( d) Keep the following additional records: ( 1) A description of all test equipment for each test cell that you can use to test production­ line engines. ( 2) The names of supervisors involved in each test. ( 3) The name of anyone who authorizes adjusting, repairing, preparing, or modifying a test engine and the names of all supervisors who oversee this work. ( 4) If you shipped the engine for testing, the date you shipped it, the associated storage or port facility, and the date the engine arrived at the testing facility. ( 5) Any records related to your production­ line tests that are not in the written report. ( 6) A brief description of any significant events during testing not otherwise described in the written report or in this section. ( 7) Any information specified in § 1048.345 that you do not include in your written reports. ( e) If we ask, you must give us projected or actual production figures for an engine family. We may ask you to divide your production figures by maximum brake power, displacement, fuel type, or assembly plant ( if you produce engines at more than one plant). ( f) Keep a list of engine identification numbers for all the engines you produce under each certificate of conformity. Give us this list within 30 days if we ask for it. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68361 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( g) We may ask you to keep or send other information necessary to implement this subpart. Subpart E Testing In­ use Engines § 1048.401 What testing requirements apply to my engines that have gone into service? ( a) If you produce engines that are subject to the requirements of this part, you must test them as described in this subpart. This generally involves testing engines in the field or removing them for measurement in a laboratory. ( b) We may approve an alternate plan for showing that in­ use engines comply with the requirements of this part if one of the following is true: ( 1) You produce 200 or fewer engines per year in the selected engine family. ( 2) Removing the engine from most of the applications for that engine family causes significant, irreparable damage to the equipment. ( 3) You identify a unique aspect of your engine applications that keeps you from doing the required in­ use testing. ( c) We may void your certificate of conformity for an engine family if you do not meet your obligations under this part. ( d) Independent of your responsibility to test in­ use engines, we may choose at any time to do our own testing of your in­ use engines. ( e) If in­ use testing shows that engines fail to meet emission standards or other requirements of this part, we may pursue a recall or other remedy as allowed by the Act ( see § 1048.415). § 1048.405 How does this program work? ( a) You must test in­ use engines, for exhaust emissions, from the families we select. We may select up to 25 percent of your engine families in any model year or one engine family if you have three or fewer families. We will select engine families for testing before the end of the model year. When we select an engine family for testing, we may specify that you preferentially test engines based on fuel type or equipment type. In addition, we may identify specific modes of operation or sampling times. You may choose to test additional engine families that we do not select. ( b) Send us an in­ use testing plan within 12 calendar months after we direct you to test a particular engine family. Complete the testing within 24 calendar months after we approve your plan. ( c) You may need to test engines from more than one model year at a given time. § 1048.410 How must I select, prepare, and test my in­ use engines? ( a) You may make arrangements to select representative test engines from your own fleet or from other independent sources. ( b) For the selected engine families, select engines that you or your customers have ( 1) Operated for at least 50 percent of the engine family's useful life ( see § 1048.101( d)); ( 2) Not maintained or used in an abnormal way; and ( 3) Documented in terms of total hours of operation, maintenance, operating conditions, and storage. ( c) Use the following methods to determine the number of engines you must test in each engine family: ( 1) Test at least two engines if you produce 2,000 or fewer engines in the model year from all engine families, or if you produce 500 or fewer engines from the selected engine family. Otherwise, test at least four engines. ( 2) If you successfully complete an inuse test program on an engine family and later certify an equivalent engine family with carryover emission data, as described in § 1048.235( c), then test at least one engine instead of the testing rates in paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section. ( 3) If you test the minimum required number of engines and all comply fully with emission standards, you may stop testing. ( 4) For each engine that fails any applicable standard, test two more. Regardless of measured emission levels, you do not have to test more than ten engines in an engine family. You may do more tests than we require. ( 5) You may concede that the engine family does not comply before testing a total of ten engines. ( d) You may do minimal maintenance to set components of a test engine to specifications for anything we do not consider an adjustable parameter ( see § 1048.205( p)). Limit maintenance to what is in the owner's instructions for engines with that amount of service and age. Document all maintenance and adjustments. ( e) Do at least one valid exhaust emission test for each test engine. ( f) For a test program on an engine family, choose one of the following methods to test your engines: ( 1) Remove the selected engines for testing in a laboratory. Use the applicable steady­ state and transient procedures in subpart F of this part to show compliance with the duty­ cycle standards in § 1048.101( a) and ( b). We may direct you to measure emissions on the dynamometer using the supplemental test procedures in § 1048.515 to show compliance with the field­ testing standards in § 1048.101( c). ( 2) Test the selected engines while they remain installed in the equipment. Use the field testing procedures in subpart F of this part. Measure emissions during normal operation of the equipment to show compliance with the field­ testing standards in § 1048.101( c). We may direct you to include specific areas of normal operation. ( g) You may ask us to waive parts of the prescribed test procedures if they are not necessary to determine in­ use compliance. ( h) Calculate the average emission levels for an engine family from the results for the set of tested engines. Round them to the number of decimal places in the emission standards expressed to one more decimal place. § 1048.415 What happens if in­ use engines do not meet requirements? ( a) Determine the reason each in­ use engine exceeds the emission standards. ( b) If the average emission levels calculated in § 1048.410( h) exceed any of the emission standards that apply, notify us within fifteen days of completing testing on this family. Otherwise follow the reporting instructions in § 1048.420. ( c) We will consider failure rates, average emission levels, and any defects among other things to decide on taking remedial action under this subpart ( see 40 CFR 1068.505). We may consider the results from any voluntary additional testing you conduct. We may also consider information related to testing from other engine families showing that you designed them to exceed the minimum requirements for controlling emissions. We may order a recall before or after you complete testing of an engine family if we determine a substantial number of engines do not conform to section 213 of the Act or to this part. ( d) If in­ use testing reveals a design or manufacturing defect that prevents engines from meeting the requirements of this part, you must correct the defect as soon as possible for any future production for engines in every family affected by the defect. ( e) You may voluntarily recall an engine family for emission failures, as described in 40 CFR 1068.535, unless we have ordered a recall for that family under 40 CFR 1068.505. ( f) You have the right to a hearing before we order you to recall your engines or implement an alternative remedy ( see § 1048.820). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68362 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations § 1048.420 What in­ use testing information must I report to EPA? ( a) In a report to us within three months after you finish testing an engine family, do all the following: ( 1) Identify the engine family, model, serial number, and date of manufacture. ( 2) For each engine inspected or considered for testing, identify whether the diagnostic system was functioning. ( 3) Describe the specific reasons for disqualifying any engines for not being properly maintained or used. ( 4) For each engine selected for testing, include the following information: ( i) Estimate the hours each engine was used before testing. ( ii) Describe all maintenance, adjustments, modifications, and repairs to each test engine. ( 5) State the date and time of each test attempt. ( 6) Include the results of all emission testing, including incomplete or invalidated tests, if any. ( b) Send electronic reports of in­ use testing to the Designated Officer using an approved information format. If you want to use a different format, send us a written request with justification for a waiver. ( c) We will send copies of your reports to anyone from the public who asks for them. See § 1048.815 for information on how we treat information you consider confidential. ( d) We may ask for more information. § 1048.425 What records must I keep? ( a) Organize and maintain your records as described in this section. We may review your records at any time, so it is important to keep required information readily available. ( b) Keep paper records of your in­ use testing for one full year after you complete all the testing required for an engine family in a model year. You may use any additional storage formats or media if you like. ( c) Keep a copy of the written reports described in § 1048.420. ( d) Keep any additional records related to the procurement process. Subpart F Test Procedures § 1048.501 What procedures must I use to test my engines? ( a) Use the equipment and procedures for spark­ ignition engines in 40 CFR part 1065 to show your engines meet the duty­ cycle emission standards in § 1048.101( a) and ( b). Measure HC, NOX, CO, and CO2 emissions using the fullflow dilute sampling procedures in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the applicable duty cycles in § § 1048.505 and 1048.510. ( b) We describe in § 1048.515 the supplemental procedures for showing that your engines meet the field­ testing emission standards in § 1048.101( c). ( c) Use the fuels specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, for all the testing we require in this part, except as noted in § 1048.515. Use these test fuels or any commercially available fuel for service accumulation. ( d) To test engines for evaporative emissions, use the equipment and procedures specified for testing diurnal emissions in 40 CFR 86.107 96 and 86.133 96 with fuel meeting the specifications in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C. Measure emissions from a test engine with a complete fuel system. Reported emission levels must be based on the highest emissions from three successive 24­ hour periods of cycling temperatures. Note that you may not be required to test for evaporative emissions during certification if you certify by design, as specified in § 1048.245. ( e) You may use special or alternate procedures, as described in 40 CFR 1065.10. ( f) We may reject data you generate using alternate procedures if later testing with the procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 shows contradictory emission data. § 1048.505 What steady­ state duty cycles apply for laboratory testing? ( a) Measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with one or more of the following sets of steadystate duty cycles to show that the engine meets the steady­ state standards in § 1048.101( b): ( 1) Use the 7­ mode duty cycle described in the following table for engines from an engine family that will be used only in variable­ speed applications: TABLE 1 OF § 1048.505 7­ MODE DUTY CYCLE 1 Mode No. Engine speed Observed torque 2 Minimum time in mode ( minutes) Weighting factors 1 .................................................. Maximum test speed ...................................................................... 25 3.0 0.06 2 .................................................. Intermediate test speed .................................................................. 100 3.0 0.02 3 .................................................. Intermediate test speed .................................................................. 75 3.0 0.05 4 .................................................. Intermediate test speed .................................................................. 50 3.0 0.32 5 .................................................. Intermediate test speed .................................................................. 25 3.0 0.30 6 .................................................. Intermediate test speed .................................................................. 10 3.0 0.10 7 .................................................. Idle .................................................................................................. 0 3.0 0.15 1 This duty cycle is analogous to the C2 cycle specified in ISO 8178 4. 2 The percent torque is relative to the maximum torque at the given engine speed. ( 2) Use the 5­ mode duty cycle described in the following table if you certify an engine family for operation only at a single, rated speed: TABLE 2 OF § 1048.505 5­ MODE DUTY CYCLE FOR CONSTANT­ SPEED ENGINES 1 Mode No. Engine speed Torque 2 Minimum time in mode ( minutes) Weighting factors 1 .................................................. Maximum test ................................................................................. 100 3.0 0.05 2 .................................................. Maximum test ................................................................................. 75 3.0 0.25 3 .................................................. Maximum test ................................................................................. 50 3.0 0.30 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68363 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2 OF § 1048.505 5­ MODE DUTY CYCLE FOR CONSTANT­ SPEED ENGINES 1 Mode No. Engine speed Torque 2 Minimum time in mode ( minutes) Weighting factors 4 .................................................. Maximum test ................................................................................. 25 3.0 0.30 5 .................................................. Maximum test ................................................................................. 10 3.0 0.10 1 This duty cycle is analogous to the D2 cycle specified in ISO 8178 4. 2 The percent torque is relative to the maximum torque at maximum test speed. ( 3) Use both of the duty cycles described in paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( a)( 2) of this section if you will not restrict an engine family to constant­ speed or variable­ speed applications. ( 4) Use only the duty cycle specified in paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section for all severe­ duty engines. ( 5) Use the 2­ mode duty cycle described in the following table for high­ load engines instead of the other duty cycles in this paragraph ( a): TABLE 3 OF § 1048.505 2­ MODE DUTY CYCLE FOR HIGH­ LOAD ENGINES 1 Mode No. Engine speed Torque 2 Minimum time in mode ( minutes) Weighting factors 1 .................................................. Maximum test ................................................................................. 100 3.0 0.50 2 .................................................. Maximum test ................................................................................. 75 3.0 0.50 1 This duty cycle is derived from the D1 cycle specified in ISO 8178 4. 2 The percent torque is relative to the maximum torque at maximum test speed. ( b) If we test an engine to confirm that it meets the duty­ cycle emission standards, we will use the steady­ state duty cycles that apply for that engine family. ( c) During idle mode, operate the engine with the following parameters: ( 1) Hold the speed within your specifications. ( 2) Keep the throttle at the idle­ stop position. ( 3) Keep engine torque under 5 percent of the peak torque value at maximum test speed. ( d) For the full­ load operating mode, operate the engine at wide­ open throttle. ( e) See 40 CFR part 1065 for detailed specifications of tolerances and calculations. ( f) In the normal test sequence described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart F, steady­ state testing generally follows the transient test. For those cases where we do not require transient testing, perform the steady­ state test after an appropriate warm­ up period, consistent with good engineering judgment. § 1048.510 What transient duty cycles apply for laboratory testing? ( a) Starting with the 2007 model year, measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with one of the following transient duty cycles to show that the engine meets the transient emission standards in § 1048.101( a): ( 1) If you certify an engine family for constant­ speed operation only, use the transient duty­ cycle described in Appendix I of this part. ( 2) For all other engines, use the transient duty­ cycle described in Appendix II of this part. ( b) If we test an engine to confirm that it meets the duty­ cycle emission standards, we will use the transient duty cycle that applies for that engine family. ( c) Warm up the test engine as follows: ( 1) Operate the engine for the first 180 seconds of the appropriate duty cycle, then allow it to idle without load for 30 seconds. At the end of the 30­ second idling period, start measuring emissions as the engine operates over the prescribed duty cycle. For severe­ duty engines, this engine warm­ up procedure may include up to 15 minutes of operation over the appropriate duty cycle. ( 2) If the engine was already operating before a test, use good engineering judgment to let the engine cool down enough so measured emissions during the next test will accurately represent those from an engine starting at room temperature. For example, if an engine starting at room temperature warms up enough in three minutes to start closedloop operation and achieve full catalyst activity, then minimal engine cooling is necessary before starting the next test. ( 3) You are not required to measure emissions while the engine is warming up. However, you must design your emission­ control system to start working as soon as possible after engine starting. In your application for certification, describe how your engine meets this objective ( see § 1048.205( b)). § 1048.515 Field­ testing procedures. ( a) This section describes the procedures to determine whether your engines meet the field­ testing emission standards in § 1048.101( c). These procedures may include any normal engine operation and ambient conditions that the engines may experience in use. Paragraph ( b) of this section defines the limits of what we will consider normal engine operation and ambient conditions. Use the test procedures we specify in § 1048.501, except for the provisions we specify in this section. Measure emissions with one of the following procedures: ( 1) Remove the selected engines for testing in a laboratory. You can use an engine dynamometer to simulate normal operation, as described in this section. ( 2) Test the selected engines while they remain installed in the equipment. In 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J, we describe the equipment and sampling methods for testing engines in the field. Use fuel meeting the specifications of 40 CFR 1065.210 or a fuel typical of what you would expect the engine to use in service. ( b) An engine's emissions may not exceed the levels we specify in § 1048.101( c) for any continuous sampling period of at least 120 seconds VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68364 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations under the following ranges of operation and operating conditions: ( 1) Engine operation during the emission sampling period may include any normal operation, subject to the following restrictions: ( i) Average power must be over 5 percent of maximum brake power. ( ii) Continuous time at idle must not be greater than 120 seconds. ( iii) The sampling period may not begin until the engine has reached stable operating temperatures. For example, this would exclude engine operation after starting until the thermostat starts modulating coolant temperature. ( iv) The sampling period may not include engine starting. ( v) For engines that qualify for the alternate Tier 2 emission standards in § 1048.101( d), operation at 90 percent or more of maximum power must be less than 10 percent of the total sampling time. You may request our approval for a different power threshold. ( 2) Engine testing may occur under any normal conditions without correcting measured emission levels, subject to the following restrictions: ( i) Barometric pressure must be between 80.0 and 103.3 kPa ( 600 and 775 mm Hg). ( ii) Ambient air temperature must be between 13 ° and 35 ° C. Subpart G Compliance Provisions § 1048.601 What compliance provisions apply to these engines? Engine and equipment manufacturers, as well as owners, operators, and rebuilders of these engines, and all other persons, must observe the requirements and prohibitions in 40 CFR part 1068 and the requirements of the Act. The compliance provisions in this subpart apply only to the engines we regulate in this part. § 1048.605 What are the provisions for exempting engines from the requirements of this part if they are already certified under the motor­ vehicle program? ( a) This section applies to you if you are an engine manufacturer. See § 1048.610 if you are not an engine manufacturer. ( b) The only requirements or prohibitions from this part that apply to an engine that is exempt under this section are in this section. ( c) If you meet all the following criteria and requirements regarding your new nonroad engine, it is exempt under this section: ( 1) You must produce it by modifying an engine covered by a valid certificate of conformity under 40 CFR part 86. ( 2) Do not make any changes to the certified engine that we could reasonably expect to increase its exhaust or evaporative emissions. For example, if you make any of the following changes to one of these engines, you do not qualify for this exemption: ( i) Change any fuel system or evaporative system parameters from the certified configuration ( this does not apply to refueling emission controls). ( ii) Change any other emission­ related components. ( iii) Modify or design the engine cooling system so that temperatures or heat rejection rates are outside the original engine manufacturer's specified ranges. ( 3) Demonstrate that fewer than 50 percent of the engine model's total sales, from all companies, are used in nonroad applications. ( 4) The engine must have the label we require under 40 CFR part 86. ( 5) Add a permanent supplemental label to the engine in a position where it will remain clearly visible after installation in the equipment. In your engine's emission control information label, do the following: ( i) Include the heading: `` Nonroad Engine Emission Control Information''. ( ii) Include your full corporate name and trademark. ( iii) State: `` THIS ENGINE WAS ADAPTED FOR NONROAD USE WITHOUT AFFECTING ITS EMISSION CONTROLS.''. ( iv) State the date you finished modifying the engine ( month and year). ( 6) The original and supplemental labels must be readily visible after the engine is installed in the equipment or, if the equipment obscures the engine's emission control information label, the equipment manufacturer must attach duplicate labels, as described in 40 CFR 1068.105. ( 7) Send the Designated Officer a signed letter by the end of each calendar year ( or less often if we tell you) with all the following information: ( i) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone number. ( ii) List the engine models you expect to produce under this exemption in the coming year. ( iii) State: `` We produce each listed engine model for nonroad application without making any changes that could increase its certified emission levels, as described in 40 CFR 1048.605.''. ( d) If your engines do not meet the criteria listed in paragraph ( c) of this section, they will be subject to the standards and prohibitions of this part. Producing these engines without a valid exemption or certificate of conformity would violate the prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101. ( e) If you are the original engine manufacturer of both the highway and nonroad versions of an exempted engine, you must send us emission test data on the applicable nonroad duty cycle( s). You may include the data in your application for certification or in your letter requesting the exemption. ( f) If you are the original engine manufacturer of an exempted engine that is modified by another company under this exemption, we may require you to send us emission test data on the applicable nonroad duty cycle( s). If we ask for this data, we will allow a reasonable amount of time to collect it. ( g) The engine exempted under this section must meet all applicable requirements from 40 CFR part 86. This applies to engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers who use these engines, and all other persons as if these engines were used in a motor vehicle. § 1048.610 What are the provisions for producing nonroad equipment with engines already certified under the motor­ vehicle program? If you are not an engine manufacturer, you may produce nonroad equipment from complete or incomplete motor vehicles with the motor vehicle engine if you meet three criteria: ( a) The engine or vehicle is certified to 40 CFR part 86. ( b) The engine is not adjusted outside the engine manufacturer's specifications ( see § 1048.605( c)( 2)). ( c) The engine or vehicle is not modified in any way that may affect its emission control. This applies to exhaust and evaporative emission controls, but not refueling emission controls. § 1048.615 What are the provisions for exempting engines designed for lawn and garden applications? This section is intended for engines designed for lawn and garden applications, but it applies to any engines meeting the size criteria in paragraph ( a) of this section. ( a) If an engine meets all the following criteria, it is exempt from the requirements of this part: ( 1) The engine must have a total displacement of 1,000 cc or less. ( 2) The engine must have a maximum brake power of 30 kW or less. ( 3) The engine must be in an engine family that has a valid certificate of conformity showing that it meets emission standards for Class II engines under 40 CFR part 90. ( b) The only requirements or prohibitions from this part that apply to an engine that meets the criteria in paragraph ( a) of this section are in this section. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68365 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( c) If your engines do not meet the criteria listed in paragraph ( a) of this section, they will be subject to the provisions of this part. Producing these engines without a valid exemption or certificate of conformity would violate the prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101. ( d) Engines exempted under this section are subject to all the requirements affecting engines under 40 CFR part 90. The requirements and restrictions of 40 CFR part 90 apply to anyone manufacturing these engines, anyone manufacturing equipment that uses these engines, and all other persons in the same manner as if these engines had a total maximum brake power at or below 19 kW. § 1048.620 What are the provisions for exempting large engines fueled by natural gas? ( a) If an engine meets all the following criteria, it is exempt from the requirements of this part: ( 1) The engine must operate solely on natural gas. ( 2) The engine must have maximum brake power 250 kW or higher. ( 3) The engine must be in an engine family that has a valid certificate of conformity showing that it meets emission standards for engines of that power rating under 40 CFR part 89. ( b) The only requirements or prohibitions from this part that apply to an engine that is exempt under this section are in this section. ( c) If your engines do not meet the criteria listed in paragraph ( a) of this section, they will be subject to the provisions of this part. Producing these engines without a valid exemption or certificate of conformity would violate the prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101. ( d) Engines exempted under this section are subject to all the requirements affecting engines under 40 CFR part 89. The requirements and restrictions of 40 CFR part 89 apply to anyone manufacturing these engines, anyone manufacturing equipment that uses these engines, and all other persons in the same manner as if these were nonroad diesel engines. ( e) You may request an exemption under this section by submitting an application for certification for the engines under 40 CFR part 89. § 1048.625 What special provisions apply to engines using noncommercial fuels? If you are unable to meet this part's requirements with engines using noncommercial fuels ( such as unrefined natural gas released by oil wells), the following provisions apply for those engines: ( a) Create a separate engine family. ( b) Disregard the limits on adjustable parameters in § 1048.115( e), but make sure the engines meet emission standards with normal settings when the engine is using fuel meeting the specifications of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C. ( c) Add the following information to the emission control information label specified in § 1048.135: ( 1) Include instructions describing how to adjust the engine to operate in a way that maintains the effectiveness of the emission­ control system. ( 2) State: `` THIS ENGINE IS CERTIFIED TO OPERATE IN APPLICATIONS USING NONCOMMERCIAL FUEL. USING IT IN AN APPLICATION INVOLVING ONLY COMMERCIAL FUELS MAY BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY.''. ( d) Keep records to document the destinations and quantities of engines produced under this section. Subpart H [ Reserved] Subpart I Definitions and Other Reference Information § 1048.801 What definitions apply to this part? The following definitions apply to this part. The definitions apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the meaning the Act gives to them. The definitions follow: Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Adjustable parameter means any device, system, or element of design that someone can adjust ( including those which are difficult to access) and that, if adjusted, may affect emissions or engine performance during emission testing or normal in­ use operation. You may ask us to exclude a parameter that is difficult to access if it cannot be adjusted to affect emissions without significantly degrading performance, or if you otherwise show us that it will not be adjusted in a way that affects emissions during in­ use operation. Aftertreatment means relating to any system, component, or technology mounted downstream of the exhaust valve or exhaust port whose design function is to reduce exhaust emissions. Aircraft means any vehicle capable of sustained air travel above treetop heights. All­ terrain vehicle has the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1051.801. Auxiliary emission­ control device means any element of design that senses temperature, engine rpm, motive speed, transmission gear, atmospheric pressure, manifold pressure or vacuum, or any other parameter to activate, modulate, delay, or deactivate the operation of any part of the emissioncontrol system. This also includes any other feature that causes in­ use emissions to be higher than those measured under test conditions, except as we allow under this part. Blue Sky Series engine means an engine meeting the requirements of § 1048.140. Brake power means the usable power output of the engine, not including power required to operate fuel pumps, oil pumps, or coolant pumps. Broker means any entity that facilitates a trade of emission credits between a buyer and seller. Calibration means the set of specifications and tolerances specific to a particular design, version, or application of a component or assembly capable of functionally describing its operation over its working range. Certification means obtaining a certificate of conformity for an engine family that complies with the emission standards and requirements in this part. Compression­ ignition means relating to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion engine that is not a sparkignition engine. Constant­ speed engine means an engine governed to operate at a single speed. Crankcase emissions means airborne substances emitted to the atmosphere from any part of the engine crankcase's ventilation or lubrication systems. The crankcase is the housing for the crankshaft and other related internal parts. Designated Officer means the Manager, Engine Programs Group ( 6405 J), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. Emission­ control system means any device, system, or element of design that controls or reduces the regulated emissions from an engine. Emission­ data engine means an engine that is tested for certification. Emission­ related maintenance means maintenance that substantially affects emissions or is likely to substantially affect emissions deterioration. Engine family means a group of engines with similar emission characteristics, as specified in § 1048.230. Engine manufacturer means the manufacturer of the engine. See the definition of `` manufacturer'' in this section. Fuel system means all components involved in transporting, metering, and mixing the fuel from the fuel tank to the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68366 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations combustion chamber( s), including the fuel tank, fuel tank cap, fuel pump, fuel filters, fuel lines, carburetor or fuelinjection components, and all fuelsystem vents. Good engineering judgment has the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1068.5. High­ cost warranted part means a component covered by the emissionrelated warranty with a replacement cost ( at the time of certification) exceeding $ 400 ( in 1998 dollars). Adjust this value using the most recent annual average consumer price index information published by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For this definition, replacement cost includes the retail cost of the part plus labor and standard diagnosis. High­ load engine means an engine for which the engine manufacturer can provide clear evidence that operation below 75 percent of maximum load in it's final application will be rare. Hydrocarbon ( HC) means the hydrocarbon group on which the emission standards are based for each fuel type. For gasoline­ and LPG­ fueled engines, HC means total hydrocarbon ( THC). For natural gas­ fueled engines, HC means nonmethane hydrocarbon ( NMHC). For alcohol­ fueled engines, HC means total hydrocarbon equivalent ( THCE). Identification number means a unique specification ( for example, model number/ serial number combination) that allows someone to distinguish a particular engine from other similar engines. Intermediate test speed has the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1065.515. Manufacturer has the meaning given in section 216( 1) of the Act. In general, this term includes any person who manufactures an engine, vehicle, or piece of equipment for sale in the United States or otherwise introduces a new nonroad engine into commerce in the United States. This includes importers who import engines, equipment, or vehicles for resale. Marine engine means an engine that someone installs or intends to install on a marine vessel. There are two kinds of marine engines: ( 1) Propulsion marine engine means a marine engine that moves a vessel through the water or directs the vessel's movement. ( 2) Auxiliary marine engine means a marine engine not used for propulsion. Marine vessel means a vehicle that is capable of operation in water but is not capable of operation out of water. Amphibious vehicles are not marine vessels. Maximum brake power means the maximum brake power an engine produces at maximum test speed. Maximum test speed has the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1065.515. Maximum test torque has the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1065.1001. Model year means one of the following things: ( 1) For freshly manufactured engines ( see definition of `` new nonroad engine,'' paragraph ( 1)), model year means one of the following: ( i) Calendar year. ( ii) Your annual new model production period if it is different than the calendar year. This must include January 1 of the calendar year for which the model year is named. It may not begin before January 2 of the previous calendar year and it must end by December 31 of the named calendar year. ( 2) For an engine that is converted to a nonroad engine after being placed into service in a motor vehicle, model year means the calendar year in which the engine was originally produced ( see definition of `` new nonroad engine,'' paragraph ( 2)). ( 3) For a nonroad engine excluded under § 1048.5 that is later converted to operate in an application that is not excluded, model year means the calendar year in which the engine was originally produced ( see definition of `` new nonroad engine,'' paragraph ( 3)). ( 4) For engines that are not freshly manufactured but are installed in new nonroad equipment, model year means the calendar year in which the engine is installed in the new nonroad equipment. This installation date is based on the time that final assembly of the equipment is complete ( see definition of `` new nonroad engine,'' paragraph ( 4)). ( 5) For an engine modified by an importer ( not the original engine manufacturer) who has a certificate of conformity for the imported engine ( see definition of `` new nonroad engine,'' paragraph ( 5)), model year means one of the following: ( i) The calendar year in which the importer finishes modifying and labeling the engine. ( ii) Your annual production period for producing engines if it is different than the calendar year; follow the guidelines in paragraph ( 1)( ii) of this definition. ( 6) For an engine you import that does not meet the criteria in paragraphs ( 1) through ( 5) of the definition of `` new nonroad engine,'' model year means the calendar year in which the engine manufacturer completed the original assembly of the engine. In general, this applies to used equipment that you import without conversion or major modification. Motor vehicle has the meaning we give in 40 CFR 85.1703( a). In general, motor vehicle means a self­ propelled vehicle that can transport one or more people or any material, but doesn't include any of the following: ( 1) Vehicles having a maximum ground speed over level, paved surfaces no higher than 40 km per hour ( 25 miles per hour). ( 2) Vehicles that lack features usually needed for safe, practical use on streets or highways for example, safety features required by law, a reverse gear ( except for motorcycles), or a differential. ( 3) Vehicles whose operation on streets or highways would be unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely. Examples are vehicles with tracks instead of wheels, very large size, or features associated with military vehicles, such as armor or weaponry. New nonroad engine means any of the following things: ( 1) A freshly manufactured nonroad engine for which the ultimate buyer has never received the equitable or legal title. This kind of vehicle might commonly be thought of as `` brand new.'' In the case of this paragraph ( 1), the engine is no longer new when the ultimate buyer receives this title or the product is placed into service, whichever comes first. ( 2) An engine originally manufactured as a motor vehicle engine that is later intended to be used in a piece of nonroad equipment. In this case, the engine is no longer a motor vehicle engine and becomes a `` new nonroad engine''. The engine is no longer new when it is placed into nonroad service. ( 3) A nonroad engine that has been previously placed into service in an application we exclude under § 1048.5, where that engine is installed in a piece of equipment for which these exclusions do not apply. The engine is no longer new when it is placed into nonroad service. For example, this would apply to a stationary engine that is no longer used in a stationary application. ( 4) An engine not covered by paragraphs ( 1) through ( 3) of this definition that is intended to be installed in new nonroad equipment. The engine is no longer new when the ultimate buyer receives a title for the equipment or the product is placed into service, whichever comes first. This generally includes installation of used engines in new equipment. ( 5) An imported nonroad engine covered by a certificate of conformity issued under this part, where someone other than the original engine VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68367 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations manufacturer modifies the engine after its initial assembly and holds the certificate. The engine is no longer new when it is placed into nonroad service. ( 6) An imported nonroad engine that is not covered by a certificate of conformity issued under this part at the time of importation. This addresses uncertified engines and vehicles that have been placed into service in other countries and that someone seeks to import into the United States. Importation of this kind of new nonroad engine ( or vehicle containing such an engine) is generally prohibited by 40 CFR part 1068. New nonroad equipment means either of the following things: ( 1) A nonroad vehicle or other piece of equipment for which the ultimate buyer has never received the equitable or legal title. The product is no longer new when the ultimate buyer receives this title or the product is placed into service, whichever comes first. ( 2) An imported nonroad piece of equipment with an engine not covered by a certificate of conformity issued under this part at the time of importation and manufactured after the date for applying the requirements of this part. Noncommercial fuel means a fuel that is not marketed or sold as a commercial product. For example, this includes methane produced and released from landfills or oil wells. Noncompliant engine means an engine that was originally covered by a certificate of conformity, but is not in the certified configuration or otherwise does not comply with the conditions of the certificate. Nonconforming engine means an engine not covered by a certificate of conformity that would otherwise be subject to emission standards. Nonmethane hydrocarbon means the difference between the emitted mass of total hydrocarbons and the emitted mass of methane. Nonroad means relating to nonroad engines or equipment that includes nonroad engines. Nonroad engine has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. In general this means all internal­ combustion engines except motor vehicle engines, stationary engines, or engines used solely for competition. This part does not apply to all nonroad engines ( see § 1048.5). Off­ highway motorcycle has the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1051.801. ( Note: highway motorcycles are regulated under 40 CFR part 86.) Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning given it in 40 CFR part 1065 Placed into service means used for its intended purpose. Point of first retail sale means the location at which the retail sale occurs. This generally means a dealership. Revoke means to discontinue the certificate for an engine family. If we revoke a certificate, you must apply for a new certificate before continuing to produce the affected vehicles or engines. This does not apply to vehicles or engines you no longer possess. Round means to round numbers according to ASTM E29 02 ( incorporated by reference in § 1048.810), unless otherwise specified. Scheduled maintenance means adjusting, repairing, removing, disassembling, cleaning, or replacing components or systems that is periodically needed to keep a part from failing or malfunctioning. It also may mean actions you expect are necessary to correct an overt indication of failure or malfunction for which periodic maintenance is not appropriate. Severe­ duty application includes concrete saws, concrete pumps, and any other application where an engine manufacturer can provide clear evidence that the majority of installations need air­ cooled engines as a result of operation in a severe­ duty environment. Severe­ duty engine means an engine from an engine family in which the majority of engines are installed in severe­ duty applications. Small­ volume engine manufacturer means a company with fewer than 200 employees. This includes any employees working for parent or subsidiary companies. Snowmobile has the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1051.801. Spark­ ignition means relating to a gasoline­ fueled engine or any other type of engine with a spark plug ( or other sparking device) and with operating characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical Otto combustion cycle. Spark­ ignition engines usually use a throttle to regulate intake air flow to control power during normal operation. Stationary engine means an internal combustion engine that is neither a nonroad engine, nor a motor­ vehicle engine, nor an engine used solely for competition ( see the definition of nonroad engine in 40 CFR 1068.30). In general this includes fixed engines and all portable or transportable engines that stay in a single site at a building, structure, facility, or installation for at least a full year; this does not include an engine installed in equipment that has the ability to propel itself. For yearround sources, a full year is 12 consecutive months. For seasonal sources, a full year is a full annual operating period of at least three months. A seasonal source is a site with engines operating only part of the year for at least two consecutive years. If you replace an engine with one that does the same or similar work in the same place, you may apply the previous engine's service to your calculation for residence time. If you move a stationary engine anytime in its life after it has been in place for at least a full year, it becomes a nonroad engine subject to emission standards unless it stays at the new location for a full year. Stoichiometry means the proportion of a mixture of air and fuel such that the fuel is fully oxidized with no remaining oxygen. For example, stoichiometric combustion in gasoline engines typically occurs at an air­ fuel mass ratio of about 14.7. Suspend means to temporarily discontinue the certificate for an engine family. If we suspend a certificate, you may not sell vehicles or engines from that engine family unless we reinstate the certificate or approve a new one. Test engine means an engine in a test sample. Test sample means the collection of engines selected from the population of an engine family for emission testing. Total hydrocarbon means the combined mass organic compounds measured by our total hydrocarbon test procedure, expressed as a hydrocarbon with a hydrogen­ to­ carbon mass ratio of 1.85: 1. Total hydrocarbon equivalent means the sum of the carbon mass contributions of non­ oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and aldehydes, or other organic compounds that are measured separately as contained in a gas sample, expressed as petroleumfueled engine hydrocarbons. The hydrogen­ to­ carbon ratio of the equivalent hydrocarbon is 1.85: 1. Tier 1 means relating to the emission standards and other requirements that apply beginning with the 2004 model year. Tier 2 means relating to the emission standards and other requirements that apply beginning with the 2007 model year. Ultimate buyer means ultimate purchaser. Ultimate purchaser means, with respect to any new nonroad equipment or new nonroad engine, the first person who in good faith purchases such new nonroad equipment or new nonroad engine for purposes other than resale. United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68368 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Upcoming model year means for an engine family the model year after the one currently in production. U. S.­ directed production volume means the number of engine units, subject to the requirements of this part, produced by a manufacturer for which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was or will be made to ultimate buyers in the United States. Useful life means the period during which the engine is designed to properly function in terms of reliability and fuel consumption, without being remanufactured, specified as a number of hours of operation or calendar years. It is the period during which a new nonroad engine is required to comply with all applicable emission standards. See § 1048.101( g). Variable­ speed engine means an engine that is not a constant­ speed engine. Void means to invalidate a certificate or an exemption. If we void a certificate, all the vehicles produced under that engine family for that model year are considered noncompliant, and you are liable for each vehicle produced under the certificate and may face civil or criminal penalties or both. If we void an exemption, all the vehicles produced under that exemption are considered uncertified ( or nonconforming), and you are liable for each vehicle produced under the exemption and may face civil or criminal penalties or both. You may not produce any additional vehicles using the voided exemption. Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel other than diesel or biodiesel that is a liquid at atmospheric pressure. Wide­ open throttle means maximum throttle opening. Unless this is specified at a given speed, it refers to maximum throttle opening at maximum speed. For electronically controlled or other engines with multiple possible fueling rates, wide­ open throttle also means the maximum fueling rate at maximum throttle opening under test conditions. § 1048.805 What symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations does this part use? The following symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations apply to this part: ° C degrees Celsius. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials. cc cubic centimeters. CFR Code of Federal Regulations. cm centimeter. CO carbon monoxide. CO2 carbon dioxide. EPA Environmental Protection Agency. g/ kW­ hr grams per kilowatt­ hour. HC hydrocarbon. ISO International Organization for Standardization. kPa kilopascals. kW kilowatts. LPG liquefied petroleum gas. m meters. MIL malfunction­ indicator light. mm Hg millimeters of mercury. NMHC nonmethane hydrocarbons. NOX oxides of nitrogen ( NO and NO2). psi pounds per square inch of absolute pressure. psig pounds per square inch of gauge pressure. rpm revolutions per minute. SAE Society of Automotive Engineers. SI spark­ ignition. THC total hydrocarbon. THCE total hydrocarbon equivalent. U. S. C. United States Code. § 1048.810 What materials does this part reference? We have incorporated by reference the documents listed in this section. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference as prescribed in 5 U. S. C. 552( a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U. S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460 or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol St., NW., 7th Floor, Suite 700, Washington, DC. ( a) ASTM material. Table 1 of § 1048.810 lists material from the American Society for Testing and Materials that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the sections of this part where we reference it. Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Table 1 follows: TABLE 1 OF § 1048.810. ASTM MATERIALS Document number and name Part 1048 reference ASTM E29 02, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications .............. 1048.801 ( b) SAE material. Table 2 of § 1048.810 lists material from the Society of Automotive Engineering that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the sections of this part where we reference it. Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. Table 2 follows: TABLE 2 OF § 1048.810. SAE MATERIALS Document number and name Part 1048 reference SAE J1930, Electrical/ Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, May 1998 .......................... 1048.135 SAE J2260, Nonmetallic Fuel System Tubing with One or More Layers, November 1996 ................................................................... 1048.105 ( c) ISO material. Table 3 of § 1048.810 lists material from the International Organization for Standardization that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the section of this part where we reference it. Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the International Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. Table 3 follows: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68369 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 3 OF § 1048.810. ISO MATERIALS Document number and name Part 1048 reference ISO 9141 2 Road vehicles Diagnostic systems Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange of digital information, February 1994 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1048.110 ISO 14230 4 Road vehicles Diagnostic systems Keyword Protocol 2000 Part 4: Requirements for emission­ related systems, June 2000 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1048.110 § 1048.815 How should I request EPA to keep my information confidential? ( a) Clearly show what you consider confidential by marking, circling, bracketing, stamping, or some other method. We will store your confidential information as described in 40 CFR part 2. Also, we will disclose it only as specified in 40 CFR part 2. ( b) If you send us a second copy without the confidential information, we will assume it contains nothing confidential whenever we need to release information from it. ( c) If you send us information without claiming it is confidential, we may make it available to the public without further notice to you, as described in 40 CFR 2.204. § 1048.820 How do I request a hearing? See 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, for information related to hearings. Appendix I to Part 1048 Large Sparkignition ( SI) Transient Cycle for Constant­ Speed Engines The following table shows the transient duty­ cycle for constant­ speed engines, as described in § 1048.510: Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 1 .................... 58 5 2 .................... 58 5 3 .................... 58 5 4 .................... 58 5 5 .................... 58 5 6 .................... 58 5 7 .................... 58 5 8 .................... 58 5 9 .................... 58 5 10 .................. 58 5 11 .................. 58 5 12 .................. 65 8 13 .................. 72 9 14 .................. 79 12 15 .................. 86 14 16 .................. 93 16 17 .................. 93 16 18 .................. 93 16 19 .................. 93 16 20 .................. 93 16 21 .................. 93 16 22 .................. 93 16 23 .................. 93 16 24 .................. 93 31 25 .................. 93 30 26 .................. 93 27 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 27 .................. 93 23 28 .................. 93 24 29 .................. 93 21 30 .................. 93 20 31 .................. 93 18 32 .................. 93 16 33 .................. 93 18 34 .................. 93 16 35 .................. 93 17 36 .................. 93 20 37 .................. 93 20 38 .................. 93 22 39 .................. 93 20 40 .................. 93 17 41 .................. 93 17 42 .................. 93 17 43 .................. 93 16 44 .................. 93 18 45 .................. 93 18 46 .................. 93 21 47 .................. 93 21 48 .................. 93 18 49 .................. 94 24 50 .................. 93 28 51 .................. 93 23 52 .................. 93 19 53 .................. 93 20 54 .................. 93 20 55 .................. 93 29 56 .................. 93 23 57 .................. 93 25 58 .................. 93 23 59 .................. 93 23 60 .................. 93 23 61 .................. 93 22 62 .................. 93 21 63 .................. 93 22 64 .................. 93 30 65 .................. 93 33 66 .................. 93 25 67 .................. 93 29 68 .................. 93 27 69 .................. 93 23 70 .................. 93 21 71 .................. 93 21 72 .................. 93 19 73 .................. 93 20 74 .................. 93 24 75 .................. 93 23 76 .................. 93 21 77 .................. 93 44 78 .................. 93 34 79 .................. 93 28 80 .................. 93 37 81 .................. 93 29 82 .................. 93 27 83 .................. 93 33 84 .................. 93 28 85 .................. 93 22 86 .................. 96 30 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 87 .................. 95 25 88 .................. 95 17 89 .................. 95 13 90 .................. 95 10 91 .................. 95 9 92 .................. 95 8 93 .................. 95 7 94 .................. 95 7 95 .................. 95 6 96 .................. 95 6 97 .................. 93 37 98 .................. 93 35 99 .................. 93 29 100 ................ 93 23 101 ................ 93 23 102 ................ 93 21 103 ................ 93 20 104 ................ 93 29 105 ................ 93 27 106 ................ 93 26 107 ................ 93 35 108 ................ 93 43 109 ................ 95 35 110 ................ 95 24 111 ................ 95 17 112 ................ 95 13 113 ................ 95 10 114 ................ 95 9 115 ................ 95 8 116 ................ 95 7 117 ................ 95 7 118 ................ 95 6 119 ................ 93 36 120 ................ 93 30 121 ................ 93 25 122 ................ 93 21 123 ................ 93 22 124 ................ 93 19 125 ................ 93 34 126 ................ 93 36 127 ................ 93 31 128 ................ 93 26 129 ................ 93 27 130 ................ 93 22 131 ................ 93 22 132 ................ 93 18 133 ................ 93 18 134 ................ 93 19 135 ................ 93 19 136 ................ 93 23 137 ................ 93 22 138 ................ 93 20 139 ................ 93 23 140 ................ 93 20 141 ................ 93 18 142 ................ 93 18 143 ................ 93 16 144 ................ 93 19 145 ................ 94 25 146 ................ 93 30 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68370 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 147 ................ 93 29 148 ................ 93 23 149 ................ 93 24 150 ................ 93 22 151 ................ 94 20 152 ................ 93 17 153 ................ 93 16 154 ................ 93 16 155 ................ 93 15 156 ................ 93 17 157 ................ 93 18 158 ................ 93 20 159 ................ 93 21 160 ................ 93 18 161 ................ 93 17 162 ................ 92 54 163 ................ 93 38 164 ................ 93 29 165 ................ 93 24 166 ................ 93 24 167 ................ 93 24 168 ................ 93 23 169 ................ 93 20 170 ................ 93 20 171 ................ 93 18 172 ................ 93 19 173 ................ 93 19 174 ................ 93 16 175 ................ 93 16 176 ................ 93 16 177 ................ 93 18 178 ................ 93 21 179 ................ 93 20 180 ................ 93 20 181 ................ 93 17 182 ................ 93 19 183 ................ 93 17 184 ................ 93 18 185 ................ 93 16 186 ................ 93 16 187 ................ 93 16 188 ................ 93 17 189 ................ 93 16 190 ................ 93 17 191 ................ 93 18 192 ................ 93 17 193 ................ 93 16 194 ................ 93 17 195 ................ 93 17 196 ................ 93 22 197 ................ 93 19 198 ................ 93 19 199 ................ 95 21 200 ................ 95 16 201 ................ 95 12 202 ................ 95 10 203 ................ 96 8 204 ................ 96 7 205 ................ 95 7 206 ................ 96 7 207 ................ 95 6 208 ................ 96 6 209 ................ 96 6 210 ................ 88 6 211 ................ 89 48 212 ................ 93 34 213 ................ 93 27 214 ................ 93 26 215 ................ 93 25 216 ................ 93 22 217 ................ 93 23 218 ................ 93 21 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 219 ................ 93 21 220 ................ 93 23 221 ................ 93 23 222 ................ 93 23 223 ................ 93 23 224 ................ 93 23 225 ................ 93 22 226 ................ 93 22 227 ................ 93 24 228 ................ 93 23 229 ................ 93 23 230 ................ 93 21 231 ................ 93 20 232 ................ 93 20 233 ................ 93 20 234 ................ 93 22 235 ................ 93 26 236 ................ 93 22 237 ................ 93 20 238 ................ 93 18 239 ................ 93 22 240 ................ 93 20 241 ................ 94 27 242 ................ 93 22 243 ................ 93 23 244 ................ 93 21 245 ................ 93 22 246 ................ 95 22 247 ................ 95 16 248 ................ 95 12 249 ................ 95 10 250 ................ 95 9 251 ................ 95 8 252 ................ 96 7 253 ................ 95 7 254 ................ 95 6 255 ................ 92 42 256 ................ 93 36 257 ................ 93 33 258 ................ 92 60 259 ................ 93 48 260 ................ 93 36 261 ................ 93 30 262 ................ 93 28 263 ................ 93 24 264 ................ 93 24 265 ................ 93 23 266 ................ 93 23 267 ................ 93 25 268 ................ 93 27 269 ................ 93 29 270 ................ 93 26 271 ................ 93 26 272 ................ 93 21 273 ................ 93 23 274 ................ 93 23 275 ................ 94 23 276 ................ 93 40 277 ................ 94 67 278 ................ 93 46 279 ................ 93 38 280 ................ 93 29 281 ................ 93 28 282 ................ 93 27 283 ................ 93 29 284 ................ 93 28 285 ................ 94 34 286 ................ 93 31 287 ................ 93 30 288 ................ 94 42 289 ................ 93 31 290 ................ 93 29 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 291 ................ 93 27 292 ................ 93 23 293 ................ 93 23 294 ................ 93 20 295 ................ 93 20 296 ................ 93 23 297 ................ 93 23 298 ................ 93 24 299 ................ 93 25 300 ................ 93 20 301 ................ 93 25 302 ................ 93 23 303 ................ 93 23 304 ................ 93 24 305 ................ 93 28 306 ................ 93 23 307 ................ 93 24 308 ................ 93 34 309 ................ 93 31 310 ................ 93 35 311 ................ 93 31 312 ................ 93 32 313 ................ 93 31 314 ................ 93 30 315 ................ 93 23 316 ................ 93 23 317 ................ 93 36 318 ................ 93 32 319 ................ 93 25 320 ................ 93 31 321 ................ 93 33 322 ................ 93 31 323 ................ 93 27 324 ................ 93 24 325 ................ 93 19 326 ................ 96 21 327 ................ 96 16 328 ................ 95 12 329 ................ 95 10 330 ................ 95 8 331 ................ 95 8 332 ................ 95 7 333 ................ 95 7 334 ................ 95 6 335 ................ 95 6 336 ................ 95 6 337 ................ 87 6 338 ................ 57 6 339 ................ 58 6 340 ................ 58 6 341 ................ 58 6 342 ................ 58 6 343 ................ 58 6 344 ................ 58 6 345 ................ 58 6 346 ................ 58 6 347 ................ 58 6 348 ................ 58 6 349 ................ 58 6 350 ................ 58 6 351 ................ 58 6 352 ................ 95 73 353 ................ 93 65 354 ................ 93 52 355 ................ 93 38 356 ................ 93 30 357 ................ 93 31 358 ................ 93 26 359 ................ 93 21 360 ................ 93 22 361 ................ 93 26 362 ................ 93 23 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68371 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 363 ................ 93 19 364 ................ 93 27 365 ................ 93 42 366 ................ 93 29 367 ................ 94 25 368 ................ 94 26 369 ................ 94 29 370 ................ 93 28 371 ................ 93 23 372 ................ 93 21 373 ................ 93 26 374 ................ 93 23 375 ................ 93 20 376 ................ 94 23 377 ................ 93 18 378 ................ 93 19 379 ................ 93 23 380 ................ 93 19 381 ................ 93 16 382 ................ 93 25 383 ................ 93 22 384 ................ 93 20 385 ................ 93 25 386 ................ 94 28 387 ................ 93 23 388 ................ 93 23 389 ................ 93 25 390 ................ 93 23 391 ................ 93 20 392 ................ 93 19 393 ................ 93 24 394 ................ 93 20 395 ................ 93 18 396 ................ 93 21 397 ................ 95 22 398 ................ 96 16 399 ................ 96 12 400 ................ 95 10 401 ................ 96 9 402 ................ 95 8 403 ................ 96 7 404 ................ 96 7 405 ................ 96 6 406 ................ 96 6 407 ................ 95 6 408 ................ 91 6 409 ................ 58 6 410 ................ 58 6 411 ................ 58 6 412 ................ 58 6 413 ................ 58 6 414 ................ 58 6 415 ................ 58 6 416 ................ 58 6 417 ................ 58 6 418 ................ 58 6 419 ................ 58 6 420 ................ 58 6 421 ................ 58 6 422 ................ 58 6 423 ................ 58 6 424 ................ 58 6 425 ................ 58 6 426 ................ 58 6 427 ................ 58 6 428 ................ 58 6 429 ................ 58 6 430 ................ 58 6 431 ................ 58 6 432 ................ 58 6 433 ................ 58 6 434 ................ 58 6 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 435 ................ 58 6 436 ................ 58 6 437 ................ 58 6 438 ................ 58 6 439 ................ 58 6 440 ................ 58 6 441 ................ 58 6 442 ................ 58 6 443 ................ 93 66 444 ................ 93 48 445 ................ 93 40 446 ................ 93 34 447 ................ 93 28 448 ................ 93 23 449 ................ 93 28 450 ................ 93 27 451 ................ 93 23 452 ................ 93 19 453 ................ 93 25 454 ................ 93 24 455 ................ 93 22 456 ................ 93 31 457 ................ 93 36 458 ................ 93 28 459 ................ 93 25 460 ................ 93 35 461 ................ 93 34 462 ................ 93 29 463 ................ 93 37 464 ................ 93 36 465 ................ 93 38 466 ................ 93 31 467 ................ 93 29 468 ................ 93 34 469 ................ 93 36 470 ................ 93 34 471 ................ 93 31 472 ................ 93 26 473 ................ 93 21 474 ................ 94 16 475 ................ 96 19 476 ................ 96 15 477 ................ 95 11 478 ................ 96 10 479 ................ 95 8 480 ................ 95 7 481 ................ 95 7 482 ................ 96 7 483 ................ 96 6 484 ................ 96 6 485 ................ 95 6 486 ................ 85 6 487 ................ 56 74 488 ................ 93 52 489 ................ 93 42 490 ................ 93 36 491 ................ 93 35 492 ................ 93 33 493 ................ 93 38 494 ................ 93 40 495 ................ 93 29 496 ................ 93 23 497 ................ 93 23 498 ................ 93 24 499 ................ 93 24 500 ................ 93 20 501 ................ 93 19 502 ................ 93 16 503 ................ 93 21 504 ................ 93 23 505 ................ 93 24 506 ................ 93 22 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 507 ................ 93 18 508 ................ 93 21 509 ................ 95 18 510 ................ 95 20 511 ................ 95 15 512 ................ 96 11 513 ................ 95 10 514 ................ 96 8 515 ................ 95 7 516 ................ 95 7 517 ................ 95 7 518 ................ 95 6 519 ................ 96 6 520 ................ 96 6 521 ................ 83 6 522 ................ 56 6 523 ................ 58 6 524 ................ 72 54 525 ................ 94 51 526 ................ 93 42 527 ................ 93 42 528 ................ 93 31 529 ................ 93 25 530 ................ 93 21 531 ................ 93 17 532 ................ 93 15 533 ................ 93 15 534 ................ 93 16 535 ................ 93 15 536 ................ 93 14 537 ................ 93 15 538 ................ 93 16 539 ................ 94 15 540 ................ 93 45 541 ................ 93 45 542 ................ 93 41 543 ................ 93 33 544 ................ 93 26 545 ................ 93 21 546 ................ 93 20 547 ................ 93 17 548 ................ 93 16 549 ................ 93 17 550 ................ 93 16 551 ................ 93 14 552 ................ 93 16 553 ................ 93 15 554 ................ 93 14 555 ................ 93 16 556 ................ 93 15 557 ................ 93 14 558 ................ 93 13 559 ................ 93 14 560 ................ 93 14 561 ................ 93 15 562 ................ 93 17 563 ................ 93 17 564 ................ 93 22 565 ................ 93 22 566 ................ 93 19 567 ................ 93 19 568 ................ 93 20 569 ................ 93 18 570 ................ 93 20 571 ................ 93 20 572 ................ 93 42 573 ................ 93 32 574 ................ 93 25 575 ................ 93 26 576 ................ 93 23 577 ................ 93 21 578 ................ 93 23 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68372 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 579 ................ 93 19 580 ................ 93 21 581 ................ 93 20 582 ................ 93 20 583 ................ 93 20 584 ................ 93 18 585 ................ 93 18 586 ................ 93 21 587 ................ 93 19 588 ................ 93 21 589 ................ 93 19 590 ................ 93 19 591 ................ 93 18 592 ................ 93 18 593 ................ 93 17 594 ................ 93 16 595 ................ 93 16 596 ................ 93 15 597 ................ 93 16 598 ................ 93 19 599 ................ 93 52 600 ................ 93 45 601 ................ 95 39 602 ................ 95 39 603 ................ 95 39 604 ................ 95 39 605 ................ 94 30 606 ................ 95 30 607 ................ 95 29 608 ................ 95 24 609 ................ 94 30 610 ................ 95 28 611 ................ 94 25 612 ................ 94 29 613 ................ 95 32 614 ................ 95 33 615 ................ 95 44 616 ................ 99 37 617 ................ 98 27 618 ................ 98 19 619 ................ 98 13 620 ................ 98 11 621 ................ 98 9 622 ................ 98 7 623 ................ 98 7 624 ................ 98 6 625 ................ 98 6 626 ................ 98 6 627 ................ 98 5 628 ................ 69 6 629 ................ 49 5 630 ................ 51 5 631 ................ 51 5 632 ................ 51 5 633 ................ 51 6 634 ................ 51 6 635 ................ 51 6 636 ................ 51 6 637 ................ 51 5 638 ................ 51 5 639 ................ 51 5 640 ................ 51 5 641 ................ 51 6 642 ................ 51 6 643 ................ 51 6 644 ................ 51 6 645 ................ 51 5 646 ................ 51 6 647 ................ 51 5 648 ................ 51 6 649 ................ 51 5 650 ................ 96 35 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 651 ................ 95 29 652 ................ 95 26 653 ................ 95 31 654 ................ 95 34 655 ................ 95 29 656 ................ 95 29 657 ................ 95 30 658 ................ 95 24 659 ................ 95 19 660 ................ 95 23 661 ................ 95 21 662 ................ 95 22 663 ................ 95 19 664 ................ 95 18 665 ................ 95 20 666 ................ 94 60 667 ................ 95 48 668 ................ 95 39 669 ................ 95 36 670 ................ 95 27 671 ................ 95 22 672 ................ 95 19 673 ................ 95 22 674 ................ 95 19 675 ................ 94 17 676 ................ 95 27 677 ................ 95 24 678 ................ 98 19 679 ................ 98 19 680 ................ 98 14 681 ................ 98 11 682 ................ 98 9 683 ................ 98 8 684 ................ 98 7 685 ................ 98 6 686 ................ 98 6 687 ................ 98 6 688 ................ 98 6 689 ................ 98 5 690 ................ 81 5 691 ................ 49 5 692 ................ 78 48 693 ................ 95 37 694 ................ 95 31 695 ................ 94 32 696 ................ 94 34 697 ................ 95 29 698 ................ 95 25 699 ................ 94 26 700 ................ 95 28 701 ................ 95 27 702 ................ 94 28 703 ................ 95 30 704 ................ 95 27 705 ................ 95 26 706 ................ 95 27 707 ................ 95 25 708 ................ 95 26 709 ................ 95 25 710 ................ 95 23 711 ................ 95 20 712 ................ 95 23 713 ................ 95 20 714 ................ 95 18 715 ................ 94 22 716 ................ 95 19 717 ................ 95 23 718 ................ 95 27 719 ................ 95 26 720 ................ 95 23 721 ................ 95 20 722 ................ 99 23 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 723 ................ 98 20 724 ................ 98 14 725 ................ 98 11 726 ................ 98 9 727 ................ 98 8 728 ................ 98 7 729 ................ 98 6 730 ................ 98 6 731 ................ 98 6 732 ................ 98 5 733 ................ 98 5 734 ................ 73 6 735 ................ 49 5 736 ................ 50 77 737 ................ 95 39 738 ................ 95 30 739 ................ 95 28 740 ................ 94 31 741 ................ 95 36 742 ................ 95 36 743 ................ 95 30 744 ................ 95 26 745 ................ 95 27 746 ................ 95 22 747 ................ 95 18 748 ................ 95 19 749 ................ 95 25 750 ................ 94 25 751 ................ 95 21 752 ................ 95 22 753 ................ 95 27 754 ................ 95 27 755 ................ 95 27 756 ................ 95 24 757 ................ 94 20 758 ................ 94 23 759 ................ 94 26 760 ................ 95 25 761 ................ 95 25 762 ................ 95 21 763 ................ 95 28 764 ................ 94 39 765 ................ 95 32 766 ................ 95 24 767 ................ 95 19 768 ................ 98 20 769 ................ 98 17 770 ................ 98 12 771 ................ 98 10 772 ................ 98 8 773 ................ 98 7 774 ................ 98 6 775 ................ 98 6 776 ................ 95 61 777 ................ 94 51 778 ................ 95 40 779 ................ 94 35 780 ................ 94 36 781 ................ 94 32 782 ................ 95 24 783 ................ 94 19 784 ................ 94 19 785 ................ 95 19 786 ................ 95 19 787 ................ 94 18 788 ................ 94 20 789 ................ 94 23 790 ................ 94 22 791 ................ 95 23 792 ................ 94 20 793 ................ 94 18 794 ................ 95 16 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68373 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 795 ................ 95 17 796 ................ 94 16 797 ................ 94 16 798 ................ 94 17 799 ................ 94 18 800 ................ 94 21 801 ................ 95 21 802 ................ 94 19 803 ................ 95 18 804 ................ 94 19 805 ................ 95 22 806 ................ 95 21 807 ................ 95 19 808 ................ 94 20 809 ................ 94 22 810 ................ 94 22 811 ................ 94 22 812 ................ 95 23 813 ................ 94 22 814 ................ 95 22 815 ................ 95 19 816 ................ 95 16 817 ................ 95 14 818 ................ 95 18 819 ................ 95 18 820 ................ 94 20 821 ................ 94 22 822 ................ 94 19 823 ................ 95 18 824 ................ 95 17 825 ................ 95 19 826 ................ 95 19 827 ................ 95 19 828 ................ 94 19 829 ................ 94 21 830 ................ 94 19 831 ................ 94 17 832 ................ 94 18 833 ................ 94 21 834 ................ 94 19 835 ................ 95 18 836 ................ 95 19 837 ................ 95 17 838 ................ 94 15 839 ................ 94 17 840 ................ 95 19 841 ................ 94 22 842 ................ 94 21 843 ................ 94 18 844 ................ 94 16 845 ................ 95 14 846 ................ 95 14 847 ................ 94 19 848 ................ 95 20 849 ................ 95 23 850 ................ 98 23 851 ................ 98 22 852 ................ 98 16 853 ................ 98 12 854 ................ 98 9 855 ................ 98 8 856 ................ 98 7 857 ................ 98 6 858 ................ 98 6 859 ................ 98 6 860 ................ 98 5 861 ................ 98 5 862 ................ 80 5 863 ................ 49 5 864 ................ 51 5 865 ................ 51 5 866 ................ 51 6 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 867 ................ 51 6 868 ................ 51 6 869 ................ 51 6 870 ................ 51 5 871 ................ 51 6 872 ................ 51 7 873 ................ 96 45 874 ................ 94 44 875 ................ 94 34 876 ................ 94 41 877 ................ 95 44 878 ................ 94 32 879 ................ 95 26 880 ................ 94 20 881 ................ 95 29 882 ................ 95 27 883 ................ 95 21 884 ................ 95 34 885 ................ 95 31 886 ................ 94 26 887 ................ 95 22 888 ................ 95 23 889 ................ 95 19 890 ................ 94 18 891 ................ 94 20 892 ................ 94 26 893 ................ 95 29 894 ................ 94 32 895 ................ 95 26 896 ................ 95 34 897 ................ 95 30 898 ................ 95 24 899 ................ 95 19 900 ................ 94 17 901 ................ 94 16 902 ................ 98 19 903 ................ 98 17 904 ................ 98 12 905 ................ 98 10 906 ................ 98 8 907 ................ 98 7 908 ................ 98 6 909 ................ 98 6 910 ................ 98 6 911 ................ 98 5 912 ................ 98 5 913 ................ 98 5 914 ................ 69 5 915 ................ 49 5 916 ................ 51 5 917 ................ 51 6 918 ................ 51 6 919 ................ 69 75 920 ................ 95 70 921 ................ 95 57 922 ................ 94 49 923 ................ 94 38 924 ................ 95 43 925 ................ 94 51 926 ................ 94 41 927 ................ 98 42 928 ................ 95 89 929 ................ 95 66 930 ................ 94 52 931 ................ 95 41 932 ................ 95 34 933 ................ 95 34 934 ................ 94 30 935 ................ 94 30 936 ................ 95 29 937 ................ 94 28 938 ................ 95 24 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 939 ................ 94 34 940 ................ 95 26 941 ................ 94 36 942 ................ 95 27 943 ................ 95 25 944 ................ 95 26 945 ................ 94 21 946 ................ 94 19 947 ................ 98 21 948 ................ 93 53 949 ................ 94 45 950 ................ 94 35 951 ................ 95 28 952 ................ 95 23 953 ................ 95 20 954 ................ 95 17 955 ................ 94 19 956 ................ 94 18 957 ................ 94 18 958 ................ 94 18 959 ................ 94 19 960 ................ 97 17 961 ................ 98 19 962 ................ 98 14 963 ................ 98 11 964 ................ 98 9 965 ................ 98 7 966 ................ 98 7 967 ................ 98 6 968 ................ 98 6 969 ................ 98 6 970 ................ 98 5 971 ................ 98 5 972 ................ 82 5 973 ................ 49 5 974 ................ 51 6 975 ................ 51 6 976 ................ 51 6 977 ................ 51 5 978 ................ 51 6 979 ................ 72 58 980 ................ 94 36 981 ................ 95 28 982 ................ 95 24 983 ................ 95 25 984 ................ 95 26 985 ................ 94 30 986 ................ 94 26 987 ................ 95 34 988 ................ 95 57 989 ................ 95 45 990 ................ 94 37 991 ................ 95 34 992 ................ 95 27 993 ................ 95 27 994 ................ 95 29 995 ................ 98 22 996 ................ 94 84 997 ................ 94 74 998 ................ 95 62 999 ................ 94 51 1000 .............. 95 50 1001 .............. 95 81 1002 .............. 94 65 1003 .............. 95 49 1004 .............. 94 56 1005 .............. 95 65 1006 .............. 94 59 1007 .............. 99 58 1008 .............. 98 41 1009 .............. 98 27 1010 .............. 98 19 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68374 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 1011 .............. 98 13 1012 .............. 98 11 1013 .............. 98 9 1014 .............. 98 8 1015 .............. 98 7 1016 .............. 98 6 1017 .............. 98 6 1018 .............. 98 6 1019 .............. 71 6 1020 .............. 49 5 1021 .............. 51 6 1022 .............. 51 6 1023 .............. 51 6 1024 .............. 51 6 1025 .............. 51 6 1026 .............. 51 6 1027 .............. 51 6 1028 .............. 51 6 1029 .............. 51 6 1030 .............. 51 6 1031 .............. 51 5 1032 .............. 51 6 1033 .............. 51 5 1034 .............. 51 6 1035 .............. 51 6 1036 .............. 51 6 1037 .............. 51 5 1038 .............. 51 5 1039 .............. 51 6 1040 .............. 51 6 1041 .............. 69 59 1042 .............. 94 48 1043 .............. 95 34 1044 .............. 95 29 1045 .............. 95 26 1046 .............. 94 27 1047 .............. 95 31 1048 .............. 95 26 1049 .............. 95 34 1050 .............. 95 29 1051 .............. 95 31 1052 .............. 95 29 1053 .............. 95 35 1054 .............. 95 38 1055 .............. 94 41 1056 .............. 95 28 1057 .............. 95 36 1058 .............. 94 30 1059 .............. 94 26 1060 .............. 94 33 1061 .............. 95 34 1062 .............. 95 27 1063 .............. 98 26 1064 .............. 98 19 1065 .............. 98 13 1066 .............. 98 11 1067 .............. 98 9 1068 .............. 98 7 1069 .............. 98 7 1070 .............. 98 6 1071 .............. 98 6 1072 .............. 98 6 1073 .............. 98 5 1074 .............. 89 6 1075 .............. 49 5 1076 .............. 51 6 1077 .............. 51 6 1078 .............. 51 6 1079 .............. 51 6 1080 .............. 51 6 1081 .............. 51 6 1082 .............. 51 6 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 1083 .............. 50 6 1084 .............. 51 6 1085 .............. 51 6 1086 .............. 51 6 1087 .............. 51 6 1088 .............. 51 6 1089 .............. 51 6 1090 .............. 51 6 1091 .............. 56 74 1092 .............. 95 56 1093 .............. 94 49 1094 .............. 95 47 1095 .............. 94 43 1096 .............. 94 33 1097 .............. 95 50 1098 .............. 94 40 1099 .............. 95 33 1100 .............. 95 24 1101 .............. 94 22 1102 .............. 94 22 1103 .............. 94 25 1104 .............. 95 27 1105 .............. 95 32 1106 .............. 94 29 1107 .............. 94 26 1108 .............. 94 26 1109 .............. 94 24 1110 .............. 98 52 1111 .............. 94 41 1112 .............. 99 35 1113 .............. 95 58 1114 .............. 95 58 1115 .............. 98 57 1116 .............. 98 38 1117 .............. 98 26 1118 .............. 93 63 1119 .............. 94 59 1120 .............. 98 100 1121 .............. 94 73 1122 .............. 98 53 1123 .............. 94 76 1124 .............. 95 61 1125 .............. 94 49 1126 .............. 94 37 1127 .............. 97 50 1128 .............. 98 36 1129 .............. 98 25 1130 .............. 98 18 1131 .............. 98 12 1132 .............. 98 10 1133 .............. 98 8 1134 .............. 98 7 1135 .............. 98 7 1136 .............. 98 6 1137 .............. 98 6 1138 .............. 98 6 1139 .............. 80 6 1140 .............. 49 6 1141 .............. 78 61 1142 .............. 95 50 1143 .............. 94 43 1144 .............. 94 42 1145 .............. 94 31 1146 .............. 95 30 1147 .............. 95 34 1148 .............. 95 28 1149 .............. 95 27 1150 .............. 94 27 1151 .............. 95 31 1152 .............. 95 42 1153 .............. 94 41 1154 .............. 95 37 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 1155 .............. 95 43 1156 .............. 95 34 1157 .............. 95 31 1158 .............. 95 27 1159 .............. 95 23 1160 .............. 95 27 1161 .............. 96 38 1162 .............. 95 40 1163 .............. 95 39 1164 .............. 95 26 1165 .............. 95 33 1166 .............. 94 28 1167 .............. 94 34 1168 .............. 98 73 1169 .............. 95 49 1170 .............. 95 51 1171 .............. 94 55 1172 .............. 95 48 1173 .............. 95 35 1174 .............. 95 39 1175 .............. 95 39 1176 .............. 94 41 1177 .............. 95 30 1178 .............. 95 23 1179 .............. 94 19 1180 .............. 95 25 1181 .............. 94 29 1182 .............. 98 27 1183 .............. 95 89 1184 .............. 95 74 1185 .............. 94 60 1186 .............. 94 48 1187 .............. 94 41 1188 .............. 94 29 1189 .............. 94 24 1190 .............. 95 19 1191 .............. 94 21 1192 .............. 95 29 1193 .............. 95 28 1194 .............. 95 27 1195 .............. 94 23 1196 .............. 95 25 1197 .............. 95 26 1198 .............. 94 22 1199 .............. 95 19 1200 .............. 94 17 Appendix II to Part 1048 Large Sparkignition ( SI) Composite Transient Cycle The following table shows the transient duty­ cycle for engines that are not constant­ speed engines, as described in § 1048.510: Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 0 .................... 0 0 1 .................... 0 0 2 .................... 0 0 3 .................... 0 0 4 .................... 0 0 5 .................... 0 0 6 .................... 0 0 7 .................... 0 0 8 .................... 0 0 9 .................... 1 8 10 .................. 6 54 11 .................. 8 61 12 .................. 34 59 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68375 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 13 .................. 22 46 14 .................. 5 51 15 .................. 18 51 16 .................. 31 50 17 .................. 30 56 18 .................. 31 49 19 .................. 25 66 20 .................. 58 55 21 .................. 43 31 22 .................. 16 45 23 .................. 24 38 24 .................. 24 27 25 .................. 30 33 26 .................. 45 65 27 .................. 50 49 28 .................. 23 42 29 .................. 13 42 30 .................. 9 45 31 .................. 23 30 32 .................. 37 45 33 .................. 44 50 34 .................. 49 52 35 .................. 55 49 36 .................. 61 46 37 .................. 66 38 38 .................. 42 33 39 .................. 17 41 40 .................. 17 37 41 .................. 7 50 42 .................. 20 32 43 .................. 5 55 44 .................. 30 42 45 .................. 44 53 46 .................. 45 56 47 .................. 41 52 48 .................. 24 41 49 .................. 15 40 50 .................. 11 44 51 .................. 32 31 52 .................. 38 54 53 .................. 38 47 54 .................. 9 55 55 .................. 10 50 56 .................. 33 55 57 .................. 48 56 58 .................. 49 47 59 .................. 33 44 60 .................. 52 43 61 .................. 55 43 62 .................. 59 38 63 .................. 44 28 64 .................. 24 37 65 .................. 12 44 66 .................. 9 47 67 .................. 12 52 68 .................. 34 21 69 .................. 29 44 70 .................. 44 54 71 .................. 54 62 72 .................. 62 57 73 .................. 72 56 74 .................. 88 71 75 .................. 100 69 76 .................. 100 34 77 .................. 100 42 78 .................. 100 54 79 .................. 100 58 80 .................. 100 38 81 .................. 83 17 82 .................. 61 15 83 .................. 43 22 84 .................. 24 35 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 85 .................. 16 39 86 .................. 15 45 87 .................. 32 34 88 .................. 14 42 89 .................. 8 48 90 .................. 5 51 91 .................. 10 41 92 .................. 12 37 93 .................. 4 47 94 .................. 3 49 95 .................. 3 50 96 .................. 4 49 97 .................. 4 48 98 .................. 8 43 99 .................. 2 51 100 ................ 5 46 101 ................ 8 41 102 ................ 4 47 103 ................ 3 49 104 ................ 6 45 105 ................ 3 48 106 ................ 10 42 107 ................ 18 27 108 ................ 3 50 109 ................ 11 41 110 ................ 34 29 111 ................ 51 57 112 ................ 67 63 113 ................ 61 32 114 ................ 44 31 115 ................ 48 54 116 ................ 69 65 117 ................ 85 65 118 ................ 81 29 119 ................ 74 21 120 ................ 62 23 121 ................ 76 58 122 ................ 96 75 123 ................ 100 77 124 ................ 100 27 125 ................ 100 79 126 ................ 100 79 127 ................ 100 81 128 ................ 100 57 129 ................ 99 52 130 ................ 81 35 131 ................ 69 29 132 ................ 47 22 133 ................ 34 28 134 ................ 27 37 135 ................ 83 60 136 ................ 100 74 137 ................ 100 7 138 ................ 100 2 139 ................ 70 18 140 ................ 23 39 141 ................ 5 54 142 ................ 11 40 143 ................ 11 34 144 ................ 11 41 145 ................ 19 25 146 ................ 16 32 147 ................ 20 31 148 ................ 21 38 149 ................ 21 42 150 ................ 9 51 151 ................ 4 49 152 ................ 2 51 153 ................ 1 58 154 ................ 21 57 155 ................ 29 47 156 ................ 33 45 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 157 ................ 16 49 158 ................ 38 45 159 ................ 37 43 160 ................ 35 42 161 ................ 39 43 162 ................ 51 49 163 ................ 59 55 164 ................ 65 54 165 ................ 76 62 166 ................ 84 59 167 ................ 83 29 168 ................ 67 35 169 ................ 84 54 170 ................ 90 58 171 ................ 93 43 172 ................ 90 29 173 ................ 66 19 174 ................ 52 16 175 ................ 49 17 176 ................ 56 38 177 ................ 73 71 178 ................ 86 80 179 ................ 96 75 180 ................ 89 27 181 ................ 66 17 182 ................ 50 18 183 ................ 36 25 184 ................ 36 24 185 ................ 38 40 186 ................ 40 50 187 ................ 27 48 188 ................ 19 48 189 ................ 23 50 190 ................ 19 45 191 ................ 6 51 192 ................ 24 48 193 ................ 49 67 194 ................ 47 49 195 ................ 22 44 196 ................ 25 40 197 ................ 38 54 198 ................ 43 55 199 ................ 40 52 200 ................ 14 49 201 ................ 11 45 202 ................ 7 48 203 ................ 26 41 204 ................ 41 59 205 ................ 53 60 206 ................ 44 54 207 ................ 22 40 208 ................ 24 41 209 ................ 32 53 210 ................ 44 74 211 ................ 57 25 212 ................ 22 49 213 ................ 29 45 214 ................ 19 37 215 ................ 14 43 216 ................ 36 40 217 ................ 43 63 218 ................ 42 49 219 ................ 15 50 220 ................ 19 44 221 ................ 47 59 222 ................ 67 80 223 ................ 76 74 224 ................ 87 66 225 ................ 98 61 226 ................ 100 38 227 ................ 97 27 228 ................ 100 53 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68376 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 229 ................ 100 72 230 ................ 100 49 231 ................ 100 4 232 ................ 100 13 233 ................ 87 15 234 ................ 53 26 235 ................ 33 27 236 ................ 39 19 237 ................ 51 33 238 ................ 67 54 239 ................ 83 60 240 ................ 95 52 241 ................ 100 50 242 ................ 100 36 243 ................ 100 25 244 ................ 85 16 245 ................ 62 16 246 ................ 40 26 247 ................ 56 39 248 ................ 81 75 249 ................ 98 86 250 ................ 100 76 251 ................ 100 51 252 ................ 100 78 253 ................ 100 83 254 ................ 100 100 255 ................ 100 66 256 ................ 100 85 257 ................ 100 72 258 ................ 100 45 259 ................ 98 58 260 ................ 60 30 261 ................ 43 32 262 ................ 71 36 263 ................ 44 32 264 ................ 24 38 265 ................ 42 17 266 ................ 22 51 267 ................ 13 53 268 ................ 23 45 269 ................ 29 50 270 ................ 28 42 271 ................ 21 55 272 ................ 34 57 273 ................ 44 47 274 ................ 19 46 275 ................ 13 44 276 ................ 25 36 277 ................ 43 51 278 ................ 55 73 279 ................ 68 72 280 ................ 76 63 281 ................ 80 45 282 ................ 83 40 283 ................ 78 26 284 ................ 60 20 285 ................ 47 19 286 ................ 52 25 287 ................ 36 30 288 ................ 40 26 289 ................ 45 34 290 ................ 47 35 291 ................ 42 28 292 ................ 46 38 293 ................ 48 44 294 ................ 68 61 295 ................ 70 47 296 ................ 48 28 297 ................ 42 22 298 ................ 31 29 299 ................ 22 35 300 ................ 28 28 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 301 ................ 46 46 302 ................ 62 69 303 ................ 76 81 304 ................ 88 85 305 ................ 98 81 306 ................ 100 74 307 ................ 100 13 308 ................ 100 11 309 ................ 100 17 310 ................ 99 3 311 ................ 80 7 312 ................ 62 11 313 ................ 63 11 314 ................ 64 16 315 ................ 69 43 316 ................ 81 67 317 ................ 93 74 318 ................ 100 72 319 ................ 94 27 320 ................ 73 15 321 ................ 40 33 322 ................ 40 52 323 ................ 50 50 324 ................ 11 53 325 ................ 12 45 326 ................ 5 50 327 ................ 1 55 328 ................ 7 55 329 ................ 62 60 330 ................ 80 28 331 ................ 23 37 332 ................ 39 58 333 ................ 47 24 334 ................ 59 51 335 ................ 58 68 336 ................ 36 52 337 ................ 18 42 338 ................ 36 52 339 ................ 59 73 340 ................ 72 85 341 ................ 85 92 342 ................ 99 90 343 ................ 100 72 344 ................ 100 18 345 ................ 100 76 346 ................ 100 64 347 ................ 100 87 348 ................ 100 97 349 ................ 100 84 350 ................ 100 100 351 ................ 100 91 352 ................ 100 83 353 ................ 100 93 354 ................ 100 100 355 ................ 94 43 356 ................ 72 10 357 ................ 77 3 358 ................ 48 2 359 ................ 29 5 360 ................ 59 19 361 ................ 63 5 362 ................ 35 2 363 ................ 24 3 364 ................ 28 2 365 ................ 36 16 366 ................ 54 23 367 ................ 60 10 368 ................ 33 1 369 ................ 23 0 370 ................ 16 0 371 ................ 11 0 372 ................ 20 0 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 373 ................ 25 2 374 ................ 40 3 375 ................ 33 4 376 ................ 34 5 377 ................ 46 7 378 ................ 57 10 379 ................ 66 11 380 ................ 75 14 381 ................ 79 11 382 ................ 80 16 383 ................ 92 21 384 ................ 99 16 385 ................ 83 2 386 ................ 71 2 387 ................ 69 4 388 ................ 67 4 389 ................ 74 16 390 ................ 86 25 391 ................ 97 28 392 ................ 100 15 393 ................ 83 2 394 ................ 62 4 395 ................ 40 6 396 ................ 49 10 397 ................ 36 5 398 ................ 27 4 399 ................ 29 3 400 ................ 22 2 401 ................ 13 3 402 ................ 37 36 403 ................ 90 26 404 ................ 41 2 405 ................ 25 2 406 ................ 29 2 407 ................ 38 7 408 ................ 50 13 409 ................ 55 10 410 ................ 29 3 411 ................ 24 7 412 ................ 51 16 413 ................ 62 15 414 ................ 72 35 415 ................ 91 74 416 ................ 100 73 417 ................ 100 8 418 ................ 98 11 419 ................ 100 59 420 ................ 100 98 421 ................ 100 99 422 ................ 100 75 423 ................ 100 95 424 ................ 100 100 425 ................ 100 97 426 ................ 100 90 427 ................ 100 86 428 ................ 100 82 429 ................ 97 43 430 ................ 70 16 431 ................ 50 20 432 ................ 42 33 433 ................ 89 64 434 ................ 89 77 435 ................ 99 95 436 ................ 100 41 437 ................ 77 12 438 ................ 29 37 439 ................ 16 41 440 ................ 16 38 441 ................ 15 36 442 ................ 18 44 443 ................ 4 55 444 ................ 24 26 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68377 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 445 ................ 26 35 446 ................ 15 45 447 ................ 21 39 448 ................ 29 52 449 ................ 26 46 450 ................ 27 50 451 ................ 13 43 452 ................ 25 36 453 ................ 37 57 454 ................ 29 46 455 ................ 17 39 456 ................ 13 41 457 ................ 19 38 458 ................ 28 35 459 ................ 8 51 460 ................ 14 36 461 ................ 17 47 462 ................ 34 39 463 ................ 34 57 464 ................ 11 70 465 ................ 13 51 466 ................ 13 68 467 ................ 38 44 468 ................ 53 67 469 ................ 29 69 470 ................ 19 65 471 ................ 52 45 472 ................ 61 79 473 ................ 29 70 474 ................ 15 53 475 ................ 15 60 476 ................ 52 40 477 ................ 50 61 478 ................ 13 74 479 ................ 46 51 480 ................ 60 73 481 ................ 33 84 482 ................ 31 63 483 ................ 41 42 484 ................ 26 69 485 ................ 23 65 486 ................ 48 49 487 ................ 28 57 488 ................ 16 67 489 ................ 39 48 490 ................ 47 73 491 ................ 35 87 492 ................ 26 73 493 ................ 30 61 494 ................ 34 49 495 ................ 35 66 496 ................ 56 47 497 ................ 49 64 498 ................ 59 64 499 ................ 42 69 500 ................ 6 77 501 ................ 5 59 502 ................ 17 59 503 ................ 45 53 504 ................ 21 62 505 ................ 31 60 506 ................ 53 68 507 ................ 48 79 508 ................ 45 61 509 ................ 51 47 510 ................ 41 48 511 ................ 26 58 512 ................ 21 62 513 ................ 50 52 514 ................ 39 65 515 ................ 23 65 516 ................ 42 62 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 517 ................ 57 80 518 ................ 66 81 519 ................ 64 62 520 ................ 45 42 521 ................ 33 42 522 ................ 27 57 523 ................ 31 59 524 ................ 41 53 525 ................ 45 72 526 ................ 48 73 527 ................ 46 90 528 ................ 56 76 529 ................ 64 76 530 ................ 69 64 531 ................ 72 59 532 ................ 73 58 533 ................ 71 56 534 ................ 66 48 535 ................ 61 50 536 ................ 55 56 537 ................ 52 52 538 ................ 54 49 539 ................ 61 50 540 ................ 64 54 541 ................ 67 54 542 ................ 68 52 543 ................ 60 53 544 ................ 52 50 545 ................ 45 49 546 ................ 38 45 547 ................ 32 45 548 ................ 26 53 549 ................ 23 56 550 ................ 30 49 551 ................ 33 55 552 ................ 35 59 553 ................ 33 65 554 ................ 30 67 555 ................ 28 59 556 ................ 25 58 557 ................ 23 56 558 ................ 22 57 559 ................ 19 63 560 ................ 14 63 561 ................ 31 61 562 ................ 35 62 563 ................ 21 80 564 ................ 28 65 565 ................ 7 74 566 ................ 23 54 567 ................ 38 54 568 ................ 14 78 569 ................ 38 58 570 ................ 52 75 571 ................ 59 81 572 ................ 66 69 573 ................ 54 44 574 ................ 48 34 575 ................ 44 33 576 ................ 40 40 577 ................ 28 58 578 ................ 27 63 579 ................ 35 45 580 ................ 20 66 581 ................ 15 60 582 ................ 10 52 583 ................ 22 56 584 ................ 30 62 585 ................ 21 67 586 ................ 29 53 587 ................ 41 56 588 ................ 15 67 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 589 ................ 24 56 590 ................ 42 69 591 ................ 39 83 592 ................ 40 73 593 ................ 35 67 594 ................ 32 61 595 ................ 30 65 596 ................ 30 72 597 ................ 48 51 598 ................ 66 58 599 ................ 62 71 600 ................ 36 63 601 ................ 17 59 602 ................ 16 50 603 ................ 16 62 604 ................ 34 48 605 ................ 51 66 606 ................ 35 74 607 ................ 15 56 608 ................ 19 54 609 ................ 43 65 610 ................ 52 80 611 ................ 52 83 612 ................ 49 57 613 ................ 48 46 614 ................ 37 36 615 ................ 25 44 616 ................ 14 53 617 ................ 13 64 618 ................ 23 56 619 ................ 21 63 620 ................ 18 67 621 ................ 20 54 622 ................ 16 67 623 ................ 26 56 624 ................ 41 65 625 ................ 28 62 626 ................ 19 60 627 ................ 33 56 628 ................ 37 70 629 ................ 24 79 630 ................ 28 57 631 ................ 40 57 632 ................ 40 58 633 ................ 28 44 634 ................ 25 41 635 ................ 29 53 636 ................ 31 55 637 ................ 26 64 638 ................ 20 50 639 ................ 16 53 640 ................ 11 54 641 ................ 13 53 642 ................ 23 50 643 ................ 32 59 644 ................ 36 63 645 ................ 33 59 646 ................ 24 52 647 ................ 20 52 648 ................ 22 55 649 ................ 30 53 650 ................ 37 59 651 ................ 41 58 652 ................ 36 54 653 ................ 29 49 654 ................ 24 53 655 ................ 14 57 656 ................ 10 54 657 ................ 9 55 658 ................ 10 57 659 ................ 13 55 660 ................ 15 64 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68378 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 661 ................ 31 57 662 ................ 19 69 663 ................ 14 59 664 ................ 33 57 665 ................ 41 65 666 ................ 39 64 667 ................ 39 59 668 ................ 39 51 669 ................ 28 41 670 ................ 19 49 671 ................ 27 54 672 ................ 37 63 673 ................ 32 74 674 ................ 16 70 675 ................ 12 67 676 ................ 13 60 677 ................ 17 56 678 ................ 15 62 679 ................ 25 47 680 ................ 27 64 681 ................ 14 71 682 ................ 5 65 683 ................ 6 57 684 ................ 6 57 685 ................ 15 52 686 ................ 22 61 687 ................ 14 77 688 ................ 12 67 689 ................ 12 62 690 ................ 14 59 691 ................ 15 58 692 ................ 18 55 693 ................ 22 53 694 ................ 19 69 695 ................ 14 67 696 ................ 9 63 697 ................ 8 56 698 ................ 17 49 699 ................ 25 55 700 ................ 14 70 701 ................ 12 60 702 ................ 22 57 703 ................ 27 67 704 ................ 29 68 705 ................ 34 62 706 ................ 35 61 707 ................ 28 78 708 ................ 11 71 709 ................ 4 58 710 ................ 5 58 711 ................ 10 56 712 ................ 20 63 713 ................ 13 76 714 ................ 11 65 715 ................ 9 60 716 ................ 7 55 717 ................ 8 53 718 ................ 10 60 719 ................ 28 53 720 ................ 12 73 721 ................ 4 64 722 ................ 4 61 723 ................ 4 61 724 ................ 10 56 725 ................ 8 61 726 ................ 20 56 727 ................ 32 62 728 ................ 33 66 729 ................ 34 73 730 ................ 31 61 731 ................ 33 55 732 ................ 33 60 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 733 ................ 31 59 734 ................ 29 58 735 ................ 31 53 736 ................ 33 51 737 ................ 33 48 738 ................ 27 44 739 ................ 21 52 740 ................ 13 57 741 ................ 12 56 742 ................ 10 64 743 ................ 22 47 744 ................ 15 74 745 ................ 8 66 746 ................ 34 47 747 ................ 18 71 748 ................ 9 57 749 ................ 11 55 750 ................ 12 57 751 ................ 10 61 752 ................ 16 53 753 ................ 12 75 754 ................ 6 70 755 ................ 12 55 756 ................ 24 50 757 ................ 28 60 758 ................ 28 64 759 ................ 23 60 760 ................ 20 56 761 ................ 26 50 762 ................ 28 55 763 ................ 18 56 764 ................ 15 52 765 ................ 11 59 766 ................ 16 59 767 ................ 34 54 768 ................ 16 82 769 ................ 15 64 770 ................ 36 53 771 ................ 45 64 772 ................ 41 59 773 ................ 34 50 774 ................ 27 45 775 ................ 22 52 776 ................ 18 55 777 ................ 26 54 778 ................ 39 62 779 ................ 37 71 780 ................ 32 58 781 ................ 24 48 782 ................ 14 59 783 ................ 7 59 784 ................ 7 55 785 ................ 18 49 786 ................ 40 62 787 ................ 44 73 788 ................ 41 68 789 ................ 35 48 790 ................ 29 54 791 ................ 22 69 792 ................ 46 53 793 ................ 59 71 794 ................ 69 68 795 ................ 75 47 796 ................ 62 32 797 ................ 48 35 798 ................ 27 59 799 ................ 13 58 800 ................ 14 54 801 ................ 21 53 802 ................ 23 56 803 ................ 23 57 804 ................ 23 65 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 805 ................ 13 65 806 ................ 9 64 807 ................ 27 56 808 ................ 26 78 809 ................ 40 61 810 ................ 35 76 811 ................ 28 66 812 ................ 23 57 813 ................ 16 50 814 ................ 11 53 815 ................ 9 57 816 ................ 9 62 817 ................ 27 57 818 ................ 42 69 819 ................ 47 75 820 ................ 53 67 821 ................ 61 62 822 ................ 63 53 823 ................ 60 54 824 ................ 56 44 825 ................ 49 39 826 ................ 39 35 827 ................ 30 34 828 ................ 33 46 829 ................ 44 56 830 ................ 50 56 831 ................ 44 52 832 ................ 38 46 833 ................ 33 44 834 ................ 29 45 835 ................ 24 46 836 ................ 18 52 837 ................ 9 55 838 ................ 10 54 839 ................ 20 53 840 ................ 27 58 841 ................ 29 59 842 ................ 30 62 843 ................ 30 65 844 ................ 27 66 845 ................ 32 58 846 ................ 40 56 847 ................ 41 57 848 ................ 18 73 849 ................ 15 55 850 ................ 18 50 851 ................ 17 52 852 ................ 20 49 853 ................ 16 62 854 ................ 4 67 855 ................ 2 64 856 ................ 7 54 857 ................ 10 50 858 ................ 9 57 859 ................ 5 62 860 ................ 12 51 861 ................ 14 65 862 ................ 9 64 863 ................ 31 50 864 ................ 30 78 865 ................ 21 65 866 ................ 14 51 867 ................ 10 55 868 ................ 6 59 869 ................ 7 59 870 ................ 19 54 871 ................ 23 61 872 ................ 24 62 873 ................ 34 61 874 ................ 51 67 875 ................ 60 66 876 ................ 58 55 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68379 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 877 ................ 60 52 878 ................ 64 55 879 ................ 68 51 880 ................ 63 54 881 ................ 64 50 882 ................ 68 58 883 ................ 73 47 884 ................ 63 40 885 ................ 50 38 886 ................ 29 61 887 ................ 14 61 888 ................ 14 53 889 ................ 42 6 890 ................ 58 6 891 ................ 58 6 892 ................ 77 39 893 ................ 93 56 894 ................ 93 44 895 ................ 93 37 896 ................ 93 31 897 ................ 93 25 898 ................ 93 26 899 ................ 93 27 900 ................ 93 25 901 ................ 93 21 902 ................ 93 22 903 ................ 93 24 904 ................ 93 23 905 ................ 93 27 906 ................ 93 34 907 ................ 93 32 908 ................ 93 26 909 ................ 93 31 910 ................ 93 34 911 ................ 93 31 912 ................ 93 33 913 ................ 93 36 914 ................ 93 37 915 ................ 93 34 916 ................ 93 30 917 ................ 93 32 918 ................ 93 35 919 ................ 93 35 920 ................ 93 32 921 ................ 93 28 922 ................ 93 23 923 ................ 94 18 924 ................ 95 18 925 ................ 96 17 926 ................ 95 13 927 ................ 96 10 928 ................ 95 9 929 ................ 95 7 930 ................ 95 7 931 ................ 96 7 932 ................ 96 6 933 ................ 96 6 934 ................ 95 6 935 ................ 90 6 936 ................ 69 43 937 ................ 76 62 938 ................ 93 47 939 ................ 93 39 940 ................ 93 35 941 ................ 93 34 942 ................ 93 36 943 ................ 93 39 944 ................ 93 34 945 ................ 93 26 946 ................ 93 23 947 ................ 93 24 948 ................ 93 24 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 949 ................ 93 22 950 ................ 93 19 951 ................ 93 17 952 ................ 93 19 953 ................ 93 22 954 ................ 93 24 955 ................ 93 23 956 ................ 93 20 957 ................ 93 20 958 ................ 94 19 959 ................ 95 19 960 ................ 95 17 961 ................ 96 13 962 ................ 95 10 963 ................ 96 9 964 ................ 95 7 965 ................ 95 7 966 ................ 95 7 967 ................ 95 6 968 ................ 96 6 969 ................ 96 6 970 ................ 89 6 971 ................ 68 6 972 ................ 57 6 973 ................ 66 32 974 ................ 84 52 975 ................ 93 46 976 ................ 93 42 977 ................ 93 36 978 ................ 93 28 979 ................ 93 23 980 ................ 93 19 981 ................ 93 16 982 ................ 93 15 983 ................ 93 16 984 ................ 93 15 985 ................ 93 14 986 ................ 93 15 987 ................ 93 16 988 ................ 94 15 989 ................ 93 32 990 ................ 93 45 991 ................ 93 43 992 ................ 93 37 993 ................ 93 29 994 ................ 93 23 995 ................ 93 20 996 ................ 93 18 997 ................ 93 16 998 ................ 93 17 999 ................ 93 16 1000 .............. 93 15 1001 .............. 93 15 1002 .............. 93 15 1003 .............. 93 14 1004 .............. 93 15 1005 .............. 93 15 1006 .............. 93 14 1007 .............. 93 13 1008 .............. 93 14 1009 .............. 93 14 1010 .............. 93 15 1011 .............. 93 16 1012 .............. 93 17 1013 .............. 93 20 1014 .............. 93 22 1015 .............. 93 20 1016 .............. 93 19 1017 .............. 93 20 1018 .............. 93 19 1019 .............. 93 19 1020 .............. 93 20 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 1021 .............. 93 32 1022 .............. 93 37 1023 .............. 93 28 1024 .............. 93 26 1025 .............. 93 24 1026 .............. 93 22 1027 .............. 93 22 1028 .............. 93 21 1029 .............. 93 20 1030 .............. 93 20 1031 .............. 93 20 1032 .............. 93 20 1033 .............. 93 19 1034 .............. 93 18 1035 .............. 93 20 1036 .............. 93 20 1037 .............. 93 20 1038 .............. 93 20 1039 .............. 93 19 1040 .............. 93 18 1041 .............. 93 18 1042 .............. 93 17 1043 .............. 93 16 1044 .............. 93 16 1045 .............. 93 15 1046 .............. 93 16 1047 .............. 93 18 1048 .............. 93 37 1049 .............. 93 48 1050 .............. 93 38 1051 .............. 93 31 1052 .............. 93 26 1053 .............. 93 21 1054 .............. 93 18 1055 .............. 93 16 1056 .............. 93 17 1057 .............. 93 18 1058 .............. 93 19 1059 .............. 93 21 1060 .............. 93 20 1061 .............. 93 18 1062 .............. 93 17 1063 .............. 93 17 1064 .............. 93 18 1065 .............. 93 18 1066 .............. 93 18 1067 .............. 93 19 1068 .............. 93 18 1069 .............. 93 18 1070 .............. 93 20 1071 .............. 93 23 1072 .............. 93 25 1073 .............. 93 25 1074 .............. 93 24 1075 .............. 93 24 1076 .............. 93 22 1077 .............. 93 22 1078 .............. 93 22 1079 .............. 93 19 1080 .............. 93 16 1081 .............. 95 17 1082 .............. 95 37 1083 .............. 93 43 1084 .............. 93 32 1085 .............. 93 27 1086 .............. 93 26 1087 .............. 93 24 1088 .............. 93 22 1089 .............. 93 22 1090 .............. 93 22 1091 .............. 93 23 1092 .............. 93 22 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68380 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 1093 .............. 93 22 1094 .............. 93 23 1095 .............. 93 23 1096 .............. 93 23 1097 .............. 93 22 1098 .............. 93 23 1099 .............. 93 23 1100 .............. 93 23 1101 .............. 93 25 1102 .............. 93 27 1103 .............. 93 26 1104 .............. 93 25 1105 .............. 93 27 1106 .............. 93 27 1107 .............. 93 27 1108 .............. 93 24 1109 .............. 93 20 1110 .............. 93 18 1111 .............. 93 17 1112 .............. 93 17 1113 .............. 93 18 1114 .............. 93 18 1115 .............. 93 18 1116 .............. 93 19 1117 .............. 93 22 1118 .............. 93 22 1119 .............. 93 19 1120 .............. 93 17 1121 .............. 93 17 1122 .............. 93 18 1123 .............. 93 18 1124 .............. 93 19 1125 .............. 93 19 1126 .............. 93 20 1127 .............. 93 19 1128 .............. 93 20 1129 .............. 93 25 1130 .............. 93 30 1131 .............. 93 31 1132 .............. 93 26 1133 .............. 93 21 1134 .............. 93 18 1135 .............. 93 20 1136 .............. 93 25 1137 .............. 93 24 1138 .............. 93 21 1139 .............. 93 21 1140 .............. 93 22 1141 .............. 93 22 1142 .............. 93 28 1143 .............. 93 29 1144 .............. 93 23 1145 .............. 93 21 1146 .............. 93 18 1147 .............. 93 16 1148 .............. 93 16 1149 .............. 93 16 1150 .............. 93 17 1151 .............. 93 17 1152 .............. 93 17 1153 .............. 93 17 1154 .............. 93 23 1155 .............. 93 26 1156 .............. 93 22 1157 .............. 93 18 1158 .............. 93 16 1159 .............. 93 16 1160 .............. 93 17 1161 .............. 93 19 1162 .............. 93 18 1163 .............. 93 16 1164 .............. 93 19 Time( s) Normalized speed ( percent) Normalized torque ( percent) 1165 .............. 93 22 1166 .............. 93 25 1167 .............. 93 29 1168 .............. 93 27 1169 .............. 93 22 1170 .............. 93 18 1171 .............. 93 16 1172 .............. 93 19 1173 .............. 93 19 1174 .............. 93 17 1175 .............. 93 17 1176 .............. 93 17 1177 .............. 93 16 1178 .............. 93 16 1179 .............. 93 15 1180 .............. 93 16 1181 .............. 93 15 1182 .............. 93 17 1183 .............. 93 21 1184 .............. 93 30 1185 .............. 93 53 1186 .............. 93 54 1187 .............. 93 38 1188 .............. 93 30 1189 .............. 93 24 1190 .............. 93 20 1191 .............. 95 20 1192 .............. 96 18 1193 .............. 96 15 1194 .............. 96 11 1195 .............. 95 9 1196 .............. 95 8 1197 .............. 96 7 1198 .............. 94 33 1199 .............. 93 46 1200 .............. 93 37 1201 .............. 16 8 1202 .............. 0 0 1203 .............. 0 0 1204 .............. 0 0 1205 .............. 0 0 1206 .............. 0 0 1207 .............. 0 0 1208 .............. 0 0 1209 .............. 0 0 PART 1051 CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECREATIONAL ENGINES AND VEHICLES Subpart A Determining How To Follow This Part Sec. 1051.1 Does this part apply to me? 1051.5 Which engines are excluded or exempted from this part's requirements? 1051.10 What main steps must I take to comply with this part? 1051.15 Do any other regulation parts affect me? 1051.20 May I certify a recreational engine instead of the vehicle? 1051.25 What requirements apply when installing certified engines in recreational vehicles? Subpart B Emission Standards and Related Requirements 1051.101 What emission standards and other requirements must my vehicles meet? 1051.103 What are the exhaust emission standards for snowmobiles? 1051.105 What are the exhaust emission standards for off­ highway motorcycles? 1051.107 What are the exhaust emission standards for all­ terrain vehicles ( ATVs) and offroad utility vehicles? 1051.110 What evaporative emission standards must my vehicles meet? 1051.115 What other requirements must my vehicles meet? 1051.120 What warranty requirements apply to me? 1051.125 What maintenance instructions must I give to buyers? 1051.130 What installation instructions must I give to vehicle manufacturers? 1051.135 How must I label and identify the vehicles I produce? 1051.145 What provisions apply only for a limited time? Subpart C Certifying Engine Families 1051.201 What are the general requirements for submitting a certification application? 1051.205 What must I include in my application? 1051.210 May I get preliminary approval before I complete my application? 1051.215 What happens after I complete my application? 1051.220 How do I amend the maintenance instructions in my application? 1051.225 How do I amend my application to include new or modified vehicles or to change an FEL? 1051.230 How do I select engine families? 1051.235 What emission testing must I perform for my application for a certificate of conformity? 1051.240 How do I demonstrate that my engine family complies with exhaust emission standards? 1051.245 How do I demonstrate that my engine family complies with evaporative emission standards? 1051.250 What records must I keep and make available to EPA? 1051.255 When may EPA deny, revoke, or void my certificate of conformity? Subpart D Testing Production­ Line Engines 1051.301 When must I test my productionline vehicles or engines? 1051.305 How must I prepare and test my production­ line vehicles or engines? 1051.310 How must I select vehicles or engines for production­ line testing? 1051.315 How do I know when my engine family fails the production­ line testing requirements? 1051.320 What happens if one of my production­ line vehicles or engines fails to meet emission standards? 1051.325 What happens if an engine family fails the production­ line requirements? 1051.330 May I sell vehicles from an engine family with a suspended certificate of conformity? 1051.335 How do I ask EPA to reinstate my suspended certificate? 1051.340 When may EPA revoke my certificate under this subpart and how may I sell these vehicles again? VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68381 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 1051.345 What production­ line testing records must I send to EPA? 1051.350 What records must I keep? Subpart E Testing In­ Use Engines [ Reserved] Subpart F Test Procedures 1051.501 What procedures must I use to test my vehicles or engines? 1051.505 What special provisions apply for testing snowmobiles? 1051.510 What special provisions apply for testing ATV engines? [ Reserved] 1051.515 How do I test my fuel tank for permeation emissions? 1051.520 How do I perform exhaust durability testing? Subpart G Compliance Provisions 1051.601 What compliance provisions apply to vehicles and engines subject to this part? 1051.605 What are the provisions for exempting vehicles from the requirements of this part if they use engines you have certified under the motor­ vehicle program or the Large Spark­ ignition program? 1051.610 What are the provisions for producing recreational vehicles with engines already certified under the motor­ vehicle program or the Large SI program? 1051.615 What are the special provisions for certifying small recreational engines? 1051.620 When may a manufacturer obtain an exemption for competition recreational vehicles? 1051.625 What special provisions apply to unique snowmobile designs for smallvolume manufacturers? 1051.630 What special provisions apply to unique snowmobile designs for all manufacturers? 1051.635 What provisions apply to new manufacturers that are small businesses? Subpart H Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Certification 1051.701 General provisions. 1051.705 How do I average emission levels? 1051.710 How do I generate and bank emission credits? 1051.715 How do I trade emission credits? 1051.720 How do I calculate my average emission level or emission credits? 1051.725 What information must I keep? 1051.730 What information must I report? 1051.735 Are there special averaging provisions for snowmobiles? Subpart I Definitions and Other Reference Information 1051.801 What definitions apply to this part? 1051.805 What symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations does this part use? 1051.810 What materials does this part reference? 1051.815 How should I request EPA to keep my information confidential? 1051.820 How do I request a hearing? Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 7671( q). Subpart A Determining How to Follow This Part § 1051.1 Does this part apply to me? ( a) This part applies to you if you manufacture or import any of the following recreational vehicles or engines used in them, unless we exclude them under § 1051.5: ( 1) Snowmobiles. ( 2) Off­ highway motorcycles. ( 3) All­ terrain vehicles ( ATVs). ( 4) Offroad utility vehicles with engines with displacement less than or equal to 1000 cc, maximum brake power less than or equal to 30 kW, and maximum vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour or higher. Offroad utility vehicles that are subject to this part are subject to the same requirements as ATVs. This means that any requirement that applies to ATVs also applies to these offroad utility vehicles, without regard to whether the regulatory language mentions offroad utility vehicles. ( b) [ Reserved] ( c) As noted in subpart G of this part, 40 CFR part 1068 applies to everyone, including anyone who manufactures, installs, owns, operates, or rebuilds any of the vehicles or engines this part covers. ( d) You need not follow this part for vehicles you produce before the 2006 model year, unless you certify voluntarily. See § § 1051.103 through 1051.110, § 1051.145, and the definition of `` model year'' in § 1051.801 for more information about the timing of the requirements. ( e) The requirements of this part begin to apply when a vehicle is new. See the definition of `` new'' in § 1051.801 for more information. In some cases, vehicles or engines that have been previously used may be considered `` new'' for the purposes of this part. ( f) See § § 1051.801 and 1051.805 for definitions and acronyms that apply to this part. The definition section contains significant regulatory provisions and it is very important that you read them. § 1051.5 Which engines are excluded or exempted from this part's requirements? ( a) You may exclude vehicles with compression­ ignition engines. See 40 CFR part 89 for regulations that cover these engines. ( b) See subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, for exemptions of specific engines. ( c) We may require you to label an engine or vehicle ( or both) if this section excludes it and other requirements in this chapter do not apply. ( d) Send the Designated Officer a written request with supporting documentation if you want us to determine whether this part covers or excludes certain vehicles. Excluding engines from this part's requirements does not affect other requirements that may apply to them. § 1051.10 What main steps must I take to comply with this part? ( a) You must get a certificate of conformity from us for each engine family before you do any of the following things with a new vehicle or new engine covered by this part: sell, offer for sale, introduce into commerce, distribute or deliver for introduction into commerce, or import it into the United States. `` New'' vehicles or engines may include some already placed in service ( see the definition of `` new'' in § 1051.801). You must get a new certificate of conformity for each new model year. ( b) To get a certificate of conformity and comply with its terms, you must do five things: ( 1) Meet the emission standards and other requirements in subpart B of this part. ( 2) Perform preproduction emission tests. ( 3) Apply for certification ( see subpart C of this part). ( 4) Do routine emission testing on production vehicles or engines as required by subpart D of this part. ( 5) Follow our instructions throughout this part. ( c) Subpart F of this part describes how to test your engines or vehicles ( including references to other parts) and when you may test the engine alone instead of the entire vehicle. ( d) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068 describe requirements and prohibitions that apply to manufacturers, owners, operators, rebuilders, and all others. They also describe exemptions available for special circumstances. § 1051.15 Do any other regulation parts affect me? ( a) Parts 86 and 1065 of this chapter describe procedures and equipment specifications for testing vehicles and engines. Subpart F of this part describes how to apply part 86 or 1065 of this chapter to show you meet the emission standards in this part. ( b) Part 1068 of this chapter describes general provisions, including these seven areas: ( 1) Prohibited actions and penalties for manufacturers and others. ( 2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket changes. ( 3) Exemptions and exclusions for certain vehicles and engines. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68382 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 4) Importing vehicles and engines. ( 5) Selective enforcement audits of your production. ( 6) Defect reporting and recall. ( 7) Procedures for hearings. ( c) Other parts of this chapter affect you if referenced in this part. § 1051.20 May I certify a recreational engine instead of the vehicle? ( a) You may certify engines sold separately from vehicles in either of two cases: ( 1) If you manufacture recreational engines but not recreational vehicles, you may ask to certify the engine alone. In your request, explain why you cannot certify the entire vehicle. ( 2) If you manufacture complete recreational vehicles containing engines you also sell separately, you may ask to certify all these engines in a single engine family or in separate engine families. ( b) If you certify an engine under this section, you must use the test procedures in subpart F of this part. If the test procedures require vehicle testing, use good engineering judgment to install the engine in an appropriate vehicle for measuring emissions. ( c) If we allow you to certify recreational engines, the vehicles must meet the applicable emission standards ( including evaporative emission standards) with the engines installed in the appropriate vehicles. You must prepare installation instructions as described in § 1051.130 and use good engineering judgment so that the engines will meet emission standards after proper installation in the vehicle. ( d) Identify and label engines you produce under this section consistent with the requirements of § 1051.135. On the emission control information label, identify the manufacturing date of the engine rather than the vehicle. ( e) You may not use the provisions of this section to circumvent or reduce the stringency of this part's standards or other requirements. ( f) If you certify under paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section, you may ask us to allow you to perform production­ line testing on the engine. If you certify under paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section, use good engineering judgment to ensure that these engines are produced in the same manner as the engines you produce for your vehicles, so that your production­ line testing results under subpart D of this part would apply to them. § 1051.25 What requirements apply when installing certified engines in recreational vehicles? ( a) If you manufacture recreational vehicles with engines certified under § 1051.20, you need not also certify the vehicle under this part. The vehicle must nevertheless meet emission standards with the engine installed. ( b) You must follow the engine manufacturer's emission­ related installation instructions, as described in § 1051.135 and 40 CFR 1068.105. For example, you must use a fuel system that meets the permeation requirements of this part, consistent with the engine manufacturer's instructions. ( c) If you install the engine in a way that makes the engine's emission control information label hard to read during normal engine maintenance, you must place a duplicate label on the vehicle, as described in 40 CFR 1068.105. Subpart B Emission Standards and Related Requirements § 1051.101 What emission standards and other requirements must my vehicles meet? ( a) You must show that your vehicles meet the following: ( 1) The applicable exhaust emission standards in § 1051.103, § 1051.105, or § 1051.107. ( i) For snowmobiles, see § 1051.103. ( ii) For off­ highway motorcycles, see § 1051.105. ( iii) For all­ terrain vehicles and offroad utility vehicles subject to this part, see § 1051.107. ( 2) The evaporative emission standards in § 1051.110. ( 3) All the requirements in § 1051.115. ( b) The certification regulations in subpart C of this part describe how you make this showing. ( c) These standards and requirements apply to all testing, including production­ line and in­ use testing, as described in subparts D and E of this part. ( d) Other sections in this subpart describe other requirements for manufacturers such as labeling or warranty requirements. ( e) It is important that you read § 1051.145 to determine if there are other interim requirements or interim compliance options that apply for a limited time. ( f) As is described in § 1051.1( a)( 4), offroad utility vehicles that are subject to this part are subject to the same requirements as ATVs. § 1051.103 What are the exhaust emission standards for snowmobiles? ( a) Apply the exhaust emission standards in this section by model year. Measure emissions with the snowmobile test procedures in subpart F of this part. ( 1) Follow Table 1 of this section for exhaust emission standards. You may use the averaging, banking, and trading provisions of subpart H of this part to show compliance with these standards ( an engine family meets emission standards even if its family emission limit is higher than the standard, as long as you show that the whole averaging set of applicable engine families meet the applicable emission standards using emission credits, and the vehicles within the family meet the family emission limit). Table 1 also shows the maximum value you may specify for a family emission limit, as follows: TABLE 1 OF § 1051.103. EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR SNOWMOBILES ( G/ KW HR) Phase Model year Phase­ in ( percent) Emission standards Maximum allowable family emission limits HC HC+ NOX CO HC HC+ NOX CO Phase 1 ............... 2006 .................... 50 100 .................... 275 .................... .................... ........................ Phase 1 ............... 2007 2009 .......... 100 100 .................... 275 .................... .................... ........................ Phase 2 ............... 2010 and 2011 ... 100 75 .................... 275 .................... .................... ........................ Phase 3 ............... 2012 and later .... 100 75 ( 1) ( 1) 150 165 400 1 See § 1051.103( a)( 2). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68383 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 2) For Phase 3, the HC+ NOX and CO standards are defined by a functional relationship. Choose your corporate average HC+ NOX and CO standards for each model year according to the following criteria: ( i) Prior to production, select the HC+ NOX standard and CO standard ( specified as g/ kW­ hr) so that the combined percent reduction from baseline emission levels is greater than or equal to 100 percent; that is, that the standards comply with the following equation: 1 15 150 100 1 100 100 × + × ( ) HC+ NO CO 400 x STD STD ( ii) Your corporate average HC+ NOX standard may not be higher than 90 g/ kW­ hr. ( iii) Your corporate average CO standard may not be higher than 275 g/ kW­ hr. ( iv) You may use the averaging and banking provisions of subpart H of this part to show compliance with these HC+ NOX and CO standards in this paragraph ( a)( 2). You may modify your selection of the HC+ NOX and CO standards at the end of the model year under paragraph ( a)( 2)( i) of this section. You must comply with these final corporate average emission standards. ( b) Apply the exhaust emission standards in this section for snowmobiles using each type of fuel specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, for which they are designed to operate. You must meet the numerical emission standards for hydrocarbons in this section based on the following types of hydrocarbon emissions for snowmobiles powered by the following fuels: ( 1) Gasoline­ and LPG­ fueled snowmobiles: THC emissions. ( 2) Natural gas­ fueled snowmobiles: NMHC emissions. ( 3) Alcohol­ fueled snowmobiles: THCE emissions. ( c) Your snowmobiles must meet emission standards over their full useful life ( § 1051.240 describes how to use deterioration factors to show this). The minimum useful life is 8,000 kilometers, 400 hours of engine operation, or five calendar years, whichever comes first. You must specify a longer useful life in terms of kilometers and hours for the engine family if the average service life of your vehicles is longer than the minimum value, as follows: ( 1) Except as allowed by paragraph ( c)( 2) of this section, your useful life ( in kilometers and hours) may not be less than either of the following: ( i) Your projected operating life from advertisements or other marketing materials for any vehicles in the engine family. ( ii) Your basic mechanical warranty for any engines in the engine family. ( 2) Your useful life may be based on the average service life of vehicles in the engine family if you show that the average service life is less than the useful life required by paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section, but more than the minimum useful life ( 8,000 kilometers or 400 hours of engine operation). In determining the actual average service life of vehicles in an engine family, we will consider all available information and analyses. Survey data is allowed but not required to make this showing. § 1051.105 What are the exhaust emission standards for off­ highway motorcycles? ( a) Apply the exhaust emission standards in this section by model year. Measure emissions with the off­ highway motorcycle test procedures in subpart F of this part. ( 1) Follow Table 1 of this section for exhaust emission standards. You may use the averaging, banking, and trading provisions of subpart H of this part to show compliance with the HC+ NOX and/ or CO standards ( an engine family meets emission standards even if its family emission limit is higher than the standard, as long as you show that the whole averaging set of applicable engine families meet the applicable emission standards using emission credits, and the vehicles within the family meet the family emission limit). The phase­ in values specify the percentage of your U. S.­ directed production that must comply with the emission standards for those model years. Calculate this compliance percentage based on a simple count of production units within the engine family. Table 1 follows: TABLE 1 OF § 1051.105. EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR OFF­ HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES ( G/ KM) Phase Model year Phase­ in ( percent) Emission standards Maximum allowable family emission limits HC+ NOX CO HC+ NOX CO Phase 1 ........................................ 2006 .............................................. 50 2.0 25 20.0 50 2007 and later .............................. 100 2.0 25 20.0 50 ( 2) For model years 2007 and later you may choose to certify all of your offhighway motorcycles to an HC+ NOX standard of 4.0 g/ km and a CO standard of 35 g/ km, instead of the standards listed in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. To certify to the standards in this paragraph ( a)( 2), you must comply with the following provisions: ( i) You may not request an exemption for any off­ highway motorcycles under § 1051.620 ( ii) At least ten percent of your offhighway motorcycles for the model year must have four of the following features: ( A) The absence of a headlight or other lights. ( B) The absence of a spark arrestor. ( C) The absence of manufacturer warranty. ( D) Suspension travel greater than 10 inches. ( E) Engine displacement greater than 50 cc. ( F) The absence of a functional seat. ( iii) You may use the averaging and banking provisions of subpart H of this part to show compliance with this HC+ NOX standard, but not this CO standard. If you use the averaging or banking provisions to show compliance, your FEL for HC+ NOX may not exceed 8.0 g/ km for any engine family. You may not use the trading provisions of subpart H of this part. ( 3) You may certify off­ highway motorcycles with engines that have total VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08NO02.007</ MATH> 68384 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations displacement of 70 cc or less to the exhaust emission exhaust standards in § 1051.615 instead of certifying them to the exhaust emission standards of this section. ( b) Apply the exhaust emission standards in this section for off­ highway motorcycles using each type of fuel specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, for which they are designed to operate. You must meet the numerical emission standards for hydrocarbons in this section based on the following types of hydrocarbon emissions for offhighway motorcycles powered by the following fuels: ( 1) Gasoline­ and LPG­ fueled offhighway motorcycles: THC emissions. ( 2) Natural gas­ fueled off­ highway motorcycles: NMHC emissions. ( 3) Alcohol­ fueled off­ highway motorcycles: THCE emissions. ( c) Your off­ highway motorcycles must meet emission standards over their full useful life ( § 1051.240 describes how to use deterioration factors to show this). The minimum useful life is 10,000 kilometers or five years, whichever comes first. You must specify a longer useful life for the engine family in terms of kilometers if the average service life of your vehicles is longer than the minimum value, as follows: ( 1) Except as allowed by paragraph ( c)( 2) of this section, your useful life ( in kilometers) may not be less than either of the following: ( i) Your projected operating life from advertisements or other marketing materials for any vehicles in the engine family. ( ii) Your basic mechanical warranty for any engines in the engine family. ( 2) Your useful life may be based on the average service life of vehicles in the engine family if you show that the average service life is less than the useful life required by paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section, but more than the minimum useful life ( 10,000 kilometers). In determining the actual average service life of vehicles in an engine family, we will consider all available information and analyses. Survey data is allowed but not required to make this showing. § 1051.107 What are the exhaust emission standards for all­ terrain vehicles ( ATVs) and offroad utility vehicles? This section specifies the exhaust emission standards that apply to ATVs. As is described in § 1051.1( a)( 4), offroad utility vehicles that are subject to this part are subject to these same standards. ( a) Apply the exhaust emission standards in this section by model year. Measure emissions with the ATV test procedures in subpart F of this part. ( 1) Follow Table 1 of this section for exhaust emission standards. You may use the averaging, banking, and trading provisions of subpart H of this part to show compliance with these HC+ NOX standards ( an engine family meets emission standards even if its family emission limit is higher than the standard, as long as you show that the whole averaging set of applicable engine families meet the applicable emission standards using emission credits, and the vehicles within the family meet the family emission limit). Table 1 also shows the maximum value you may specify for a family emission limit. The phase­ in values in the table specify the percentage of your total U. S.­ directed production that must comply with the emission standards for those model years. Calculate this compliance percentage based on a simple count of production units within the engine family. This applies to your total production of ATVs and offroad utility vehicles that are subject to the standards of this part; including both ATVs and offroad utility vehicles subject to the standards of this section and ATVs and offroad utility vehicles certified to the standards of other sections in this part 1051 ( such as § 1051.615, but not including vehicles certified under other parts in this chapter ( such as 40 CFR part 90). Table 1 follows: TABLE 1 OF § 1051.107. EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR ATVS ( G/ KM) Phase Model year Phase­ in ( percent) Emission standards Maximum allowable family emission limits HC+ NOX CO HC+ NOX CO Phase 1 ........................................ 2006 .............................................. 50 1.5 35 20.0 50 2007 and later .............................. 100 1.5 35 20.0 50 ( 2) You may certify ATVs with engines that have total displacement of less than 100 cc to the exhaust emission exhaust standards in § 1051.615 instead of certifying them to the exhaust emission standards of this section. ( b) Apply the exhaust emission standards in this section for ATVs using each type of fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065, subpart C for which they are designed to operate. You must meet the numerical emission standards for hydrocarbons in this section based on the following types of hydrocarbon emissions for ATVs powered by the following fuels: ( 1) Gasoline­ and LPG­ fueled ATVs: THC emissions. ( 2) Natural gas­ fueled ATVs: NMHC emissions. ( 3) Alcohol­ fueled ATVs: THCE emissions. ( c) Your ATVs must meet emission standards over their full useful life ( § 1051.240 describes how to use deterioration factors to show this). The minimum useful life is 10,000 kilometers, 1000 hours of engine operation, or five years, whichever comes first. You must specify a longer useful life for the engine family in terms of kilometers and hours if the average service life of your vehicles is longer than the minimum value, as follows: ( 1) Except as allowed by paragraph ( c)( 2) of this section, your useful life ( in kilometers) may not be less than either of the following: ( i) Your projected operating life from advertisements or other marketing materials for any vehicles in the engine family. ( ii) Your basic mechanical warranty for any engines in the engine family. ( 2) Your useful life may be based on the average service life of vehicles in the engine family if you show that the average service life is less than the useful life required by paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section, but more than the minimum useful life ( 10,000 kilometers or 1,000 hours of engine operation). In determining the actual average service life of vehicles in an engine family, we will consider all available information and analyses. Survey data is allowed but not required to make this showing. § 1051.110 What evaporative emission standards must my vehicles meet? All of your new vehicles must meet the emission standards of this section over their full useful life, as specified in this section. Note that § 1051.245 allows you to use design­ based certification instead of generating new emission data. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68385 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( a) Beginning with the 2008 model year, permeation emissions from your vehicle's fuel tank( s) may not exceed 1.5 grams per square­ meter per day when measured with the test procedures for tank permeation in subpart F of this part. You may use the averaging, banking, and trading provisions of subpart H of this part to show compliance. ( b) Beginning with the 2008 model year, permeation emissions from your vehicle's fuel lines may not exceed 15 grams per square­ meter per day when measured with the test procedures for fuel­ line permeation in subpart F of this part. Use the inside diameter of the hose to determine the surface area of the hose. § 1051.115 What other requirements must my vehicles meet? Your vehicles must meet the following requirements: ( a) Closed crankcase. Design and produce your vehicles so they release no crankcase emissions into the atmosphere throughout their useful life. ( b) Emission sampling capability. Produce all your vehicles to allow sampling of exhaust emissions in the field without damaging the vehicle. Show in your application for certification how this can be done in a way that prevents diluting the exhaust sample with ambient air. To do this, you might simply allow for extending the exhaust pipe by 20 cm; you might also install sample ports in the exhaust ( downstream of any aftertreatment devices). ( c) Adjustable parameters. If your vehicles have adjustable parameters, they must meet all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the physically adjustable range. Note that parameters that control the air­ fuel ratio may be treated separately under paragraph ( d) of this section. ( 1) We do not consider an operating parameter adjustable if you permanently seal it or if ordinary tools cannot readily access it. ( 2) We may require you to adjust the engine to any specification within the adjustable range during certification testing, production­ line testing, selective enforcement auditing, or inuse testing. ( d) Other adjustments. This provision applies if an experienced mechanic can change your engine's air­ fuel ratio in less than one hour with a few parts whose total cost is under $ 50 ( in 2001 dollars). Examples include carburetor jets and needles. In the case of carburetor jets and needles, your vehicle must meet all the requirements of this part for any air­ fuel ratio within the adjustable range described in paragraph ( d)( 1) of this section. ( 1) In your application for certification, specify the adjustable range of air­ fuel ratios you expect to occur in use. You may specify it in terms of engine parts ( such as the carburetor jet size and needle configuration as a function of atmospheric conditions). ( 2) This adjustable range ( specified in paragraph ( d)( 1) of this section) must include all air­ fuel ratios between the lean limit and the rich limit, unless you can show that some air­ fuel ratios will not occur in use. ( i) The lean limit is the air­ fuel ratio that produces the highest engine power output ( averaged over the test cycle). ( ii) The rich limit is the richest of the following air­ fuel ratios: ( A) The air­ fuel ratio that would result from operating the vehicle as you produce it at the specified test conditions. This paragraph ( d)( 2)( ii)( A) does not apply if you produce the vehicle with an unjetted carburetor so that the vehicle must be jetted by the dealer or operator. ( B) The air­ fuel ratio of the engine when you do durability testing. ( C) The richest air­ fuel ratio that you recommend to your customers for the applicable ambient conditions. ( 3) If the air­ fuel ratio of your vehicle is adjusted primarily by changing the carburetor jet size and/ or needle configuration, you may submit your recommended jetting chart instead of the range of air­ fuel ratios required by paragraph ( d)( 1) of this section if the following criteria are met: ( i) Good engineering judgment indicates that vehicle operators would not have an incentive to operate the vehicle with richer air­ fuel ratios than recommended. ( ii) The chart is based on use of a fuel that is equivalent to the specified test fuel( s). As an alternative you may submit a chart based on a representative in­ use fuel if you also provide instructions for converting the chart to be applicable to the test fuel( s). ( iii) The chart is specified in units that are adequate to make it practical for an operator to keep the vehicle properly jetted during typical use. For example, charts that specify jet sizes based on increments of temperature smaller than 20 ° F ( 11.1 ° C) or increments of altitude less than 2000 feet would not meet this criteria. Temperature ranges must overlap by at least 5 ° F ( 2.8 ° C). ( iv) You follow the jetting chart for durability testing. ( v) You do not produce your vehicles with jetting richer than the jetting chart recommendation for the intended vehicle use. ( 4) We may require you to adjust the engine to any specification within the adjustable range during certification testing, production­ line testing, selective enforcement auditing, or inuse testing. If we allow you to submit your recommended jetting chart instead of the range of air­ fuel ratios required by paragraph ( d)( 1) of this section, adjust the engine to the richest specification within the jetting chart for the test conditions, unless we specify a leaner setting. We may not specify a setting leaner than that described in paragraph ( d)( 2)( i) of this section. ( e) Prohibited controls. You may not design your engines with emissioncontrol devices, systems, or elements of design that cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety while operating. For example, this would apply if the engine emits a noxious or toxic substance it would otherwise not emit that contributes to such an unreasonable risk. ( f) Defeat devices. You may not equip your vehicles with a defeat device. A defeat device is an auxiliary emissioncontrol device or other control feature that reduces the effectiveness of emission controls under conditions you may reasonably expect the vehicle to encounter during normal operation and use. This does not apply to auxiliary emission­ control devices you identify in your certification application if any of the following is true: ( 1) The conditions of concern were substantially included in your prescribed duty cycles. ( 2) You show your design is necessary to prevent catastrophic vehicle damage or accidents. ( 3) The reduced effectiveness applies only to starting the engine. ( g) Noise standards. There are no noise standards specified in this part 1051. See 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter G, to determine if your vehicle must meet noise emission standards under another part our regulations. § 1051.120 What warranty requirements apply to me? ( a) General requirements. You must warrant to the ultimate buyer that the new engine meets two conditions: ( 1) It is designed, built, and equipped to conform at the time of sale with the requirements of this part. ( 2) It is free from defects in materials and workmanship that may keep it from meeting these requirements. ( b) Warranty period. Your emissionrelated warranty must be valid for at least 50 percent of the vehicle's VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68386 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations minimum useful life in kilometers or at least 30 months, whichever comes first. You may offer an emission­ related warranty more generous than we require. This warranty may not be shorter than any published or negotiated warranty you offer for the engine or any of its components. If a vehicle has no odometer, base warranty periods in this paragraph ( b) only on the vehicle's age ( in years). ( c) Components covered. The emission­ related warranty must cover components whose failure would increase an engine's emissions, including electronic controls, fuel injection ( for liquid or gaseous fuels), exhaust­ gas recirculation, aftertreatment, or any other system you develop to control emissions. We generally consider replacing or repairing other components to be the owner's responsibility. ( d) Scheduled maintenance. You may schedule emission­ related maintenance for a component named in paragraph ( c) of this section, subject to the restrictions of § 1051.125. You are not required to cover this scheduled maintenance under your warranty if the component meets either of the following criteria: ( 1) The component was in general use on similar engines, and was subject to scheduled maintenance, before January 1, 2000. ( 2) Failure of the component would clearly degrade the engine's performance enough that the operator would need to repair or replace it. ( e) Limited applicability. You may deny warranty claims under this section if the operator caused the problem, as described in 1068.115 of this chapter. You may ask us to allow you to exclude from your emission­ related warranty certified vehicles that have been used significantly for competition, especially certified motorcycles that meet at least four of the criteria in § 1051.620( b)( 1). ( f) Aftermarket parts. As noted in § 1068.101 of this chapter, it is a violation of the Act to manufacture a vehicle part if one of its main effects is to reduce the effectiveness of the vehicle's emission controls. If you make an aftermarket part, you may but do not have to certify that using the part will still allow engines to meet emission standards, as described in § 85.2114 of this chapter. § 1051.125 What maintenance instructions must I give to buyers? Give the ultimate buyer of each new vehicle written instructions for properly maintaining and using the vehicle, including the emission­ control system. The maintenance instructions also apply to service accumulation on your test vehicles or engines, as described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart E. ( a) Critical emission­ related maintenance. Critical emission­ related maintenance includes any adjustment, cleaning, repair, or replacement of airinduction fuel­ system, or ignition components, aftertreatment devices, pulse­ air valves, exhaust gas recirculation systems, crankcase ventilation valves, sensors, or electronic control units. This may also include any other component whose only purpose is to reduce emissions or whose failure will increase emissions without significantly degrading engine performance. You may schedule critical emission­ related maintenance on these components if you meet the following conditions: ( 1) You may ask us to approve critical emission­ related maintenance only if it meets two criteria: ( i) Operators are reasonably likely to do the maintenance you call for. ( ii) Vehicles need the maintenance to meet emission standards. ( 2) We will accept scheduled maintenance as reasonably likely to occur in use if you satisfy any of four conditions: ( i) You present data showing that, if a lack of maintenance increases emissions, it also unacceptably degrades the vehicle's performance. ( ii) You present survey data showing that 80 percent of vehicles in the field get the maintenance you specify at the recommended intervals. ( iii) You provide the maintenance free of charge and clearly say so in maintenance instructions for the customer. ( iv) You otherwise show us that the maintenance is reasonably likely to be done at the recommended intervals. ( 3) You may not schedule critical emission­ related maintenance within the minimum useful life period for aftertreatment devices, pulse­ air valves, fuel injectors, oxygen sensors, electronic control units, superchargers, or turbochargers. ( b) Recommended additional maintenance. You may recommend, but not require, any additional amount of maintenance on the components listed in paragraph ( a) of this section. However, you must make it clear that these maintenance steps are not necessary to keep the emission­ related warranty valid. If operators do the maintenance specified in paragraph ( a) of this section, but not the recommended additional maintenance, this does not allow you to disqualify them from in­ use testing or deny a warranty claim. ( c) Special maintenance. You may specify more frequent maintenance to address problems related to special situations such as substandard fuel or atypical engine operation. You may not perform this special maintenance during service accumulation or durability testing. ( d) Noncritical emission­ related maintenance. For engine parts not listed in paragraph ( a) of this section, you may schedule any amount of emissionrelated inspection or maintenance. But you must state clearly that these steps are not necessary to keep the emissionrelated warranty valid. Also, do not take these inspection or maintenance steps during service accumulation on your test vehicles or engines. ( e) Maintenance that is not emissionrelated For maintenance unrelated to emission controls, you may schedule any amount of inspection or maintenance. You may also take these inspection or maintenance steps during service accumulation on your test vehicles or engines. This might include adding engine oil or adjusting chain tension, clutch position, or tire pressure. ( f) Source of parts and repairs. Print clearly on the first page of your written maintenance instructions that any repair shop or person may maintain, replace, or repair emission­ control devices and systems. Your instructions may not require any component or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name. Also, do not directly or indirectly condition your warranty on a requirement that the vehicle be serviced by your franchised dealers or any other service establishments with which you have a commercial relationship. You may disregard the requirements in this paragraph ( f) if you do one of two things: ( 1) Provide a component or service without charge under the purchase agreement. ( 2) Get us to waive this prohibition in the public's interest by convincing us the vehicle will work properly only with the identified component or service. § 1051.130 What installation instructions must I give to vehicle manufacturers? ( a) If you sell an engine for someone else to install in a recreational vehicle, give the engine buyer written instructions for installing it consistent with the requirements of this part. Include all information necessary to ensure that engines installed this way will meet emission standards. ( b) These instructions must have the following information: ( 1) Include the heading: `` Emissionrelated installation instructions''. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68387 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 2) State: `` Failing to follow these instructions when installing a certified engine in a recreational vehicle may violate federal law ( 40 CFR 1068.105( b)), and subject you to fines or other penalties as described in the Clean Air Act.''. ( 3) Describe any other instructions needed to install an exhaust aftertreatment device consistent with your application for certification. ( 4) Describe the steps needed to comply with the evaporative emission standards in § 1051.110. ( 5) Describe any limits on the range of applications needed to ensure that the engine operates consistently with your application for certification. For example, if your engines are certified only to the snowmobile standards, tell vehicle manufacturers not to install the engines in other vehicles. ( 6) Describe any other instructions to make sure the installed engine will operate according to any design specifications you describe in your application for certification. ( 7) State: `` If you install the engine in a way that makes the engine's emission control information label hard to read during normal engine maintenance, you must place a duplicate label on the vehicle, as described in 40 CFR 1068.105.''. ( c) You do not need installation instructions for engines you install in your own vehicles. § 1051.135 How must I label and identify the vehicles I produce? Each of your vehicles must have three labels: a vehicle identification number as described in paragraph ( a) of this section, an emission control information label as described in paragraphs ( b) through ( e) of this section, and a consumer information label as described in paragraph ( g) of this section. ( a) Assign each production vehicle a unique identification number and permanently and legibly affix, stamp, or engrave it on the vehicle. ( b) At the time of manufacture, add a permanent label identifying the emission controls for each vehicle. This is the vehicle's `` emission control information label.'' To meet labeling requirements, do the following things: ( 1) Attach the label in one piece so it is not removable without being destroyed or defaced. ( 2) Design and produce it to be durable and readable for the vehicle's entire life. ( 3) Secure it to a part of the vehicle ( or engine) needed for normal operation and not normally requiring replacement. ( 4) Write it in block letters in English. ( 5) Attach the label in a location where it can be easily read. ( c) On your label, do these things: ( 1) Include the heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( 2) Include your full corporate name and trademark. ( 3) State: `` THIS VEHICLE IS CERTIFIED TO OPERATE ON [ specify operating fuel or fuels].''. ( 4) Identify the emission­ control system; your identifiers must use names and abbreviations consistent with SAE J1930 ( incorporated by reference in § 1051.810). ( 5) List all requirements for fuel and lubricants. ( 6) State the date of manufacture [ DAY ( optional), MONTH, and YEAR]; if you stamp it on the engine and print it in the owner's manual, you may omit this information from the emission control information label. ( 7) State: `` THIS VEHICLE MEETS U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS FOR [ MODEL YEAR] [ SNOWMOBILES or OFF­ ROAD MOTORCYCLES or ATVs].''. ( 8) Include EPA's standardized designation for the engine family. ( 9) State the engine's displacement ( in liters) and maximum brake power. You do not need to include the engine's displacement and power on the emission control information label if the vehicle is permanently labeled with a unique model name that corresponds to a specific displacement/ power configuration. ( 10) State the engine's useful life if it is different than the minimum value. ( 11) List specifications and adjustments for engine tuneups; show the proper position for the transmission during tuneup and state which accessories should be operating. ( 12) Identify the emission standards or family emission limits to which you have certified the engine. ( d) Some of your engines may need more information on the emission control information label. If you produce an engine or vehicle that we exempt from the requirements of this part, see subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068, subparts C and D, for more label information. ( e) Some engines may not have enough space for an emission control information label with all the required information. In this case, you may omit the information required in paragraphs ( c)( 3), ( c)( 4), and ( c)( 5) of this section if you print it in the owner's manual instead. ( f) If you are unable to meet these labeling requirements, you may ask us to modify them consistent with the intent of this section. ( g) Label every vehicle certified under this part with a removable hang­ tag showing its emission characteristics relative to other models. The label should be attached securely to the vehicle before it is offered for sale in such a manner that it would not be accidentally removed prior to sale. Use the applicable equations of this paragraph ( g) to determine the normalized emission rate ( NER) from the FEL for your vehicle. If the vehicle is certified without using the averaging provisions of subpart H, use the final deteriorated emission level. Round the resulting normalized emission rate for your vehicle to the nearest whole number. We may specify a standardized format for labels. At a minimum, the tag should include: The manufacturer's name, vehicle model name, engine description ( 500 cc two­ stroke with DFI), the NER, and a brief explanation of the scale ( for example, note that 0 is the cleanest and 10 is the least clean). ( 1) For snowmobiles, use the following equation: NER = 16.61 × log( 2.667 × HC + CO) ¥ 38.22 Where: HC and CO are the cycle­ weighted FELs ( or emission rates) for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in g/ kW hr. ( 2)( i) For off­ highway motorcycles with HC+ NOX emissions less than or equal to 2.0 g/ km, use the following equation: ( NER = 2.500 × ( HC + NOX) Where: HC + NOX is the FEL ( or the sum of the cycle­ weighted emission rates) for hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in g/ km. ( ii) For off­ highway motorcycles with HC+ NOX emissions greater than 2.0 g/ km, use the following equation: NER = 5.000 × log( HC + NOX) + 3.495 Where: HC + NOX is the FEL ( or the sum of the cycle­ weighted emission rates) for hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in g/ km. ( 3)( i) For ATVs with HC+ NOX emissions less than or equal to 1.5 g/ km, use the following equation: NER = 3.333 × ( HC + NOX) Where: HC + NOX is the FEL ( or the sum of the cycle­ weighted emission rates) for hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in g/ km. ( ii) For ATVs with HC+ NOX emissions greater than 1.5 g/ km, use the following equation: NER = 4.444 × log( HC + NOX) + 4.217 Where: HC + NOX is the FEL ( or the sum of the cycle­ weighted emission rates) for hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in g/ km. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68388 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations § 1051.145 What provisions apply only for a limited time? Apply the following provisions instead of others in this part for the periods and circumstances specified in this section. ( a) Provisions for small­ volume manufacturers. Special provisions apply to you if you are a small­ volume manufacturer subject to the requirements of this part. Contact us before 2006 if you intend to use these provisions. ( 1) You may delay complying with otherwise applicable emission standards ( and other requirements) for two model years. ( 2) If you are a small­ volume manufacturer of snowmobiles, only 50 percent of the models you produce ( instead of all of the models you produce) must meet emission standards in the first two years they apply to you as a small­ volume manufacturer, as described in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. For example, this alternate phase­ in allowance would allow smallvolume snowmobile manufacturers to comply with the Phase 1 exhaust standards by certifying 50 percent of their snowmobiles in 2008, 50 percent of their snowmobiles in 2009, and 100 percent in 2010. ( 3) Your vehicles for model years before 2011 may be exempt from the exhaust standards of this part if you meet the following criteria: ( i) Produce your vehicles by installing engines covered by a valid certificate of conformity under 40 CFR part 90 that shows the engines meet standards for Class II engines for each engine's model year. ( ii) Do not change the engine in a way that we could reasonably expect to increase its exhaust emissions. ( iii) The engine meets all applicable requirements from 40 CFR part 90. This applies to engine manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers who use these engines, and all other persons as if these engines were not used in recreational vehicles. ( iv) Demonstrate that fewer than 50 percent of the engine model's total sales, from all companies, are used in recreational vehicles regulated under this part. ( 4) All vehicles certified or exempted under this paragraph ( a) must be labeled according to our specifications. The label must include the following: ( i) The heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( ii) Your full corporate name and trademark. ( iii) A description of the provisions under which the vehicle is either exempted or certified. ( iv) Other information that we specify to you in writing. ( b) Optional emission standards for ATVs. To meet ATV standards for model years before 2009, you may apply the exhaust emission standards by model year in paragraph ( b)( 1) of this section while measuring emissions using the engine­ based test procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 instead of the chassis­ based test procedures in 40 CFR part 86. ( 1) Follow Table 1 of this section for exhaust emission standards, while meeting all the other requirements of § 1051.107. You may use emission credits to show compliance with these standards ( see subpart H of this part). You may not exchange emission credits with engine families meeting the standards in § 1051.107( a). You may also not exchange credits between engine families certified to the standards for engines above 225 cc and engine families certified to the standards for engines below 225 cc. The phase­ in percentages in the table specify the percentage of your U. S.­ directed production that must comply with the emission standards for those model years. Table 1 follows: TABLE 1 OF § 1051.145. OPTIONAL EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR ATVS ( G/ KW HR) Engine displacement Model year Phase­ in ( percent) Emission standards Maximum allowable family emission limits HC+ NOX CO HC+ NOX 2006 .......................................................... 50 16.1 400 32.2 < 225 cc ..................................................... 2007 and 2008 ......................................... 100 16.1 400 32.2 2006 .......................................................... 50 13.4 400 26.8 225 cc ..................................................... 2007 and 2008 ......................................... 100 13.4 400 26.8 ( 2) Measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with the steady­ state duty cycle described in Table 2 of this section. ( i) During idle mode, hold the speed within your specifications, keep the throttle fully closed, and keep engine torque under 5 percent of the peak torque value at maximum test speed. ( ii) For the full­ load operating mode, operate the engine at its maximum fueling rate. ( iii) See part 1065 of this chapter for detailed specifications of tolerances and calculations. ( iv) Table 2 follows: TABLE 2 OF § 1051.145. 6­ MODE DUTY CYCLE FOR RECREATIONAL ENGINES Mode No. Engine speed ( percent of maximum test speed) Torque ( percent of maximum test torque at test speed) Minimum time in mode ( minutes) Weighting factors 1 ..................................................................................................................... 85 100 5.0 0.09 2 ..................................................................................................................... 85 75 5.0 0.20 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68389 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2 OF § 1051.145. 6­ MODE DUTY CYCLE FOR RECREATIONAL ENGINES Continued Mode No. Engine speed ( percent of maximum test speed) Torque ( percent of maximum test torque at test speed) Minimum time in mode ( minutes) Weighting factors 3 ..................................................................................................................... 85 50 5.0 0.29 4 ..................................................................................................................... 85 25 5.0 0.30 5 ..................................................................................................................... 85 10 5.0 0.07 6 ..................................................................................................................... Idle 0 5.0 0.05 ( 3) For ATVs certified to the standards in this paragraph ( b) use the following equation to determine the normalized emission rate required by § 1051.135( g): NER = 9.898 × log( HC + NOX ¥ 4.898 Where: HC + NOX is the sum of the cycle­ weighted emission rates for hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in g/ kW hr. ( c) Production­ line testing. Vehicles certified to the Phase 1 or Phase 2 standards in § 1051.103, or the Phase 1 standards in § § 1051.105 or 1051.107 are exempt from the production­ line testing requirements of subpart D of this part if they are certified without participating in the emission averaging, banking and trading program described in Subpart H of this part. ( d) Phase­ in flexibility. For model years before 2014, if you make a good faith effort to comply, but fail to meet the sales requirements of this part during a phase­ in period for new standards, or fail to meet the average emission standards, we may approve an alternative remedy to offset the emission reduction deficit using future emission credits under this part. To apply for this, you must: ( 1) Submit a plan during the certification process for the first model year of the phase­ in showing how you project to meet the sales requirement of the phase­ in. ( 2) Notify us less than 30 days after you determine that you are likely to fail to comply with the sales requirement of the phase­ in. ( 3) Propose a remedy that will achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions compared to the specified phase­ in requirements, and that will offset the deficit within one model year. ( e) Snowmobile testing. You may use the raw sampling procedures described in 40 CFR part 91, subparts D and E, for emission testing of snowmobiles for model years prior to 2010. For later model years, you may use these procedures if you show that they produce emission measurements equivalent to the otherwise specified test procedures. ( f) Early credits. Snowmobile manufacturers may generate early emission credits in one of the following ways, by certifying some or all of their snowmobiles prior to 2006. Credit generating snowmobiles must meet all other applicable requirements of this part. No early credits may be generated by off­ highway motorcycles or ATVs. ( 1) You may certify one or more snowmobile engine families to FELs ( HC and CO) below the numerical level of the Phase 2 standards prior to the date when compliance with the Phase 1 standard is otherwise required. Credits are calculated relative to the Phase 2 standards. Credits generated under this paragraph ( f)( 1) may be used at any time before 2012. ( 2) You may certify a snowmobile engine family to FELs ( HC and CO) below the numerical level of the Phase 1 standards prior to the date when compliance with the Phase 1 standard is otherwise required. Credits are calculated relative to the Phase 1 standards. Credits generated under this paragraph ( f)( 2) may only be used for compliance with the Phase 1 standards. You may generate credits under this paragraph ( f)( 2) without regard to whether the FELs are above or below the numerical level of the Phase 2 standards. ( g) Pull­ ahead option for permeation emissions. Manufacturers choosing to comply with an early tank permeation standard of 3.0 g/ m2/ day prior to model year 2008 may be allowed to delay compliance with the 1.5 g/ m2/ day standard, for an equivalent number of tanks, subject to the following provisions: ( 1) Pull­ ahead tanks meeting the 3.0 g/ m2/ day standard must be certified and must meet all applicable requirements other than those limited to compliance with the exhaust standards. ( 2) Tanks for which compliance with the 1.5 g/ m2/ day standard is delayed must meet the 3.0 g/ m2/ day standard. ( 3) You may delay compliance with the 1.5 g/ m2/ day standard for one tank for one year for each tank­ year of credit generated early. ( 4) You may not use credits for a tank that is larger than the tank from which you generated the credits. Subpart C Certifying Engine Families § 1051.201 What are the general requirements for submitting a certification application? ( a) Send us an application for a certificate of conformity for each engine family. Each application is valid for only one model year. ( b) The application must not include false or incomplete statements or information ( see § 1051.255). ( c) We may choose to ask you to send us less information than we specify in this subpart, but this would not change your recordkeeping requirements. ( d) Use good engineering judgment for all decisions related to your application ( see § 1068.5 of this chapter). ( e) An authorized representative of your company must approve and sign the application. § 1051.205 What must I include in my application? In your application, do all the following things unless we ask you to send us less information: ( a) Describe the engine family's specifications and other basic parameters of the vehicle design. List the types of fuel you intend to use to certify the engine family ( for example, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, or natural gas). List vehicle configurations and model names that are included in the engine family. ( b) Explain how the emission­ control systems operate. ( 1) Describe in detail all the system components for controlling exhaust emissions, including auxiliary emissioncontrol devices and all fuel­ system components you will install on any production or test vehicle or engine. Explain why any auxiliary emissioncontrol devices are not defeat devices ( see § 1051.115( f)). Do not include VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68390 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations detailed calibrations for components unless we ask for them. ( 2) Describe the evaporative emission controls. ( c) Describe the vehicles or engines you selected for testing and the reasons for selecting them. ( d) Describe any special or alternate test procedures you used ( see § 1051.501). ( e) Describe how you operated the engine or vehicle prior to testing, including the duty cycle and the number of engine operating hours used to stabilize emission levels, and any scheduled maintenance you performed. ( f) List the specifications of the test fuels to show that they fall within the required ranges. ( g) Identify the engine family's useful life. ( h) Propose maintenance and use instructions for the ultimate buyer of each new vehicle ( see § 1051.125). ( i) Propose emission­ related installation instructions if you sell engines for someone else to install in a vehicle ( see § 1051.130). ( j) Propose an emission control information label. ( k) Present emission data to show that you meet emission standards. ( 1) Present exhaust emission data for HC, NOX ( as applicable), and CO on a test vehicle or engine to show your vehicles meet the emission standards we specify in subpart B of this part. Show these figures before and after applying deterioration factors for each vehicle or engine. Include test data for each type of fuel from part 1065, subpart C, of this chapter on which you intend for vehicles in the engine family to operate ( for example, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, or natural gas). If we specify more than one grade of any fuel type ( for example, a summer grade and winter grade of gasoline), you only need to submit test data for one grade, unless the regulations of this part explicitly specify otherwise for your vehicle. ( 2) Present evaporative test data for HC to show your vehicles meet the evaporative emission standards we specify in subpart B of this part. Show these figures before and after applying deterioration factors for each vehicle or engine, where applicable. If you did not perform the testing, identify the source of the test data. ( 3) Note that § 1051.235 and 1051.245 allows you to submit an application in certain cases without new emission data. ( l) Report all test results, including those from invalid tests or from any nonstandard tests ( such as measurements based on exhaust concentrations in parts per million). ( m) Identify the engine family's deterioration factors and describe how you developed them. Present any emission test data you used for this. ( n) Describe all adjustable operating parameters and other adjustments ( see § 1051.115 ( c) and ( d)), including the following: ( 1) The nominal or recommended setting. ( 2) The intended physically adjustable range, including production tolerances if they affect the range. ( 3) The limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges. ( 4) The air­ fuel ratios or jet chart specified in § 1051.115( d). ( o) State that you operated your test vehicles or engines according to the specified procedures and test parameters using the fuels described in the application to show you meet the requirements of this part. ( p) State unconditionally that all the vehicles ( and/ or engines) in the engine family comply with the requirements of this part, other referenced parts, and the Clean Air Act. ( q) Include estimates of U. S.­ directed production volumes. ( r) Show us how to modify your production vehicles to measure emissions in the field ( see § 1051.115). ( s) Add other information to help us evaluate your application if we ask for it. § 1051.210 May I get preliminary approval before I complete my application? If you send us information before you finish the application, we will review it and make any appropriate determinations listed in § 1051.215( b)( 1) through ( 5). Decisions made under this section are considered to be preliminary approval. We will generally not disapprove applications under § 1051.215( b)( 1) through ( 5) where we have given you preliminary approval, unless we find new and substantial information supporting a different decision. ( a) If you request preliminary approval related to the upcoming model year or the model year after that, we will make a `` best­ efforts'' attempt to make the appropriate determinations as soon as possible. We will generally not provide preliminary approval related to a future model year more than two years ahead of time. ( b) If we have published general guidance that serves as our determination for your situation, you may consider that to be preliminary approval. § 1051.215 What happens after I complete my application? ( a) If any of the information in your application changes after you submit it, amend it as described in § 1051.225. ( b) We may deny your application ( that is, determine that we cannot approve it without revision) if the engine family does not meet the requirements of this part or the Act. For example: ( 1) If you inappropriately use the provisions of § 1051.230( c) or ( d) to define a broader or narrower engine family, we will require you to redefine your engine family. ( 2) If we determine you did not appropriately select the useful life as specified in § 1051.103( c), § 1051.105( c), or § 1051.107( c), we will require you to lengthen it. ( 3) If we determine you did not appropriately select deterioration factors under § 1051.240( c), we will require you to revise them. ( 4) If your proposed emission control information label is inconsistent with § 1051.135, we will require you to change it ( and tell you how, if possible). ( 5) If you require or recommend maintenance and use instructions inconsistent with § 1051.125, we will require you to change them. ( 6) If we find any other problem with your application, we will tell you what the problem is, and what needs to be corrected. ( c) If we determine your application is complete and shows that the engine family meets all the requirements of this part and the Act, we will issue a certificate of conformity for your engine family for that model year. If we deny the application, we will explain why in writing. You may then ask us to hold a hearing to reconsider our decision ( see § 1051.820). § 1051.220 How do I amend the maintenance instructions in my application? Send the Designated Officer a request to amend your application for certification for an engine family if you want to change the emission­ related maintenance instructions in a way that could affect emissions. In your request, describe the proposed changes to the maintenance instructions. ( a) If you are decreasing the specified level of maintenance, you may distribute the new maintenance instructions to your customers 30 days after we receive your request, unless we disapprove your request. We may approve a shorter time or waive this requirement. ( b) If your requested change would not decrease the specified level of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68391 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations maintenance, you may distribute the new maintenance instructions anytime after you send your request. ( c) If you are correcting or clarifying your maintenance instructions or if you are changing instructions for maintenance unrelated to emission controls, the requirements of this section do not apply. § 1051.225 How do I amend my application to include new or modified vehicles or to change an FEL? ( a) You must amend your application for certification before you take either of the following actions: ( 1) Add a vehicle to a certificate of conformity. ( 2) Make a design change for a certified engine family that may affect emissions or an emission­ related part over the vehicle's lifetime. ( 3) Modify an FEL for an engine family, as described in paragraph ( f) of this section. ( b) Send the Designated Officer a request to amend the application for certification for an engine family. In your request, do all of the following: ( 1) Describe the vehicle model or configuration you are adding or changing. ( 2) Include engineering evaluations or reasons why the original test vehicle or engine is or is not still appropriate. ( 3) If the original test vehicle or engine for the engine family is not appropriate to show compliance for the new or modified vehicle, include new test data showing that the new or modified vehicle meets the requirements of this part. ( c) You may start producing the new or modified vehicle anytime after the time at which you send us your request ( for example, the day you mail your request). If we determine that the affected vehicles do not meet applicable requirements, we will require you to cease production of the vehicles and to recall and correct the vehicles at no expense to the owner. If you choose to produce vehicles under this paragraph, we will consider that to be consent to recall all vehicles that we determine do not meet applicable standards and other requirements and to remedy the nonconformity at no expense to the owner. ( d) You must give us test data within 30 days if we ask for more testing, or stop producing the vehicle if you are not able to do this. You may give us an engineering evaluation instead of test data if we agree that you can address our questions without test data. ( e) If we determine that the certificate of conformity would not cover your new or modified vehicle, we will send you a written explanation of our decision. In this case, you may no longer produce these vehicles, though you may ask for a hearing for us to reconsider our decision ( see § 1051.820). ( f) You may ask to change your FEL in the following cases: ( 1) You may ask to raise your FEL for your engine family after the start of production. You must use the higher FEL for the entire family to calculate your average emission level under subpart H of this part. In your request, you must demonstrate that you will still be able to comply with the applicable average emission standards as specified in subparts B and H of this part. ( 2) You may ask to lower the FEL for your engine family after the start of production only when you have test data from production vehicles indicating that your vehicles comply with the lower FEL. You may create a separate subfamily with the lower FEL. Otherwise, you must use the higher FEL for the family to calculate your average emission level under subpart H of this part. ( 3) If you change the FEL during production, you must include the new FEL on the emission control information label for all vehicles produced after the change. § 1051.230 How do I select engine families? ( a) Divide your product line into families of vehicles that you expect to have similar emission characteristics. Your engine family is limited to a single model year. ( b) Group vehicles in the same engine family if they are the same in all of the following aspects: ( 1) The combustion cycle. ( 2) The cooling system ( water­ cooled vs. air­ cooled). ( 3) Configuration of the fuel system ( for example, port fuel injection vs. carburetion). ( 4) Method of air aspiration. ( 5) The number, location, volume, and composition of catalytic converters. ( 6) Type of fuel. ( 7) The number, arrangement, and approximate bore diameter of cylinders. ( 8) Evaporative emission controls. ( c) In some cases you may subdivide a group of vehicles that is identical under paragraph ( b) of this section into different engine families. To do this under normal circumstances, you must show you expect emission characteristics to be different during the useful life or that any of the following engine characteristics are different: ( 1) Method of actuating intake and exhaust timing ( poppet valve, reed valve, rotary valve, etc.). ( 2) Location or size of intake and exhaust valves or ports. ( 3) Configuration of the combustion chamber. ( 4) Cylinder stroke or actual bore diameter. ( 5) Exhaust system. ( d) In some cases, you may include different engines in the same engine family, even though they are not identical with respect to the things listed in paragraph ( b) of this section. ( 1) If different engines have similar emission characteristics during the useful life, we may approve grouping them in the same engine family. ( 2) If you are a small­ volume manufacturer, you may group engines from any vehicles subject to the same emission standards into a single engine family. This does not change any of the requirements of this part for showing that an engine family meets emission standards. ( e) If you cannot appropriately define engine families by the method in this section, we will define them based on features related to emission characteristics. ( f) You may ask us to create separate families for exhaust emissions and evaporative emissions. If we do this, list both families on the emission control information label. § 1051.235 What emission testing must I perform for my application for a certificate of conformity? This section describes the emission testing you must perform to show compliance with the emission standards in subpart B of this part during certification. ( a) Test your emission­ data vehicles using the procedures and equipment specified in subpart F of this part. Where specifically required or allowed, test the engine instead of the vehicle. For evaporative emissions, test the fuel system components separate from the vehicle. ( b) Select from each engine family a test vehicle or engine, and a fuel system for each fuel type with a configuration that is most likely to exceed the emission standards, using good engineering judgment, consider the emission levels of all exhaust constituents over the full useful life of the vehicle. ( c) You may use previously generated emission data in the following cases: ( 1) You may submit emission data for equivalent engine families from previous years instead of doing new tests, but only if the data show that the test vehicle or engine would meet all the requirements for the latest vehicle or engine models. We may require you to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68392 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations do new emission testing if we believe the latest vehicle or engine models could be substantially different from the previously tested vehicle or engine. ( 2) You may submit emission data for equivalent engine families performed to show compliance with other standards ( such as California standards) instead of doing new tests, but only if the data show that the test vehicle or engine would meet all of this part's requirements. ( 3) You may submit evaporative emission data measured by a fuel system supplier. We may require you to verify that the testing was conducted in accordance with the applicable regulations. ( d) We may choose to measure emissions from any of your test vehicles or engines ( or other vehicles or engines in the engine family). ( 1) If we do this, you must provide the test vehicle or engine at the location we select. We may decide to do the testing at your plant or any other facility. If we choose to do the testing at your plant, you must schedule it as soon as possible and make available the instruments and equipment we need. ( 2) If we measure emissions on one of your test vehicles or engines, the results of that testing become the official data for the vehicle or engine. Unless we later invalidate this data, we may decide not to consider your data in determining if your engine family meets the emission standards. ( 3) Before we test one of your vehicles or engines, we may set its adjustable parameters to any point within the physically adjustable ranges ( see § 1051.115( c)). We may also adjust the air­ fuel ratio within the adjustable range specified in § 1051.115( d). ( 4) Calibrate the test vehicle or engine within normal production tolerances for anything not covered by § 1051.115( c) and ( d) of this section. ( e) If you are a small­ volume manufacturer, you may certify by design on the basis of preexisting exhaust emission data for similar technologies and other relevant information, and in accordance with good engineering judgment. In those cases, you are not required to test your vehicles. This is called `` design­ certification'' or `` certifying by design.'' To certify by design, you must show that the technology used on your engines is sufficiently similar to the previously tested technology that a person reasonably familiar with emissioncontrol technology would believe that your engines will comply with the emission standards. ( f) For fuel tanks that are certified based on permeability treatments for plastic fuel tanks, you do not need to test each engine family. However, you must use good engineering judgment to determine permeation rates for the tanks. This requires that more than one fuel tank be tested for each set of treatment conditions. You may not use test data from a given tank for any other tanks that have thinner walls. You may, however, use test data from a given tank for other tanks that have thicker walls. This applies to both low­ hour ( i. e., baseline testing) and durability testing. Note that § 1051.245 allows you to use design­ based certification instead of generating new emission data. § 1051.240 How do I demonstrate that my engine family complies with exhaust emission standards? ( a) For certification, your engine family is considered to be in compliance with the numerical exhaust emission standards in subpart B of this part if all emission­ data vehicles representing that family have test results showing emission levels at or below the standards. ( b) Your engine family does not comply if any emission­ data vehicle representing that family has test results showing emission levels above the standards for any pollutant. ( c) To compare emission levels from the emission­ data vehicle with the emission standards, apply deterioration factors ( to three significant figures) to the measured emission levels. The deterioration factor is a number that shows the relationship between exhaust emissions at the end of useful life and at the low­ hour test point. Section 1051.520 specifies how to test your vehicle to develop deterioration factors that estimate the change in emissions over your vehicle's full useful life. Small­ volume manufacturers may use assigned deterioration factors that we establish. Apply the deterioration factors as follows: ( 1) For vehicles that use aftertreatment technology, such as catalytic converters, the exhaust deterioration factor is the ratio of exhaust emissions at the end of useful life to exhaust emissions at the low­ hour test point. Adjust the official emission results for each tested vehicle at the selected test point by multiplying the measured emissions by the deterioration factor. If the factor is less than one, use one. ( 2) For vehicles that do not use aftertreatment technology, the exhaust deterioration factor is the difference between exhaust emissions at the end of useful life and exhaust emissions at the low­ hour test point. Adjust the official emission results for each tested vehicle at the selected test point by adding the factor to the measured emissions. If the factor is less than zero, use zero. ( d) After adjusting the emission levels for deterioration, round them to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each test vehicle. § 1051.245 How do I demonstrate that my engine family complies with evaporative emission standards? ( a) For certification, your engine family is considered in compliance with the evaporative emission standards in subpart B of this part if you do either of the following: ( 1) You have test results showing permeation emission levels from the fuel tanks and fuel lines in the family are at or below the standards in § 1051.110 throughout the useful life. ( 2) You comply with the design specifications in paragraph ( e) of this section. ( b) Your engine family does not comply if any fuel tank or fuel line representing that family has test results showing emission levels above the standards. ( c) To compare emission levels with the emission standards, apply deterioration factors ( to three significant figures) to the measured emission levels. The deterioration factor is a number that shows the relationship between emissions at the end of useful life and at the low­ hour test point. For permeation emissions, the deterioration factor is the difference between evaporative emissions at the end of useful life and evaporative emissions at the low­ hour test point. Adjust the official emission results for each tested vehicle at the selected test point by adding the factor to the measured emissions. If the factor is less than zero, use zero. ( 1) Section 1051.515 specifies how to test your fuel tanks to develop deterioration factors that estimate the change in emissions over your vehicle's full useful life. Small­ volume manufacturers may use assigned deterioration factors that we establish. Apply the deterioration factors as follows: ( i) Calculate the deterioration factor from emission tests performed before and after the durability tests described in § 1051.515( c) and using good engineering judgment. The durability tests described in § 1051.515( c) represent the minimum requirements for determining a deterioration factor. You may not use a deterioration factor that is less than the difference between evaporative emissions before and after VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68393 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations the durability tests described in § 1051.515( c). ( ii) Do not apply the deterioration factor to test results for tanks that have already undergone these durability tests. ( 2) Determine the deterioration factor for fuel lines using good engineering judgment. ( d) After adjusting the emission levels for deterioration, round them to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each test vehicle. ( e) You may demonstrate for certification that your engine family complies with the evaporative emission standards by demonstrating that you use the following control technologies: ( 1) For certification to the standards specified in § 1051.110( a) with the control technologies shown in the following table: TABLE 1 OF § 1051.245. DESIGN­ CERTIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTROLLING TANK PERMEATION If the tank permeability control technology is . . . Then you may design­ certify with a tank emission level of . . . ( i) A metal fuel tank with no non­ metal gaskets or with gaskets made from a low­ permeability material 1. 1.5 g/ m 2/ day. ( ii) A metal fuel tank with non­ metal gaskets with an exposed surface area of 1000 mm 2 or less. 1.5 g/ m 2/ day. 1 Permeability of 10 g/ m 2/ day or less according to ASTM D 814 95 ( incorporated by reference in § 1051.810). ( 2) For certification to the standards specified in § 1051.110( b) with the control technologies shown in the following table: TABLE 2 OF § 1051.245. DESIGN­ CERTIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTROLLING FUEL­ LINE PERMEATION If the fuel­ line permeability control technology is . . . jennifer Then you may design­ certify with a fuel line permeation emission level of . . . ( i) Hose meeting Category 1 permeation specifications in SAE J2260 ( incorporated by reference in § 1051.810). 15 g/ m2/ day. ( ii) Hose meeting the R11 A or R12 permeation specifications in SAE J30 ( incorporated by reference in § 1051.810). 15 g/ m2/ day. ( 3) We may establish additional design certification options where we find that new test data demonstrate that the use of other technology designs will ensure compliance with the applicable emission standards. § 1051.250 What records must I keep and make available to EPA? ( a) Organize and maintain the following records to keep them readily available; we may review these records at any time: ( 1) A copy of all applications and any summary information you sent us. ( 2) Any of the information we specify in § 1051.205 that you did not include in your application. ( 3) A detailed history of each emission­ data vehicle. In each history, describe all of the following: ( i) The emission­ data vehicle's construction, including its origin and buildup, steps you took to ensure that it represents production vehicles, any components you built specially for it, and all emission­ related components. ( ii) How you accumulated vehicle or engine operating hours, including the dates and the number of hours accumulated. ( iii) All maintenance ( including modifications, parts changes, and other service) and the dates and reasons for the maintenance. ( iv) All your emission tests, including documentation on routine and standard tests, as specified in part 1065 of this chapter or other applicable test procedures regulations, and the date and purpose of each test. ( v) All tests to diagnose engine or emission­ control performance, giving the date and time of each and the reasons for the test. ( vi) Any other significant events. ( b) Keep routine data from emission tests ( such as test cell temperatures and relative humidity readings) for one year after we issue the associated certificate of conformity. Keep all other information specified in paragraph ( a) of this section for eight years after we issue your certificate. ( c) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. ( d) Send us copies of any maintenance instructions or explanations if we ask for them. § 1051.255 When may EPA deny, revoke, or void my certificate of conformity? ( a) We may deny your application for certification if your engine family fails to comply with emission standards or other requirements of the regulation or the Act. Our decision may be based on any information available to us showing you do not meet emission standards or other requirements, including any testing that we conduct under paragraph ( g) of this section. If we deny your application, we will explain why in writing. ( b) In addition, we may deny your application or revoke your certificate if you do any of the following: ( 1) Refuse to comply with any testing or reporting requirements. ( 2) Submit false or incomplete information ( paragraph ( d) of this section applies if this is fraudulent). ( 3) Render inaccurate any test data. ( 4) Deny us from completing authorized activities despite our presenting a warrant or court order ( see § 1068.20 of this chapter). ( 5) Produce vehicle or engines for importation into the United States at a location where local law prohibits us from carrying out authorized activities. ( c) We may void your certificate if you do not keep the records we require or do not give us information when we ask for it. ( d) We may void your certificate if we find that you intentionally submitted false or incomplete information. ( e) We may void your certificate for any family certified to an FEL above the allowable average if you fail to show in your end­ of­ year report that your average emission levels are below the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68394 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations applicable standards in subpart B of this part, or that you have sufficient credits to offset a credit deficit for the model year. ( f) If we deny your application or revoke or void your certificate, you may ask for a hearing ( see § 1051.820). Any such hearing will be limited to substantial and factual issues. ( g) We may conduct confirmatory testing of your vehicles as part of certification. We may deny your application for certification or revoke your certificate if your vehicles fail to comply with emission standards or other requirements during confirmatory testing. Subpart D Testing Production­ line Engines § 1051.301 When must I test my production­ line vehicles or engines? ( a) If you certify vehicles to the standards of this part, you must test them as described in this subpart. If your vehicle is certified to g/ kW­ hr standards, then test the engine; otherwise, test the vehicle. The provisions of this subpart do not apply to small­ volume manufacturers. ( b) We may suspend or revoke your certificate of conformity for certain engine families if your production­ line vehicles or engines do not meet the requirements of this part or you do not fulfill your obligations under this subpart ( see § § 1051.325 and 1051.340). ( c) Other requirements apply to vehicles and engines that you produce. Other regulatory provisions authorize us to suspend, revoke, or void your certificate of conformity, or order recalls for engines families without regard to whether they have passed these production­ line testing requirements. The requirements of this subpart do not affect our ability to do selective enforcement audits, as described in part 1068 of this chapter. Individual vehicles and engines in families that pass these production­ line testing requirements must also conform to all applicable regulations of this part and part 1068 of this chapter. ( d) You may ask to use an alternate program for testing production­ line vehicles or engines. In your request, you must show us that the alternate program gives equal assurance that your products meet the requirements of this part. If we approve your alternate program, we may waive some or all of this subpart's requirements. ( e) If you certify an engine family with carryover emission data, as described in § 1051.235( c), and these equivalent engine families consistently pass the production­ line testing requirements over the preceding two­ year period, you may ask for a reduced testing rate for further production­ line testing for that family. The minimum testing rate is one vehicle or engine per engine family. If we reduce your testing rate, we may limit our approval to a any number of model years. In determining whether to approve your request, we may consider the number of vehicles or engines that have failed the emission tests. ( f) We may ask you to make a reasonable number of production­ line vehicles or engines available for a reasonable time so we can test or inspect them for compliance with the requirements of this part. ( g) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to engine families certified under the provisions of § 1051.630. § 1051.305 How must I prepare and test my production­ line vehicles or engines? ( a) Test procedures. Test your production­ line vehicles or engines using the applicable testing procedures in subpart F of this part to show you meet the emission standards in subpart B of this part. ( b) Modifying a test vehicle or engine. Once a vehicle or engine is selected for testing ( see § 1051.310), you may adjust, repair, prepare, or modify it or check its emissions only if one of the following is true: ( 1) You document the need for doing so in your procedures for assembling and inspecting all your production vehicles or engines and make the action routine for all the vehicles or engines in the engine family. ( 2) This subpart otherwise specifically allows your action. ( 3) We approve your action in advance. ( c) Malfunction. If a vehicle or engine malfunction prevents further emission testing, ask us to approve your decision to either repair it or delete it from the test sequence. ( d) Setting adjustable parameters. Before any test, we may adjust or require you to adjust any adjustable parameter to any setting within its physically adjustable range. ( 1) We may adjust idle speed outside the physically adjustable range as needed only until the vehicle or engine has stabilized emission levels ( see paragraph ( e) of this section). We may ask you for information needed to establish an alternate minimum idle speed. ( 2) We may make or specify adjustments within the physically adjustable range by considering their effect on emission levels, as well as how likely it is someone will make such an adjustment with in­ use vehicles. ( 3) We may adjust the air­ fuel ratio within the adjustable range specified in § 1051.115( d). ( e) Stabilizing emission levels. Before you test production­ line vehicles or engines, you may operate the vehicle or engine to stabilize the emission levels. Using good engineering judgment, operate your vehicles or engines in a way that represents the way they will be used. You may operate each vehicle or engine for no more than the greater of two periods: ( 1) 50 hours. ( 2) The number of hours you operated the emission­ data vehicle used for certifying the engine family ( see 40 CFR part 1065, subpart E, or the applicable regulations governing how you should prepare your test vehicle or engine). ( f) Damage during shipment. If shipping a vehicle or engine to a remote facility for production­ line testing makes necessary an adjustment or repair, you must wait until after the after the initial emission test to do this work. We may waive this requirement if the test would be impossible or unsafe, or if it would permanently damage the vehicle or engine. Report to us, in your written report under § 1051.345, all adjustments or repairs you make on test vehicles or engines before each test. ( g) Retesting after invalid tests. You may retest a vehicle or engine if you determine an emission test is invalid. Explain in your written report reasons for invalidating any test and the emission results from all tests. If you retest a vehicle or engine, you may ask us to substitute results of the new tests for the original ones. You must ask us within ten days of testing. We will generally answer within ten days after we receive your information. § 1051.310 How must I select vehicles or engines for production­ line testing? ( a) Use test results from two vehicles or engines for each engine family to calculate the required sample size for the test period. Update this calculation with each test. ( 1) For engine families with projected annual sales of at least 1600, the test periods are consecutive quarters ( 3 months). If your annual production period is less than 12 months long, define your test periods by dividing your annual production period into approximately equal segments of 70 to 125 calendar days. ( 2) For engine families with projected annual sales below 1600, the test period is the whole model year. ( b) Early in each test period, randomly select and test an engine from the end of the assembly line for each engine family. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68395 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 1) In the first test period for newly certified engines, randomly select and test one more engine. Then, calculate the required sample size for the test period as described in paragraph ( c) of this section. ( 2) In later test periods or for engine families relying on previously submitted test data, combine the new test result with the last test result from the previous test period. Then, calculate the required sample size for the new test period as described in paragraph ( c) of this section. ( c) Calculate the required sample size for each engine family. Separately calculate this figure for HC, NOX ( or HC+ NOX), and CO ( and other regulated pollutants). The required sample size is the greater of these calculated values. Use the following equation: N t x = × + ( ( 95 2 1 STD) Where: N = Required sample size for the model year. t95 = 95% confidence coefficient, which depends on the number of tests completed, n, as specified in the table in paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section. It defines 95% confidence intervals for a one­ tail distribution. x = Mean of emission test results of the sample. STD = Emission standard ( or family emission limit, if applicable). s = Test sample standard deviation ( see paragraph ( c)( 2) of this section). ( 1) Determine the 95% confidence coefficient, t95, from the following table: n t95 n t95 n t95 2 6.31 12 1.80 22 1.72 3 2.92 13 1.78 23 1.72 4 2.35 14 1.77 24 1.71 5 2.13 15 1.76 25 1.71 6 2.02 16 1.75 26 1.71 7 1.94 17 1.75 27 1.71 8 1.90 18 1.74 28 1.70 9 1.86 19 1.73 29 1.70 10 1.83 20 1.73 30+ 1.70 11 1.81 21 1.72 ............................ ........................................... ( 2) Calculate the standard deviation, s, for the test sample using the following formula: = ( Xi x) n 2 1 Where: Xi = Emission test result for an individual vehicle or engine. n = The number of tests completed in an engine family. ( d) Use final deteriorated test results to calculate the variables in the equations in paragraph ( c) of this section ( see § 1051.315( a)). ( e) After each new test, recalculate the required sample size using the updated mean values, standard deviations, and the appropriate 95­ percent confidence coefficient. ( f) Distribute the remaining vehicle or engine tests evenly throughout the rest of the year. You may need to adjust your schedule for selecting vehicles or engines if the required sample size changes. Continue to randomly select vehicles or engines from each engine family; this may involve testing vehicles or engines that operate on different fuels. ( g) Continue testing any engine family for which the sample mean, x, is greater than the emission standard. This applies if the sample mean for either HC, NOX ( or HC+ NOX), or CO ( or other regulated pollutants) is greater than the emission standard. Continue testing until one of the following things happens: ( 1) The sample size, n, for an engine family is greater than the required sample size, N, and the sample mean, x, is less than or equal to the emission standard. For example, if N = 3.1 after the third test, the sample­ size calculation does not allow you to stop testing. ( 2) The engine family does not comply according to § 1051.325. ( 3) You test 30 vehicles or engines from the engine family. ( 4) You test one percent of your projected annual U. S.­ directed production volume for the engine family. ( 5) You choose to declare that the engine family fails the requirements of this subpart. ( h) If the sample­ size calculation allows you to stop testing for a pollutant, you must continue measuring emission levels of that pollutant for any additional tests required under this section. However, you need not continue making the calculations specified in this section for that pollutant. This paragraph does not affect the requirements in section § 1051.320. ( i) You may elect to test more randomly chosen vehicles or engines than we require. Include these vehicles or engines in the sample­ size calculations. § 1051.315 How do I know when my engine family fails the production­ line testing requirements? This section describes the pass­ fail criteria for the production­ line testing requirements. We apply this criteria on an engine family basis. See § 1051.320 for the requirements that apply to individual vehicles or engines that fail a production­ line test. ( a) Calculate your test results. Round them to the number of decimal places in the emission standard expressed to one more decimal place. ( 1) Initial and final test results. Calculate and round the test results for each vehicle or engine. If you do several tests on a vehicle or engine, calculate the initial test results, then add them together and divide by the number of tests and round for the final test results on that vehicle or engine. ( 2) Final deteriorated test results. Apply the deterioration factor for the engine family to the final test results ( see § 1051.240( c)). ( b) Construct the following CumSum Equation for each engine family for HC, NOX ( or HC+ NOX), and CO emissions ( and other regulated pollutants): C X ( STD i ­ 1 i = + + × Ci 0 25 . ) Where: Ci = The current CumSum statistic. Ci 1 = The previous CumSum statistic. For the first test, the CumSum statistic is 0 ( i. e. C1 = 0). Xi = The current emission test result for an individual vehicle or engine. STD = Emission standard. ( c) Use final deteriorated test results to calculate the variables in the equation in paragraph ( b) of this section ( see § 1051.315( a)). ( d) After each new test, recalculate the CumSum statistic. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08no02.008</ MATH> ER08no02.009</ MATH> ER08NO02.010</ MATH> 68396 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( e) If you test more than the required number of vehicles or engines, include the results from these additional tests in the CumSum Equation. ( f) After each test, compare the current CumSum statistic, Ci, to the recalculated Action Limit, H, defined as H = 5.0 × s. ( g) If the CumSum statistic exceeds the Action Limit in two consecutive tests, the engine family fails the production­ line testing requirements of this subpart. Tell us within ten working days if this happens. You may request to amend the application for certification to raise the FEL of the engine family at this point if you meet the requirements of § 1051.225( f). ( h) If you amend the application for certification for an engine family under § 1051.225, do not change any previous calculations of sample size or CumSum statistics for the model year. § 1051.320 What happens if one of my production­ line vehicles or engines fails to meet emission standards? ( a) If you have a production­ line vehicle or engine with final deteriorated test results exceeding one or more emission standards ( see § 1051.315( a)), the certificate of conformity is automatically suspended for that failing vehicle or engine. You must take the following actions before your certificate of conformity can cover that vehicle or engine: ( 1) Correct the problem and retest the vehicle or engine to show it complies with all emission standards. ( 2) Include in your written report a description of the test results and the remedy for each vehicle or engine ( see § 1051.345). ( b) You may request to amend the application for certification to raise the FEL of the entire engine family at this point ( see § 1051.225). § 1051.325 What happens if an engine family fails the production­ line requirements? ( a) We may suspend your certificate of conformity for an engine family if it fails under § 1051.315. The suspension may apply to all facilities producing vehicles or engines from an engine family, even if you find noncompliant vehicles or engines only at one facility. ( b) We will tell you in writing if we suspend your certificate in whole or in part. We will not suspend a certificate until at least 15 days after the engine family fails. The suspension is effective when you receive our notice. ( c) Up to 15 days after we suspend the certificate for an engine family, you may ask for a hearing ( see § 1051.820). If we agree before a hearing that we used erroneous information in deciding to suspend the certificate, we will reinstate the certificate. ( d) Section 1051.335 specifies steps you must take to remedy the cause of the production­ line failure. All the vehicles you have produced since the end of the last test period are presumed noncompliant and should be addressed in your proposed remedy. We may require you to apply the remedy to engines produced earlier if we determine that the cause of the failure is likely to have affected the earlier engines. ( e) You may request to amend the application for certification to raise the FEL of the engine family before or after we suspend your certificate if you meet the requirements of § 1051.225( f). § 1051.330 May I sell vehicles from an engine family with a suspended certificate of conformity? You may sell vehicles that you produce after we suspend the engine family's certificate of conformity under § 1051.315 only if one of the following occurs: ( a) You test each vehicle or engine you produce and show it complies with emission standards that apply. ( b) We conditionally reinstate the certificate for the engine family. We may do so if you agree to recall all the affected vehicles and remedy any noncompliance at no expense to the owner if later testing shows that the engine family still does not comply. § 1051.335 How do I ask EPA to reinstate my suspended certificate? ( a) Send us a written report asking us to reinstate your suspended certificate. In your report, identify the reason for noncompliance, propose a remedy for the engine family, and commit to a date for carrying it out. In your proposed remedy include any quality control measures you propose to keep the problem from happening again. ( b) Give us data from production­ line testing that shows the remedied engine family complies with all the emission standards that apply. § 1051.340 When may EPA revoke my certificate under this subpart and how may I sell these vehicles again? ( a) We may revoke your certificate for an engine family in the following cases: ( 1) You do not meet the reporting requirements. ( 2) Your engine family fails to comply with the requirements of this subpart and your proposed remedy to address a suspended certificate under § 1051.325 is inadequate to solve the problem or requires you to change the vehicle's design or emission­ control system. ( b) To sell vehicles from an engine family with a revoked certificate of conformity, you must modify the engine family and then show it complies with the requirements of this part. ( 1) If we determine your proposed design change may not control emissions for the vehicle's full useful life, we will tell you within five working days after receiving your report. In this case we will decide whether production­ line testing will be enough for us to evaluate the change or whether you need to do more testing. ( 2) Unless we require more testing, you may show compliance by testing production­ line vehicles or engines as described in this subpart. ( 3) We will issue a new or updated certificate of conformity when you have met these requirements. § 1051.345 What production­ line testing records must I send to EPA? Do all the following things unless we ask you to send us less information: ( a) Within 30 calendar days of the end of each calendar quarter, send us a report with the following information: ( 1) Describe any facility used to test production­ line vehicles or engines and state its location. ( 2) State the total U. S.­ directed production volume and number of tests for each engine family. ( 3) Describe how you randomly selected vehicles or engines. ( 4) Describe your test vehicles or engines, including the engine family's identification and the vehicle's model year, build date, model number, identification number, and number of hours of operation before testing for each test vehicle or engine. ( 5) Identify where you accumulated hours of operation on the vehicles or engines and describe the procedure and schedule you used. ( 6) Provide the test number; the date, time and duration of testing; test procedure; initial test results before and after rounding; final test results; and final deteriorated test results for all tests. Provide the emission results for all measured pollutants. Include information for both valid and invalid tests and the reason for any invalidation. ( 7) Describe completely and justify any nonroutine adjustment, modification, repair, preparation, maintenance, or test for the test vehicle or engine if you did not report it separately under this subpart. Include the results of any emission measurements, regardless of the procedure or type of vehicle. ( 8) Provide the CumSum analysis required in § 1051.315 for each engine family. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68397 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 9) Report on each failed vehicle or engine as described in § 1051.320. ( 10) State the date the calendar quarter ended for each engine family. ( b) We may ask you to add information to your written report, so we can determine whether your new vehicles conform with the requirements of this subpart. ( c) An authorized representative of your company must sign the following statement: We submit this report under Sections 208 and 213 of the Clean Air Act. Our production­ line testing conformed completely with the requirements of 40 CFR part 1051. We have not changed production processes or quality­ control procedures for the engine family in a way that might affect the emission control from production vehicles ( or engines). All the information in this report is true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge. I know of the penalties for violating the Clean Air Act and the regulations. ( Authorized Company Representative) ( d) Send electronic reports of production­ line testing to the Designated Officer using an approved information format. If you want to use a different format, send us a written request with justification for a waiver. ( e) We will send copies of your reports to anyone from the public who asks for them. See § 1051.815 for information on how we treat information you consider confidential. § 1051.350 What records must I keep? ( a) Organize and maintain your records as described in this section. We may review your records at any time, so it is important to keep required information readily available. ( b) Keep paper records of your production­ line testing for one full year after you complete all the testing required for an engine family in a model year. You may use any additional storage formats or media if you like. ( c) Keep a copy of the written reports described in § 1051.345. ( d) Keep the following additional records: ( 1) A description of all test equipment for each test cell that you can use to test production­ line vehicles or engines. ( 2) The names of supervisors involved in each test. ( 3) The name of anyone who authorizes adjusting, repairing, preparing, or modifying a test vehicle or engine and the names of all supervisors who oversee this work. ( 4) If you shipped the vehicle or engine for testing, the date you shipped it, the associated storage or port facility, and the date the vehicle or engine arrived at the testing facility. ( 5) Any records related to your production­ line tests that are not in the written report. ( 6) A brief description of any significant events during testing not otherwise described in the written report or in this section. ( 7) Any information specified in § 1051.345 that you do not include in your written reports. ( e) If we ask, you must give us projected or actual production figures for an engine family. We may ask you to divide your production figures by rated brake power, displacement, fuel type, or assembly plant ( if you produce vehicles or engines at more than one plant). ( f) Keep a list of vehicle or engine identification numbers for all the vehicles or engines you produce under each certificate of conformity. Give us this list within 30 days if we ask for it. ( g) We may ask you to keep or send other information necessary to implement this subpart. Subpart E Testing In­ use Engines [ Reserved] Subpart F Test Procedures § 1051.501 What procedures must I use to test my vehicles or engines? This section describes test procedures that you use to show compliance with the requirements of this part. See § 1051.235 to determine when testing is required for certification. See subpart D of this part for the production­ line testing requirements. ( a) Snowmobiles. For snowmobiles, use the equipment and procedures for spark­ ignition engines in part 1065 of this chapter to show your snowmobiles meet the duty­ cycle emission standards in § 1051.103. Measure HC, NOX ( as applicable), CO, and CO2 emissions using the dilute sampling procedures in part 1065 of this chapter. For steadystate testing, you may use raw­ gas sampling methods ( such as those described in 40 CFR part 91), provided they have been shown to produce measurements equivalent to the dilute sampling methods specified in part 1065 of this chapter. Use the duty cycle in § 1051.505. ( b) Motorcycles and ATVs. For motorcycles and ATVs, use the equipment, procedures, and duty cycle in 40 CFR part 86, subpart F, to show your vehicles meet the exhaust emission standards in § 1051.105 or § 1051.107. Measure HC, NOX, CO, and CO2. If we allow you to certify ATVs based on engine testing, use the equipment, procedures, and duty cycle described or referenced in that section that allows engine testing. For motorcycles with engine displacement at or below 169 cc and all ATVs, use the driving schedule in paragraph ( c) of Appendix I to 40 CFR part 86. For all other motorcycles use the driving schedule in paragraph ( b) of Appendix I to part 86. With respect to vehicle­ speed governors, test motorcycles and ATVs in their ungoverned configuration, unless we approve in advance testing in a governed configuration. We will only approve testing in a governed configuration if you can show that the governor is permanently installed on all production vehicles and is unlikely to be removed in­ use. With respect to engine­ speed governors, test motorcycles and ATVs in their governed configuration. ( c) Permeation testing. ( 1) Use the equipment and procedures specified in § 1051.515 to measure fuel tank permeation emissions. ( 2) Prior to permeation testing of fuel hose, the hose must be preconditioned by filling the hose with the fuel specified in ( d)( 3) of this section, sealing the openings, and soaking the hose for 4 weeks at 23 ° C ± 5 ° C. To measure fuelline permeation emissions, use the equipment and procedures specified in SAE J30 ( incorporated by reference in § 1051.810). The measurements must be performed at 23 ° C using the fuel specified in paragraph ( d)( 3) of this section. ( d) Fuels. Use the fuels meeting the following specifications: ( 1) Exhaust. Use the fuels and lubricants specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, for all the testing and service accumulation we require in this part. ( 2) Fuel Tank Permeation. ( i) For the preconditioning soak described in § 1051.515( a)( 1) and fuel slosh durability test described in § 1051.515( c)( 4), use the fuel specified in Table 1 of § 1065.210 of this chapter blended with 10 percent ethanol by volume. As an alternative, you may use Fuel CE10, which is Fuel C as specified in ASTM D 471 98 ( incorporated by reference in § 1051.810) blended with 10 percent ethanol by volume. ( ii) For the permeation measurement test in § 1051.515( b), use the fuel specified in Table 1 of § 1065.210 of this chapter. As an alternative, you may use the fuel specified in paragraph ( d)( 2)( i) of this section. ( 3) Fuel Hose Permeation. Use the fuel specified in Table 1 of § 1065.210 of this chapter blended with 10 percent ethanol by volume for permeation testing of fuel lines and tanks. As an alternative, you may use Fuel CE10, which is Fuel C as specified in ASTM D 471 98 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 04 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68398 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( incorporated by reference in § 1051.810) blended with 10 percent ethanol by volume. ( e) Special procedures for engine testing. ( 1) You may use special or alternate procedures, as described in § 1065.10 of this chapter. ( 2) We may reject data you generate using alternate procedures if later testing with the procedures in part 1065 of this chapter shows contradictory emission data. ( f) Special procedures for vehicle testing. ( 1) You may use special or alternate procedures, as described in paragraph ( f)( 3) of this section. ( 2) We may reject data you generate using alternate procedures if later testing with the otherwise specified procedures shows contradictory emission data. ( 3)( i) The test procedures specified for vehicle testing are intended to produce emission measurements equivalent to those that would result from measuring emissions during in­ use operation using the same vehicle configuration. If good engineering judgment indicates that use of the procedures in this part for a vehicle would result in measurements that are not representative of in­ use operation of that vehicle, you must notify us. If we determine that using these procedures would result in measurements that are significantly unrepresentative and that changes to the procedures will result in more representative measurements that do not decrease the stringency of emission standards or other requirements, we will specify changes to the procedures. In your notification to us, you should recommend specific changes you think are necessary. ( ii) You may ask to use emission data collected using other test procedures, such as those of the California Air Resources Board or the International Organization for Standardization. We will allow this only if you show us that these data are equivalent to data collected using our test procedures. ( iii) You may ask to use alternate procedures that produce measurements equivalent to those obtained using the specified procedures. In this case, send us a written request showing that your alternate procedures are equivalent to the test procedures of this part. If you prove to us that the procedures are equivalent, we will allow you to use them. You may not use alternate procedures until we approve them. ( iv) You may ask to use special test procedures if your vehicle cannot be tested using the specified test procedures ( for example, it is incapable of operating on the specified transient cycle). In this case, send us a written request showing that you cannot satisfactorily test your engines using the test procedures of this part. We will allow you to use special test procedures if we determine that they would produce emission measurements that are representative of those that would result from measuring emissions during in­ use operation. You may not use special procedures until we approve them. § 1051.505 What special provisions apply for testing snowmobiles? Use the following special provisions for testing snowmobiles: ( a) Measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with the steady­ state duty cycle described in the following Table: TABLE 1 OF § 1051.505. 5 MODE DUTY CYCLE FOR SNOWMOBILES Engine speed ( percent of maximum test speed) Torque ( percent of maximum test torque at maximum test speed) Minimum time in mode ( minutes) Weighting factors Mode number: 1 ................................................................................................................ 100 100 3.0 0.12 2 ................................................................................................................ 85 51 3.0 0.27 3 ................................................................................................................ 75 33 3.0 0.25 4 ................................................................................................................ 65 19 3.0 0.31 5 ................................................................................................................ Idle 0 3.0 0.05 ( b) During idle mode, operate the engine with the following parameters: ( 1) Hold the speed within your specifications. ( 2) Keep the throttle at the idle­ stop position. ( 3) Keep engine torque under 5 percent of the peak torque value at maximum test speed. ( c) For the full­ load operating mode, operate the engine at wide­ open throttle. ( d) Ambient temperatures during testing must be between 20 ° C and 30 ° C ( 68 ° F and 86 ° F), or other representative test temperatures, as specified in paragraph ( g) of this section. ( e) See part 1065 of this chapter for detailed specifications of tolerances and calculations. ( f) You may test snowmobiles at ambient temperatures below 20 ° C or using intake air temperatures below 20 ° C if you show that such testing complies with § 1065.10( c)( 1) of this chapter. You must get our approval before you begin the emission testing. For example, the following approach would be appropriate to show that such testing complies with § 1065.10( c)( 1) of this chapter: ( 1) Using good engineering judgment, instrument a representative snowmobile built with a representative engine from the family being tested with an appropriate temperature measuring device located in the intake air plenum where fuel spitback is not likely to occur. ( 2) Choose a time and location with the following weather conditions: windspeed less than 10 knots, no falling precipitation, air temperature between ¥ 20 ° C and 0 ° C ( ¥ 4 ° F and 32 ° F). ( 3) Operate the snowmobile until its engine reaches a steady operating temperature. ( 4) Operate the snowmobile on a level surface free of other vehicle traffic. Operate the snowmobile at each specified engine speed corresponding to each mode in the emissions test specific to the engine being tested. When readings are stable, record the temperature in the intake air plenum VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68399 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations and the ambient temperature. Calculate the temperature difference between the air in the plenum and the ambient air for each mode. ( 5) Calculate the nominal intake air test temperature for each test mode as ¥ 10 ° C ( 14 ° F) plus the temperature difference for the corresponding mode determined in ( g)( 4) of this section. ( 6) Before the emissions test, select the appropriate carburetor jetting for ¥ 10 ° C ( 14 ° F) conditions according to the jet chart. For each mode, maintain the inlet air temperature within 5 ° C of the corresponding modal temperature calculated in ( g)( 5) of this section. ( 7) Adjust other operating parameters to be consistent with operation at ¥ 10 ° C ( 14 ° F). For example, this may require that you modify the engine cooling system used in the laboratory to make its performance representative of cold­ temperature operation. § 1051.510 What special provisions apply for testing ATV engines? [ Reserved] § 1051.515 How do I test my fuel tank for permeation emissions? Measure permeation emissions by weighing a sealed fuel tank before and after a temperature­ controlled soak. ( a) Preconditioning. To precondition your fuel tank, follow these five steps: ( 1) Fill the tank with the fuel specified in § 1051.501( d)( 2)( i), seal it, and allow it to soak at 28 ± 5 ° C for 20 weeks. Alternatively, the tank may be soaked for a shorter period of time at a higher temperature if you can show that the hydrocarbon permeation rate has stabilized. ( 2) Determine the fuel tank's internal surface area in square­ meters accurate to at least three significant figures. You may use less accurate estimates of the surface area if you make sure not to overestimate the surface area. ( 3) Fill the fuel tank with the test fuel specified in § 1051.501( d)( 2)( ii) to its nominal capacity. If you fill the tank inside the temperature­ controlled room or enclosure, do not spill any fuel. ( 4) Allow the tank and its contents to equilibrate to 28 ± 2 ° C. ( 5) Seal the fuel tank using nonpermeable fittings, such as metal or TeflonTM. ( b) Test run. To run the test, follow these nine steps for a tank that was preconditioned as specified in paragraph ( a) of this section: ( 1) Weigh the sealed fuel tank and record the weight to the nearest 0.1 grams. ( You may use less precise weights as long as the difference in mass from the start of the test to the end of the test has at least three significant figures.) ( 2) Carefully place the tank within a ventilated temperature­ controlled room or enclosure. Do not spill any fuel. ( 3) Close the room or enclosure and record the time. ( 4) Ensure that the measured temperature in the room or enclosure is 28 ± 2 ° C. ( 5) Leave the tank in the room or enclosure for 2 to 4 weeks, consistent with good engineering judgment ( based on the permeation rate). Do not stop soaking before 4 weeks unless you know that you can measure the weight loss during the test to at least three significant figures earlier. ( 6) Hold the temperature of the room or enclosure to 28 ± 2 ° C; measure and record the temperature at least daily. ( 7) At the end of the soak period, weigh the sealed fuel tank and record the weight to the nearest 0.1 grams. ( You may use less precise weights as long as the difference in mass from the start of the test to the end of the test has at least three significant figures.) ( 8) Subtract the weight of the tank at the end of the test from the weight of the tank at the beginning of the test; divide the difference by the internal surface area of the fuel tank. Divide this g/ m 2 value by the number of test days ( using at least three significant figures) to calculate the g/ m 2/ day emission rate. Example: If a tank with an internal surface area of 1.51 m 2 weighed 31882.3 grams at the beginning of the test and weighed 31760.2 grams after soaking for 25.03 days, then the g/ m 2/ day emission rate would be: ( 31882.3 g ¥ 31760.2 g)/ 1.51 m 2/ 25.03 days = 3.23 g/ m 2/ day. ( 9) Round your result to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. ( c) Durability testing. You normally need to perform a separate durability demonstration for each substantially different combination of treatment approaches and tank materials. Perform these demonstrations before an emission test by taking the following steps, unless you can use good engineering judgment to apply the results of previous durability testing with a different fuel system. You can determine a deterioration factor by measuring emissions on a tank after these durability tests if you previously tested the same tank before the durability tests ( but after the preconditioning step described in paragraph ( a) of this section). For the purposes of deterioration factor determination, the permeation tests before and after the durability testing must be performed on the fuel specified in § 1051.501 ( d)( 2)( i). You may ask to exclude any of the following durability tests if you can clearly demonstrate that it does not affect the emissions from your fuel tank. ( 1) Perform a pressure test by sealing the tank and cycling it between + 2.0 psig and ¥ 0.5 psig and back to + 2.0 psig for 10,000 cycles at a rate 60 seconds per cycle. ( 2) Perform a sunlight­ exposure test by exposing the tank to an ultraviolet light of at least 0.40 W­ hr/ m 2/ min on the tank surface for 15 hours per day for 4 weeks. Alternatively, the fuel tank may be exposed to direct natural sunlight for an equivalent period of time, as long as you ensure that the tank is exposed to at least 450 daylight hours. ( 3) Perform a slosh test by filling the tank to 40 percent of its capacity with the fuel specified in § 1051.501( d)( 2)( i) and rocking it at a rate of 15 cycles per minute until you reach one million total cycles. Use an angle deviation of + 15 ° to ¥ 15 ° from level. This test must be performed at a temperature of 28 ° C ± 5 ° C. ( 4) Following the durability testing, the fuel tank must be soaked ( as described in paragraph ( a) of this section) to ensure that the permeation rate is stable. The period of slosh testing and the period of ultraviolet testing ( if performed with fuel in the tank consistent with paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section) may be considered to be part of this soak, provided that the soak begins immediately after the slosh testing. To determine the final permeation rate, drain and refill the tank with fresh fuel, and repeat the test run ( as described in paragraph ( b) of this section) immediately after this soak period. ( d) Flow chart. The following figure presents a flow chart for the permeation testing described in this section, showing full test procedure with durability testing, as well as the simplified test procedure with an applied deterioration factor: BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68400 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations BILLING CODE 6560 50 C § 1051.520 How do I perform exhaust durability testing? This section applies for durability testing to determine deterioration factors for exhaust emissions. Smallvolume manufacturers may omit durability testing if they use our assigned deterioration factors that we establish based on our projection of the likely deterioration in the performance of specific emission controls. ( a) Calculate your deterioration factor by testing a vehicle or engine that is representative of your engine family at a low­ hour test point and the end of its useful life. You may also test at intermediate points. ( b) Operate the vehicle or engine over a representative duty cycle for a period at least as long as the useful life ( in hours or kilometers). You may operate the vehicle or engine continuously. ( c) You may perform critical emission­ related maintenance during durability testing, consistent with § 1051.125( a). You may not perform any other emission­ related maintenance during durability testing. ( d) Use a linear least­ squares fit of your test data for each pollutant to calculate your deterioration factor. ( e) You may ask us to allow you to use other testing methods to determine deterioration factors, consistent with good engineering judgment. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08NO02.016</ GPH> 68401 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Subpart G Compliance Provisions § 1051.601 What compliance provisions apply to vehicles and engines subject to this part? Engine and vehicle manufacturers, as well as owners, operators, and rebuilders of these vehicles, and all other persons, must observe the requirements and prohibitions in part 1068 of this chapter and the requirements of the Act. The compliance provisions in this subpart apply only to the vehicles and engines we regulate in this part. § 1051.605 What are the provisions for exempting vehicles from the requirements of this part if they use engines you have certified under the motor­ vehicle program or the Large Spark­ ignition program? ( a) You may ask for an exemption under this section if you are the manufacturer of an engine certified under the motor­ vehicle program or the Large Spark­ ignition program. See § 1051.610 if you are not the engine manufacturer. ( b)( 1) The only requirements or prohibitions from this part that apply to a vehicle that is exempt under this section are in this section and § 1051.610. ( 2) If the vehicles do not meet the criteria listed in paragraph ( c) of this section, they will be subject to the standards and prohibitions of this part. Producing these vehicles without a valid exemption or certificate of conformity would violate the prohibitions in § 1068.101 of this chapter. ( 3) Vehicles exempted under this section are subject to all the requirements affecting engines and vehicles under 40 CFR part 86 or part 1048, as applicable. The requirements and restrictions of 40 CFR part 86 or 1048 apply to anyone manufacturing these engines, anyone manufacturing vehicles that use these engines, and all other persons in the same manner as if these engines were used in a motor vehicle or other nonrecreational application. ( c) If you meet all the following criteria regarding your engine, the vehicle using the engine is exempt under this section: ( 1) The vehicle is produced using an engine or incomplete vehicle covered by a valid certificate of conformity under 40 CFR part 86 or part 1048. ( 2) No changes are made to the certified engine or vehicle that we could reasonably expect to increase any of its regulated emissions. For example, if any of the following changes are made to the engine, it does not qualify for this exemption: ( i) Any fuel system or evaporative system parameters are changed from the certified configuration ( this does not apply to refueling emission controls). ( ii) Any other emission­ related components are changed. ( iii) The engine cooling system is modified or assembled so that temperatures or heat rejection rates are outside the original engine's specified ranges. ( 3) The engine must have the emission control information label we require under 40 CFR part 86 or part 1048. ( 4) You must demonstrate that fewer than 50 percent of the engine model's total sales, from all companies, are used in recreational vehicles. ( d) If you manufacture both the engine and vehicle under this exemption, you must do all of the following to keep the exemption valid: ( 1) Make sure the original emission control information label is intact. ( 2) Add a permanent supplemental label to the engine in a position where it will remain clearly visible after installation in the vehicle. In your engine's emission control information label, do the following: ( i) Include the heading: `` Recreational Vehicle Emission Control Information''. ( ii) Include your full corporate name and trademark. ( iii) State: `` THIS ENGINE WAS ADAPTED FOR RECREATIONAL USE WITHOUT AFFECTING ITS EMISSION CONTROLS.''. ( iv) State the date you finished installation ( month and year). ( 3) Make sure the original and supplemental labels are readily visible after the engine is installed in the vehicle or, if the vehicle obscures the engine's emission control information label, make sure the vehicle manufacturer attaches duplicate labels, as described in § 1068.105 of this chapter. ( 4) Send the Designated Officer a signed letter by the end of each calendar year ( or less often if we tell you) with all the following information: ( i) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone number. ( ii) List the models you expect to produce under this exemption in the coming year. ( iii) State: `` We produce each listed model for recreational application without making any changes that could increase its certified emission levels, as described in 40 CFR 1051.605.''. ( e) If we request it, you must send us emission test data on the applicable recreational duty cycle( s). You may include the data in your application for certification under 40 CFR part 86 or part 1048, or in your letter requesting the exemption. We will generally not ask you for these data under normal circumstances, especially when they are more readily available from another source. § 1051.610 What are the provisions for producing recreational vehicles with engines already certified under the motorvehicle program or the Large SI program? ( a) You may produce a recreational vehicle without certifying it under this part by using a certified motor vehicle engine, or Large SI engine. This section does not apply if you manufacture the engine yourself; see § 1051.605. In order to produce recreational vehicles under this section, you must meet all of the following criteria: ( 1) The engine or vehicle is certified to 40 CFR part 86 or part 1048. ( 2) The engine is not adjusted outside the certifying manufacturer's specifications ( see § 1051.605( c)( 2)). ( 3) The engine or vehicle is not modified in any way that may affect its emission control. This does not apply to refueling emission controls. ( 4) The vehicle is labeled consistent with paragraph ( c) of this section. ( b)( 1) The only requirements or prohibitions from this part that apply to a vehicle that is exempt under this section are in this section and § 1051.605. ( 2) If the vehicles do not meet the criteria listed in § 1051.605( c) and paragraph ( c) of this section, they will be subject to the standards and prohibitions of this part. Producing these vehicles without a valid exemption or certificate of conformity would violate the prohibitions in § 1068.101 of this chapter. ( 3) Vehicles exempted under this section are subject to all the requirements affecting engines and vehicles under 40 CFR part 86 or part 1048, as applicable. The requirements and restrictions of 40 CFR part 86 or 1048 apply to anyone manufacturing these engines, anyone manufacturing vehicles that use these engines, and all other persons in the same manner as if these engines were used in a motor vehicle or other nonrecreational application. ( c)( 1) Make sure the original emission control information label is intact after assembly in the vehicle. ( 2) Add a permanent supplemental label to the vehicle in a position where it will be clearly visible. In this emission control information label, do the following: ( i) Include the heading: `` Recreational Vehicle Emission Control Information''. ( ii) Include your full corporate name and trademark. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68402 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( iii) State: `` THIS ENGINE WAS ADAPTED FOR RECREATIONAL USE WITHOUT AFFECTING ITS EMISSION CONTROLS.''. ( iv) State the date you finished installation ( month and year). ( 3) Send the Designated Officer a signed letter by the end of each calendar year ( or less often if we tell you) with all the following information: ( i) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone number. ( ii) List the models you expect to produce under this exemption in the coming year. ( iii) State: `` We produce each listed model for recreational application without making any changes that could increase its certified emission levels, as described in 40 CFR 1051.605.''. ( d) If you build recreational vehicles under this section, we may require ( as a condition of the exemption) that you comply with the emission­ related warranty and recall responsibilities of this part. ( e) If you build a recreational vehicle using a motor vehicle engine that was certified as part of a vehicle­ based engine family, we may require you to certify under this part instead of granting you an exemption under this part. If we do this, we may allow you to submit an abbreviated application for certification to show that you comply with the requirements of this part. You may reference the information in the original motor vehicle application. § 1051.615 What are the special provisions for certifying small recreational engines? ( a) You may certify ATVs with engines that have total displacement of less than 100 cc to the following emission exhaust standards instead of certifying them to the exhaust emission standards of subpart B of this part: ( 1) 25.0 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX, with an FEL cap of 40.0 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX. ( 2) 500 g/ kW­ hr CO. ( b) You may certify off­ highway motorcycles with engines that have total displacement of 70 cc or less to the following emission exhaust standards instead of certifying them to the exhaust emission standards of subpart B of this part: ( 1) 16.1 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX, with an FEL cap of 32.2 g/ kW­ hr HC+ NOX. ( 2) 519 g/ kW­ hr CO. ( c) You may use the averaging, banking, and trading provisions of subpart H of this part to show compliance with this HC+ NOX standards ( an engine family meets emission standards even if its family emission limit is higher than the standard, as long as you show that the whole averaging set of applicable engine families meet the applicable emission standards using emission credits, and the vehicles within the family meet the family emission limit). You may not use averaging to meet the CO standards of this section. ( d) Measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with the steady­ state duty cycle described in Table 1 of this section. ( 1) During idle mode, hold the speed within your specifications, keep the throttle fully closed, and keep engine torque under 5 percent of the peak torque value at maximum test speed. ( 2) For the full­ load operating mode, operate the engine at wide­ open throttle. ( 3) See part 1065 of this chapter for detailed specifications of tolerances and calculations. ( 4) Table 1 follows: TABLE 1 OF § 1051.615. 6­ MODE DUTY CYCLE FOR RECREATIONAL ENGINES Engine speed ( percent of maximum test speed) Torque ( percent of maximum test torque at test speed) Minimum time in mode ( minutes) Weighting factors Mode number: 1 ................................................................................................................ 85 100 5.0 0.09 2 ................................................................................................................ 85 75 5.0 0.20 3 ................................................................................................................ 85 50 5.0 0.29 4 ................................................................................................................ 85 25 5.0 0.30 5 ................................................................................................................ 85 10 5.0 0.07 6 ................................................................................................................ Idle 0 5.0 0.05 ( e) All other requirements and prohibitions of this part apply to these engines and vehicles. § 1051.620 When may a manufacturer obtain an exemption for competition recreational vehicles? ( a) We may grant you an exemption from the standards and requirements of this part for a new recreational vehicle on the grounds that it is to be used solely for competition. The provisions of this part other than those in this section do not apply to recreational vehicles that we exempt for use solely for competition. ( b) We will exempt vehicles that we determine will be used solely for competition. The basis of our determinations are described in paragraphs ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), and ( c) of this section. Exemptions granted under this section are good for only one model year and you must request renewal for each subsequent model year. We will not approve your renewal request if we determine the vehicles will not be used solely for competition. ( 1) Off­ highway motorcycles. Motorcycles that are marketed and labeled as only for competitive use and that meet at least four of the criteria listed in paragraphs ( b)( 1)( i) through ( vi) of this section are considered to be used solely for competition, except in cases where other information is available that indicates that they are not used solely for competition. The following features are indicative of motorcycles used solely for competition: ( i) The absence of a headlight or other lights. ( ii) The absence of a spark arrestor. ( iii) The absence of manufacturer warranty. ( iv) Suspension travel greater than 10 inches. ( v) Engine displacement greater than 50 cc. ( vi) The absence of a functional seat. ( For example, a seat less with than 30 square inches of seating surface would VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68403 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations generally not be considered a functional seat). ( 2) Snowmobiles and ATVs. Snowmobiles and ATVs meeting all of the following criteria are considered to be used solely for competition, except in cases where other information is available that indicates that they are not used solely for competition: ( i) The vehicle or engine may not be displayed for sale in any public dealership. ( ii) Sale of the vehicle must be limited to professional racers or other qualified racers. ( iii) The vehicle must have performance characteristics that are substantially superior to noncompetitive models. ( c) Vehicles not meeting the applicable criteria listed in paragraph ( b) of this section will be exempted only in cases where the manufacturer has clear and convincing evidence that the vehicles will be used solely for competition. ( d) You must permanently label vehicles exempted under this section to clearly indicate that they are to be used only for competition. Failure to properly label a vehicle will void the exemption for that vehicle. ( e) If we request it, you must provide us any information we need to determine whether the vehicles are used solely for competition. § 1051.625 What special provisions apply to unique snowmobile designs for smallvolume manufacturers? ( a) If you are a small­ volume manufacturer, we may permit you to produce up to 600 snowmobiles per year that are certified to less stringent emission standards than those in § 1051.103, as long as you meet all the conditions and requirements in this section. ( b) To apply for alternate standards under this section, send the Designated Officer a written request. In your request, do two things: ( 1) Show that the snowmobile has unique design, calibration, or operating characteristics that make it atypical and infeasible or highly impractical to meet the emission standards in § 1051.103, considering technology, cost, and other factors. ( 2) Identify the level of compliance you can achieve, including a description of available emission­ control technologies and any constraints that may prevent more effective use of these technologies. ( c) You must give us other relevant information if we ask for it. ( d) An authorized representative of your company must sign the request and include the statement: `` All the information in this request is true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge.''. ( e) Send your request for this extension at least nine months before the relevant deadline. If different deadlines apply to companies that are not small­ volume manufacturers, do not send your request before the regulations in question apply to the other manufacturers. ( f) If we approve your request, we will set alternate standards for your qualifying snowmobiles. These standards will not be above 400 g/ kWhr for CO or 150 g/ kW­ hr for HC. ( g) You may produce these snowmobiles to meet the alternate standards we establish under this section as long as you continue to produce them at the same or lower emission levels. ( h) You may not include snowmobiles you produce under this section in any averaging, banking, or trading calculations under Subpart H of this part. ( i) You must meet all the requirements of this part, except as noted in this section. § 1051.630 What special provisions apply to unique snowmobile designs for all manufacturers? ( a) We may permit you to produce up to 600 snowmobiles per year that are certified to the FELs listed in this section without new test data, as long as you meet all the conditions and requirements in this section. ( b) You may certify these snowmobiles with FELs of 560 g/ kW­ hr for CO and 270 g/ kW­ hr for HC ( using the normal certification procedures). ( c) The emission levels described in this section are intended to represent worst­ case emission levels. You may not certify snowmobiles under this section if good engineering judgment indicates that they have emission rates higher than these levels. ( d) Include snowmobiles you produce under this section in your averaging calculations under Subpart H of this part. ( e) You must meet all the requirements of this part, unless the regulations of this part specify otherwise. § 1051.635 What provisions apply to new manufacturers that are small businesses? ( a) If you are a small business ( as defined by the Small Business Administration) that manufactures recreational vehicles, but does not otherwise qualify for the small­ volume manufacturer provisions of this part, you may ask us to designate you to be a small­ volume manufacturer. You may do this whether you began manufacturing recreational vehicles before, during, or after 2002. ( b) We may set other reasonable conditions that are consistent with the intent of this section and the Act. For example, we may place sales limits on companies that we designate to be small­ volume manufacturers under this section. Subpart H Averaging, Banking, and Trading for Certification § 1051.701 General provisions. ( a) You may average, bank, and trade emission credits for purposes of certification as described in this subpart to show compliance with the standards of this part. To do this you must show that your average emission levels are below the applicable standards in subpart B of this part, or that you have sufficient credits to offset a credit deficit for the model year ( as calculated in § 1051.720). If you cannot show in your end­ of­ year report that your average emission levels are below the applicable standards in subpart B of this part, or that you have sufficient credits to offset a credit deficit for the model year, we may void the certificates for all families certified to FELs above the allowable average. ( b) The following averaging set restrictions apply: ( 1) You may not average together engine families that are certified to different standards. You may, however, use banked credits that were generated relative to different standards, except as prohibited by paragraphs ( b)( 2) and ( 3) of this section, paragraph ( e) of this section, or by other provisions in this part. For example, you may not average together within a model year offhighway motorcycles that are certified to the standards in § 1051.105( a)( 1) and § 1051.105( a)( 2); but you may use banked credits generated by off­ highway motorcycles that are certified to the standards in § 1051.105( a)( 1) to show compliance with the standards in § 1051.105( a)( 2) in a later model year, and vice versa. ( 2) There are separate averaging, banking, and trading programs for snowmobiles, ATVs, and off­ highway motorcycles. You may not average or exchange banked or traded credits from engine families of one type of vehicle with those from engine families of another type of vehicle. ( 3) You may not average or exchange banked or traded credits with other engine families if you use fundamentally different measurement procedures for the different engine families ( for example, ATVs certified to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68404 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations chassis­ based vs. engine­ based standards). This paragraph ( b)( 3) does not restrict you from averaging together engine families that use test procedures that we determine provide equivalent emission results. ( 4) You may not average or exchange banked or traded exhaust credits with evaporative credits, or vice versa. ( c) The definitions of Subpart I of this part apply to this subpart. The following definitions also apply: ( 1) Average standard means a standard that allows you comply by averaging all your vehicles under this part. See subpart B of this part to determine which standards are average standards. ( 2) Broker means any entity that facilitates a trade between a buyer and seller. ( 3) Buyer means the entity that receives credits as a result of trade. ( 4) Family emission limit ( FEL) has the meaning given in it in § 1051.801. ( 5) Reserved credits means credits you have generated that we have not yet verified in reviewing the end­ of­ year report. ( 6) Seller means the entity that provides credits during a trade. ( d) Do not include any exported vehicles in the certification averaging, banking, and trading program. Include only vehicles certified under this part. § 1051.705 How do I average emission levels? ( a) As specified in subpart B of this part, certify each vehicle to a family emission limit ( FEL). ( b) Calculate a preliminary average emission level according to § 1051.720 using projected U. S.­ directed production volumes for your application for certification. ( c) After the end of your model year, calculate a final average emission level according to § 1051.720 for each type of recreational vehicle or engine you manufacture or import. Use actual U. S.­ directed production volumes. ( d) If your preliminary average emission level is below the allowable average standard, see § 1051.710 for information about generating and banking emission credits. These credits will be considered reserved until we verify them in reviewing the end­ of­ year report. § 1051.710 How do I generate and bank emission credits? ( a) If your average emission level is below the average standard, you may calculate credits according to § 1051.720. ( b) You may generate credits if you are a certifying manufacturer. ( c) You may bank unused emission credits, but only after the end of the calendar year and after we have reviewed your end­ of­ year reports. Credits you generate do not expire. ( d) During the calendar year and before you send in your end­ of­ year report, you may consider reserved any credits you originally designate for banking during certification. You may redesignate these credits for trading in your end­ of­ year report, but they are not valid to demonstrate compliance until verified. ( e) You may use for averaging or trading any credits you declared for banking from the previous calendar year that we have not reviewed. But, we may revoke these credits later following our review of your end­ of­ year report or audit actions. For example, this could occur if we find that credits are based on erroneous calculations; or that emission levels are misrepresented, unsubstantiated, or derived incorrectly in the certification process. § 1051.715 How do I trade emission credits? ( a) You may trade only banked emission credits, not reserved credits. ( b) You may trade banked credits to any certifying manufacturer. ( c) If a negative credit balance results from a credit trade, both buyers and sellers are liable, except in cases involving fraud. We may void the certificates of all emission families participating in a negative trade. ( 1) If you buy credits but have not caused the negative credit balance, you must only supply more credits equivalent to the amount of invalid credits you used. ( 2) If you caused the credit shortfall, you may be subject to the requirement sof § 1051.730( b)( 6). § 1051.720 How do I calculate my average emission level or emission credits? ( a) Calculate your average emission level for each type of recreational vehicle or engine for each model year according to the following equation and round it to the nearest tenth of a g/ km or g/ kW­ hr. Use consistent units throughout the calculation. ( 1) For exhaust emissions: ( i) Calculate the average emission level as: Emission level = ( FEL) ( UL) ( Production) Production ( UL) i i i i i × × × ( ) i i Where: FELi = The FEL to which the engine family is certified. ULi = The useful life of the engine family. Productioni = The number of vehicles in the engine family. ( ii) Use U. S.­ directed production projections for initial certification, and actual U. S.­ directed production volumes to determine compliance at the end of the model year. ( 2) For vehicles that have standards expressed as g/ kW­ hr and a useful life in km, convert the useful life to kW­ hr based on the maximum power output observed over the emission test and an assumed vehicle speed of 30 km/ hr as follows: UL ( kW­ hr) = UL ( km) × Maximum Test Power ( kW) ÷ 30 km/ hr. ( Note: It is not necessary to include a load factor, since credit exchange is not allowed between vehicles certified to g/ kW­ hr standards and vehicles certified to g/ km standards.) ( 3) For evaporative permeation standards expressed as g/ m2/ day, use the useful life value in years multiplied by 365.24, and calculate the average emission level as: Emission level = ( FEL) ( UL) ( Production) Production ( UL) i i i i i × × × ( ) i i VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08NO02.011</ MATH> ER08NO02.012</ MATH> 68405 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Where: Productioni = The number of vehicles in the engine family times the average internal surface area of the vehicles' fuel tanks. ( b) If your average emission level is below the average standard, calculate credits available for banking according to the following equation and round them to the nearest tenth of a gram: Credit = ( Average standard Emission level) Production ( UL) i [ ] × × ( ) i i ( c) If your average emission level is above the average standard, calculate your preliminary credit deficit according to the following equation, rounding to the nearest tenth of a gram: Deficit = ( Emission level Average standard) ( Production) ( UL) i i i [ ] × × § 1051.725 What information must I keep? ( a) Maintain and keep five types of properly organized and indexed records for each engine family: ( 1) Model year and EPA engine family. ( 2) FEL. ( 3) Useful life. ( 4) Projected U. S.­ directed production volume for the model year. ( 5) Actual U. S.­ directed production volume for the model year. ( b) Keep paper records of this information for three years from the due date for the end­ of­ year report. You may use any additional storage formats or media if you like. ( c) Keep a copy of all of the information you send us under § 1051.730. ( d) We may ask you to keep or send other information necessary to implement this subpart. § 1051.730 What information must I report? ( a) Include the following information in each of your applications for certification: ( 1) A statement that, to the best of your belief, you will not have a negative credit balance for any type of recreational vehicle or engine when all credits are calculated. This means that if you believe that your average emission level will be above the standard ( i. e., that you will have a deficit for the model year), you must have banked credits ( or project to have received traded credits) to offset the deficit. ( 2) Detailed calculations of projected emission credits ( zero, positive, or negative) based on U. S.­ directed production projections. If you project a credit deficit, state the source of credits needed to offset the credit deficit. ( b) At the end of each model year, send an end­ of­ year report. ( 1) Your report must include three things: ( i) Calculate in detail your average emission level and any emission credits ( positive, or negative) based on actual U. S.­ directed production volumes. ( ii) If your average emission level is above the allowable average standard, demonstrate that you have the credits needed to offset the credit deficit. If you cannot demonstrate that you have the credits at the time you submit your endof year report, we may void the certificates for all families certified to FELs above the allowable average. ( iii) If your average emission level is below the allowable average standard, state whether you will reserve the credits for banking. ( 2) Base your U. S.­ directed production volumes on the point of first retail sale. You may consider distributors to be the point of first retail sale if all their engines are sold to ultimate buyers in the United States. ( 3) Send end­ of­ year reports to the Designated Officer within 120 days of the end of the model year. If you send reports later, you are violating the Act. ( 4) If you generate credits for banking and you do not send your end­ of­ year reports within 120 days after the end of the model year, you may not use or trade the credits until we receive and review your reports. You may not use projected credits pending our review. ( 5) You may correct errors discovered in your end­ of­ year report, including errors in calculating credits according to the following table: If And if Then we ( i) Our review discovers an error in your end­ of­ year report that increases your credit balance. the discovery occurs within 180 days of receipt ............. restore the credits for your use. ( ii) You discover an error in your report that increases your credit balance. the discovery occurs within 180 days of receipt ............. restore the credits for your use. ( iii) We or you discover and error in your report that increases your credit balance. the discovery occurs more than 180 days after receipt do not restore the credits for your use. ( iv) We discover an error in your report that reduces your credit balance. at any time after receipt .................................................. reduce your credit balance ( 6) If our review of a your end­ of yearreport shows a negative balance, you may buy credits to bring your credit balance to zero. But you must buy 1.1 credits for each 1.0 credit needed. If enough credits are not available to bring VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08NO02.013</ MATH> ER08NO02.014</ MATH> 68406 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations your credit balance to zero within 90 days of when we notify you, we may void the certificates for all families certified to FELs above the allowable average. ( c) Within 90 days of any credit trade, you must send the Designated Officer a report of the trade that includes three types of information: ( 1) The corporate names of the buyer, seller, and any brokers. ( 2) Copies of contracts related to credit trading from the buyer, seller, and broker, as applicable. ( d) Include in each report a statement certifying the accuracy and authenticity of its contents. ( e) We may void a certificate of conformity for any emission family if you do not keep the records this section requires or give us the information when we ask for it. § 1051.735 Are there special averaging provisions for snowmobiles? For snowmobiles, you may only use credits for the same phase or set of standards against which they were generated, except as allowed by this section. ( a) Restrictions. ( 1) You may not use any Phase 1 or Phase 2 credits for Phase 3 compliance. ( 2) You may not use Phase 1 HC credits for Phase 2 HC compliance. However, because the Phase 1 and Phase 2 CO standards are the same, you may use Phase 1 CO credits for compliance with the Phase 2 CO standards. ( b) Special credits for next phase of standards. You may choose to generate credits early for banking for purposes of compliance with later phases of standards as follows: ( 1) If your corporate average emission level at the end of the model year exceeds the applicable ( current) phase of standards ( without the use of traded or previously banked credits), you may choose to redesignate some of your snowmobile production to a calculation to generate credits for a future phase of standards. To generate credits the snowmobiles designated must have an FEL below the emission level of that set of standards. This can be done on a pollutant specific basis. ( 2) Do not include the snowmobiles that you redesignate in the final compliance calculation of your average emission level for the otherwise applicable ( current) phase of standards. Your average emission level for the remaining ( non­ redesignated) snowmobiles must comply with the otherwise applicable ( current) phase of standards. ( 3) Include the snowmobiles that you redesignate in a separate calculation of your average emission level for redesignated engines. Calculate credits using this average emission level relative to the specific pollutant in the future phase of standards. These credits may be used for compliance with the future standards. ( 4) For generating early Phase 3 credits, you may generate credits for HC+ NOX or CO separately as described: ( i) To determine if you qualify to generate credits in accordance with paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section, you must meet the credit trigger level. For HC+ NOX this value is 62 g/ kW­ hr ( which would be the HC+ NOX standard that would result from inputting the highest allowable CO standard ( 275 g/ kW­ hr) into the Phase 3 equation). For CO the value is 200 g/ kW­ hr ( which would be the CO standard that would result from inputting the highest allowable HC+ NOX standard ( 90 g/ kW­ hr) into the Phase 3 equation). ( ii) HC+ NOX and CO credits for Phase 3 are calculated relative to the 62 g/ kWhr and 200 g/ kW­ hr values, respectively. ( 5) Credits can also be calculated for Phase 3 using both sets of standards. Without regard to the trigger level values, if your net emission reduction for the redesignated averaging set exceeds the requirements of Phase 3 in § 1051.103 ( using both HC+ NOX and CO in the Phase 3 equation in § 1051.103), then your credits are the difference between the Phase 3 reduction requirement of that section and your calculated value. Subpart I Definitions and Other Reference Information § 1051.801 What definitions apply to this part? The following definitions apply to this part. The definitions apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the meaning the Act gives to them. The definitions follow: Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Adjustable parameter means any device, system, or element of design that someone can adjust ( including those which are difficult to access) and that, if adjusted, may affect emissions or engine performance during emission testing or normal in­ use operation. You may ask us to exclude a parameter that is difficult to access if it cannot be adjusted to affect emissions without significantly degrading performance, or if you otherwise show us that it will not be adjusted in use in a way that affect emissions Aftertreatment means relating to any system, component, or technology mounted downstream of the exhaust valve or exhaust port whose design function is to reduce exhaust emissions. All­ terrain vehicle means a land­ based or amphibious nonroad vehicle that meets the criteria listed in paragraph ( 1) of this definition; or, alternatively, the criteria of paragraph ( 2) of this definition but not the criteria of paragraph ( 3) of this definition. ( 1) Vehicles designed to travel on four low pressure tires, having a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and handlebars for steering controls, and intended for use by a single operator and no other passengers are allterrain vehicles. ( 2) Other all­ terrain vehicles have three or more wheels and one or more seats, are designed for operation over rough terrain, and are intended primarily for transportation. Golf carts generally do not meet these criteria since they are generally not designed for operation over rough terrain. ( 3) Vehicles that meet the definition of `` offroad utility vehicle'' in this section are not all­ terrain vehicles. However, § 1051.1( a) specifies that some offroad utility vehicles are required to meet the same requirements as allterrain vehicles. Auxiliary emission­ control device means any element of design that senses temperature, engine rpm, motive speed, transmission gear, atmospheric pressure, manifold pressure or vacuum, or any other parameter to activate, modulate, delay, or deactivate the operation of any part of the emissioncontrol system. This also includes any other feature that causes in­ use emissions to be higher than those measured under test conditions, except as we allow under this part. For example, an accelerator pump would be considered an auxiliary emissioncontrol device. Brake power means the usable power output of the engine not including power required to operate fuel pumps, oil pumps, or coolant pumps. Broker means any entity that facilitates a trade of emission credits between a buyer and seller. Calibration means the set of specifications and tolerances specific to a particular design, version, or application of a component or assembly capable of functionally describing its operation over its working range. Certification means obtaining a certificate of conformity for an engine family that complies with the emission standards and requirements in this part. Compression­ ignition means relating to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion engine that is not a sparkignition engine. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68407 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Crankcase emissions means airborne substances emitted to the atmosphere from any part of the engine crankcase's ventilation or lubrication systems. The crankcase is the housing for the crankshaft and other related internal parts. Designated Officer means the Manager, Engine Programs Group ( 6405 J), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. Emission­ control system means any device, system, or element of design that controls or reduces the regulated emissions from a vehicle. Emission­ data vehicle means a vehicle or engine that is tested for certification. Emission­ related maintenance means maintenance that substantially affects emissions or is likely to substantially affect emissions deterioration. Engine family means a group of vehicles with similar emission characteristics, as specified in § 1051.230. Evaporative means relating to fuel emissions that result from permeation of fuel through the fuel system materials and from ventilation of the fuel system. Family emission limit ( FEL) means an emission level declared by the manufacturer to serve in place of an emission standard for certification under the emission­ credit program in subpart H of this part. The family emission limit must be expressed to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard it replaces. Fuel system means all components involved in transporting, metering, and mixing the fuel from the fuel tank to the combustion chamber( s), including the fuel tank, fuel tank cap, fuel pump, fuel filters, fuel lines, carburetor or fuelinjection components, and all fuelsystem vents. Good engineering judgment has the meaning we give it in § 1068.5 of this chapter. Hydrocarbon ( HC) means the hydrocarbon group on which the emission standards are based for each fuel type. For gasoline­ and LPG­ fueled engines, HC means total hydrocarbon ( THC). For natural gas­ fueled engines, HC means nonmethane hydrocarbon ( NMHC). For alcohol­ fueled engines, HC means total hydrocarbon equivalent ( THCE). Identification number means a unique specification ( for example, model number/ serial number combination) that allows someone to distinguish a particular vehicle or engine from other similar vehicle or engines. Manufacturer has the meaning given in section 216( 1) of the Act. In general, this term includes any person who manufactures a vehicle or engine for sale in the United States or otherwise introduces a new vehicle or engine into commerce in the United States. This includes importers that import for resale. Maximum brake power means the maximum brake power of an engine at test conditions. Maximum test power means the maximum brake power of an engine at maximum test speed. Maximum test speed has the meaning we give in § 1065.515 of this chapter Maximum test torque means the torque output observed at wide­ open throttle at a given speed. Model year means one of the following things: ( 1) For freshly manufactured vehicles or engines ( see definition of `` new,'' paragraph ( 1)), model year means one of the following: ( i) Calendar year. ( ii) Your annual new model production period if it is different than the calendar year. This must include January 1 of the calendar year for which the model year is named. It may not begin before January 2 of the previous calendar year and it must end by December 31 of the named calendar year. ( 2) For a vehicle or engine that is converted to a nonroad vehicle or engine after being placed into service in a motor vehicle, model year means the calendar year in which the vehicle or engine was originally produced ( see definition of `` new,'' paragraph ( 2)). ( 3) For a nonroad vehicle excluded under § 1051.5 that is later converted to operate in an application that is not excluded, model year means the calendar year in which the vehicle was originally produced ( see definition of `` new,'' paragraph ( 3)). ( 4) For engines that are not freshly manufactured but are installed in new nonroad vehicles, model year means the calendar year in which the engine is installed in the new nonroad vehicle. This installation date is based on the time that final assembly of the vehicle is complete ( see definition of `` new,'' paragraph ( 4)). ( 5) For a vehicle or engine modified by an importer ( not the original manufacturer) who has a certificate of conformity for the imported vehicle or engine ( see definition of `` new,'' paragraph ( 5)), model year means one of the following: ( i) The calendar year in which the importer finishes modifying and labeling the vehicle or engine. ( ii) Your annual production period for producing vehicles or engines if it is different than the calendar year; follow the guidelines in paragraph ( 1)( ii) of this definition. ( 6) For a vehicle or engine you import that does not meet the criteria in paragraphs ( 1) through ( 5) of the definition of `` new'' model year means the calendar year in which the manufacturer completed the original assembly of the vehicle or engine. In general, this applies to used equipment that you import without conversion or major modification. Motor vehicle has the meaning we give in § 85.1703( a) of this chapter. In general, motor vehicle means a selfpropelled vehicle that can transport one or more people or any material, but does not include any of the following: ( 1) Vehicles having a maximum ground speed over level, paved surfaces no higher than 40 km per hour ( 25 miles per hour). ( 2) Vehicles that lack features usually needed for safe, practical use on streets or highways­ for example, safety features required by law, a reverse gear ( except for motorcycles), or a differential. ( 3) Vehicles whose operation on streets or highways would be unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely. Examples are vehicles with tracks instead of wheels, very large size, or features associated with military vehicles, such as armor or weaponry. New means relating to any of the following vehicles or engines: ( 1) A freshly manufactured engine or vehicle for which the ultimate buyer has never received the equitable or legal title. This kind of vehicle might commonly be thought of as `` brand new.'' In the case of this paragraph ( 1), the vehicle or engine is no longer new when the ultimate buyer receives this title or the product is placed into service, whichever comes first. ( 2) An engine originally manufactured as a motor vehicle engine that is later intended to be used in a piece of nonroad equipment. In this case, the engine ceases being a motor vehicle engine and becomes a `` new nonroad engine''. The engine is no longer new when it is placed into nonroad service. ( 3) A nonroad engine that has been previously placed into service in an application we exclude under § 1051.5 or exempt under 1051.620, where that engine is installed in a piece of equipment for which these exclusions or exemptions do not apply. The engine is no longer new when it is placed into nonroad service. For example, this would apply to a competition vehicle that is no longer used solely for competition. ( 4) An engine not covered by paragraphs ( 1) through ( 3) of this VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68408 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations definition that is intended to be installed in new nonroad equipment. The engine is no longer new when the ultimate buyer receives a title for the equipment or the product is placed into service, whichever comes first. This generally includes installation of used engines in new vehicles. ( 5) An imported nonroad vehicle or engine covered by a certificate of conformity issued under this part, where someone other than the original manufacturer modifies the vehicle or engine after its initial assembly and holds the certificate. The vehicle or engine is no longer new when it is placed into nonroad service. ( 6) An imported nonroad vehicle or engine that is not covered by a certificate of conformity issued under this part at the time of importation. This addresses uncertified engines and vehicles that have been placed into service in other countries and that someone seeks to import into the United States. Importation of this kind of new nonroad engine or vehicle is generally prohibited by part 1068 of this chapter. Noncompliant vehicle or engine means a vehicle or engine that was originally covered by a certificate of conformity, but is not in the certified configuration or otherwise does not comply with the conditions of the certificate. Nonconforming vehicle or engine means a vehicle or engine not covered by a certificate of conformity that would otherwise be subject to emission standards. Nonmethane hydrocarbon means the difference between the emitted mass of total hydrocarbons and the emitted mass of methane. Nonroad means relating to nonroad engines, or to vehicles or equipment that include nonroad engines. Nonroad engine has the meaning given in § 1068.30 of this chapter. In general this means all internalcombustion engines except motor vehicle engines, stationary engines, or engines used solely for competition. This part only applies to nonroad engines that are used in snowmobiles, off­ highway motorcycles, and ATVs ( see § 1051.5). Off­ highway motorcycle means a twowheeled vehicle with a nonroad engine and a seat ( excluding marine vessels and aircraft). ( Note: highway motorcycles are regulated under 40 CFR part 86.) Offroad utility vehicle means a nonroad vehicle that has four or more wheels, seating for two or more persons, is designed for operation over rough terrain, and has either a rear payload 350 pounds or more or seating for six or more passengers. Vehicles intended primarily for recreational purposes that are not capable of transporting six passengers ( such as dune buggies) are not offroad utility vehicles. ( Note: § 1051.1( a) specifies that some offroad utility vehicles are required to meet the requirements that apply for all­ terrain vehicles.) Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning given it in 40 CFR part 1065. Phase 1 means relating to Phase 1 standards of § § 1051.103, 1051.105, or 1051.107, or other Phase 1 standards specified in subpart B of this part. Phase 2 means relating to Phase 2 standards of § 1051.103, or other Phase 2 standards specified in subpart B of this part. Phase 3 means relating to Phase 3 standards of § 1051.103, or other Phase 3 standards specified in subpart B of this part. Physically adjustable range means the entire range over which an engine parameter can be adjusted, except as modified by § 1051.115( c). For parts described in § 1051.115( d), `` physically adjustable range'' means the adjustable range defined in that paragraph. Placed into service means used for its intended purpose. Point of first retail sale means the location at which the retail sale occurs. This generally means a dealership. Recreational means, for purposes of this part, relating to snowmobiles, allterrain vehicles, off­ highway motorcycles, and other vehicles that we regulate under this part. Note that 40 CFR part 90 applies to other recreational vehicles. Revoke means to discontinue the certificate for an engine family. If we revoke a certificate, you must apply for a new certificate before continuing to produce the affected vehicles or engines. This does not apply to vehicles or engines you no longer possess. Round means to round numbers according to ASTM E29 02 ( incorporated by reference in § 1051.810), unless otherwise specified. Scheduled maintenance means adjusting, repairing, removing, disassembling, cleaning, or replacing components or systems that is periodically needed to keep a part from failing or malfunctioning. It also may mean actions you expect are necessary to correct an overt indication of failure or malfunction for which periodic maintenance is not appropriate. Small­ volume manufacturer means: ( 1) For motorcycles and ATVs, a manufacturer that sold motorcycles or ATVs before 2003 and had annual U. S.­ directed production of no more than 5,000 off­ road motorcycles and ATVs ( combined number) in 2002 and all earlier calendar years. For manufacturers owned by a parent company, the limit applies to the production of the parent company and all of its subsidiaries. ( 2) For snowmobiles, a manufacturer that sold snowmobiles before 2003 and had annual U. S.­ directed production of no more than 300 snowmobiles in 2002 and all earlier model years. For manufacturers owned by a parent company, the limit applies to the production of the parent company and all of its subsidiaries. ( 3) A manufacturer that we designate to be a small­ volume manufacturer under § 1051.635. Snowmobile means a vehicle designed to operate outdoors only over snowcovered ground, with a maximum width of 1.5 meters or less. Spark­ ignition means relating to a gasoline­ fueled engine, or any other engine with a spark plug ( or other sparking device) and with operating characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical Otto combustion cycle. Spark­ ignition engines usually use a throttle to regulate intake air flow to control power during normal operation. Suspend means to temporarily discontinue the certificate for an engine family. If we suspend a certificate, you may not sell vehicles or engines from that engine family unless we reinstate the certificate or approve a new one. Test sample means the collection of vehicles or engines selected from the population of an engine family for emission testing. Test vehicle or engine means a vehicle or engine in a test sample. Total hydrocarbon means the combined mass organic compounds measured by our total hydrocarbon test procedure, expressed as a hydrocarbon with a hydrogen­ to­ carbon mass ratio of 1.85: 1. Total hydrocarbon equivalent means the sum of the carbon mass contributions of non­ oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and aldehydes, or other organic compounds that are measured separately as contained in a gas sample, expressed as petroleumfueled engine hydrocarbons. The hydrogen­ to­ carbon ratio of the equivalent hydrocarbon is 1.85: 1. Ultimate buyer means ultimate purchaser. Ultimate purchaser means, with respect to any new vehicle or engine, the first person who in good faith purchases such vehicle or engine for purposes other than resale. United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68409 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Upcoming model year means for an engine family the model year after the one currently in production. U. S.­ directed production means the number of vehicle units, subject to the requirements of this part, produced by a manufacturer ( and/ or imported) for which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was or will be made to ultimate buyers in the United States. Useful life means the period during which a vehicle is required to comply with all applicable emission standards, specified as a number of kilometers, hours, and/ or calendar years. It must be at least as long as both of the following: ( 1) The expected average service life before the vehicle is remanufactured or retired from service. ( 2) The minimum useful life value. Void means to invalidate a certificate or an exemption. If we void a certificate, all the vehicles produced under that engine family for that model year are considered noncompliant, and you are liable for each vehicle produced under the certificate and may face civil or criminal penalties or both. If we void an exemption, all the vehicles produced under that exemption are considered uncertified ( or nonconforming), and you are liable for each vehicle produced under the exemption and may face civil or criminal penalties or both. You may not produce any additional vehicles using the voided exemption. Wide­ open throttle means maximum throttle opening. Unless this is specified at a given speed, it refers to maximum throttle opening at maximum speed. For electronically controlled or other engines with multiple possible fueling rates, wide­ open throttle also means the maximum fueling rate at maximum throttle opening under test conditions. § 1051.805 What symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations does this part use? The following symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations apply to this part: ° degrees. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials. ATV all­ terrain vehicle. cc cubic centimeters. cm centimeter. C Celsius. CO carbon monoxide. CO2 carbon dioxide. EPA Environmental Protection Agency. F Fahrenheit. g grams. g/ gal/ day grams per gallon per test day. g/ m2/ day grams per meter­ square per test day. Hg mercury. hr hours. km kilometer. kW kilowatt. LPG liquefied petroleum gas. m meters. mm millimeters. mW milliwatts. NMHC nonmethane hydrocarbons. NOX oxides of nitrogen ( NO and NOX). psig pounds per square inches of gauge pressure. rpm revolutions per minute. SAE Society of Automotive Engineers. SI spark­ ignition. THC total hydrocarbon. THCE total hydrocarbon equivalent. U. S. C. United States Code. § 1051.810 What materials does this part reference? We have incorporated by reference the documents listed in this section. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference as prescribed in 5 U. S. C. 552( a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U. S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460 or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol St., NW., 7th Floor, Suite 700, Washington, DC. ( a) ASTM material. Table 1 of § 1051.810 lists material from the American Society for Testing and Materials that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the sections of this part where we reference it. Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Table 1 follows: TABLE 1 OF § 1051.810. ASTM MATERIALS Document number and name Part 1051 reference ASTM D471 98, Standard Test Method for Rubber Property­ Effect of Liquids. ..................... 1051.501 ASTM D814 95 ( reapproved 2000), Standard Test Method for Rubber Property­ Vapor Transmission of Volatile Liquids ......................................... 1051.245 ASTM E29 02, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications ........................................ 1051.801 ( b) SAE material. Table 2 of § 1051.810 lists material from the Society of Automotive Engineering that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the sections of this part where we reference it. Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. Table 2 follows: TABLE 2 OF § 1051.810. SAE MATERIALS Document number and name Part 1051 reference SAE J30, Fuel and Oil Hoses, June 1998. .............................. 1051.245, 1051.501 SAE J1930, Electrical/ Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, May 1998. ............. 1051.135 SAE J2260, Nonmetallic Fuel System Tubing with One or More Layers, November 1996. 1051.245 § 1051.815 How should I request EPA to keep my information confidential? ( a) Clearly show what you consider confidential by marking, circling, bracketing, stamping, or some other method. We will store your confidential information as described in 40 CFR part 2. Also, we will disclose it only as specified in 40 CFR part 2. ( b) If you send us a second copy without the confidential information, we will assume it contains nothing confidential whenever we need to release information from it. ( c) If you send us information without claiming it is confidential, we may make it available to the public without further notice to you, as described in § 2.204 of this chapter. § 1051.820 How do I request a hearing? See 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, for information related to hearings. PART 1065 TEST PROCEDURES AND EQUIPMENT Subpart A Applicability and General Provisions Sec. 1065.1 Applicability. 1065.5 Overview of test procedures. 1065.10 Other test procedures. 1065.15 Engine testing. 1065.20 Limits for test conditions. Subpart B Equipment and Analyzers 1065.101 Overview. 1065.105 Dynamometer and engine equipment specifications. 1065.110 Exhaust gas sampling system; spark­ ignition ( SI) engines. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68410 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 1065.115 Exhaust gas sampling system; compression­ ignition engines. [ Reserved] 1065.120 Raw sampling. [ Reserved] 1065.125 Analyzers ( overview/ general response characteristics). 1065.130 Hydrocarbon analyzers. 1065.135 NOX analyzers. 1065.140 CO and CO2 analyzers. 1065.145 Smoke meters. [ Reserved] 1065.150 Flow meters. 1065.155 Temperature and pressure sensors. Subpart C Test Fuels and Analytical Gases 1065.201 General requirements for test fuels. 1065.205 Test fuel specifications for distillate diesel fuel. [ Reserved] 1065.210 Test fuel specifications for gasoline. 1065.215 Test fuel specifications for natural gas. 1065.220 Test fuel specifications for liquefied petroleum gas. 1065.240 Lubricating oils. 1065.250 Analytical gases. Subpart D Analyzer and Equipment Calibrations 1065.301 Overview. 1065.305 International calibration standards. 1065.310 CVS calibration. [ Reserved] 1065.315 Torque calibration. Subpart E Engine Selection, Preparation, and Service Accumulation 1065.401 Selecting a test engine. 1065.405 Preparing and servicing a test engine. 1065.410 Service limits for stabilized test engines. 1065.415 Durability demonstration. Subpart F Running an Emission Test 1065.501 Overview of the engine dynamometer test procedures. 1065.510 Engine mapping procedures. 1065.515 Test cycle generation. 1065.520 Engine starting, restarting, and shutdown. 1065.525 Engine dynamometer test run. 1065.530 Test cycle validation criteria. Subpart G Data Analysis and Calculations 1065.601 Overview. 1065.605 Required records. 1065.610 Bag sample analysis. 1065.615 Bag sample calculations. Subpart H Particulate Measurements [ Reserved] Subpart I Testing With Oxygenated Fuels 1065.801 Applicability. 1065.805 Sampling system. 1065.810 Calculations. Subpart J Field Testing 1065.901 Applicability. 1065.905 General provisions. 1065.910 Measurement accuracy and precision. 1065.915 Equipment specifications for SI engines. 1065.920 Equipment setup and test run for SI engines. 1065.925 Calculations. 1065.930 Specifications for mass air flow sensors. 1065.935 Specifications for THC analyzers. 1065.940 Specifications for NOX and air/ fuel sensors. 1065.945 Specifications for CO analyzers. 1065.950 Specifications for speed and torque measurement. Subpart K Definitions and Other Reference Information 1065.1001 Definitions. 1065.1005 Symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations. 1065.1010 Reference materials. 1065.1015 Confidential information. Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 7671( q). Subpart A Applicability and General Provisions § 1065.1 Applicability. ( a) This part describes the procedures that apply to testing that we require for the following engines or for equipment using the following engines: ( 1) Large nonroad spark­ ignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 1048. ( 2) Vehicles that we regulate under 40 CFR part 1051 ( i. e., recreational SI vehicles) that are regulated based on engine testing. See 40 CFR part 1051 to determine which vehicles may be certified based on engine test data. ( b) This part does not apply to any of the following engine or vehicle categories: ( 1) Light­ duty highway vehicles ( see 40 CFR part 86). ( 2) Heavy­ duty highway Otto­ cycle engines ( see 40 CFR part 86). ( 3) Heavy­ duty highway diesel engines ( see 40 CFR part 86). ( 4) Aircraft engines ( see 40 CFR part 87). ( 5) Locomotive engines ( see 40 CFR part 92). ( 6) Land­ based nonroad diesel engines ( see 40 CFR part 89). ( 7) General marine engines ( see 40 CFR parts 89 and 94). ( 8) Marine outboard and personal watercraft engines ( see 40 CFR part 91). ( 9) Small nonroad spark­ ignition engines ( see 40 CFR part 90). ( c) This part is addressed to you as a manufacturer, but it applies equally to anyone who does testing for you, and to us when we conduct testing to determine if you meet emission standards. ( d) Paragraph ( a) of this section identifies the parts of the CFR that define emission standards and other requirements for particular types of engines. In this part 1065, we refer to each of these other parts generically as the `` standard­ setting part.'' For example, 40 CFR part 1051 is always the standard­ setting part for snowmobiles. Follow the standard­ setting part if it differs from this part. ( e) For equipment subject to this part and regulated under equipment­ based or vehicle­ based standards, interpret the term `` engine'' in this part to include equipment and vehicles( see 40 CFR 1068.30). § 1065.5 Overview of test procedures. ( a) Some of the provisions of this part do not apply to all types of engines. For example, measurement of particulate matter is generally not required for spark­ ignition engines. See the standard­ setting part to determine which provisions in this part may not apply. Before using this part's procedures, read the standard­ setting part to answer at least the following questions: ( 1) How should I warm up the test engine before measuring emissions? Do I need to measure cold­ start emissions during this warm­ up segment of the duty cycle? ( 2) Do I measure emissions while the warmed­ up engine operates over a steady­ state schedule, a transient schedule, or both? ( 3) What are the speed and load points of the test cycle( s)? ( 4) Which exhaust constituents do I need to measure? ( 5) Does testing require full­ flow dilute sampling? Is raw sampling acceptable? Is partial­ flow dilute sampling acceptable? ( 6) Do any unique specifications apply for test fuels? ( 7) What maintenance steps may I do before or between tests on an emissiondata engine? ( 8) Do any unique requirements apply to stabilizing emission levels on a new engine? ( 9) Do any unique requirements apply to testing conditions, such as ambient temperatures or pressures? ( 10) Are there special emission standards that affect engine operation and ambient conditions? ( 11) Are there different emission standards that apply to field testing under normal operation? ( b) The following table shows how this part divides testing specifications into subparts: This subpart... Describes these specifications or procedures... Subpart A ..... General provisions for test procedures. Subpart B ..... Equipment for testing. Subpart C ..... Fuels and analytical gases for testing. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68411 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations This subpart... Describes these specifications or procedures... Subpart D ..... How to calibrate test equipment Subpart E ..... How to prepare engines for testing, including service accumulation. Subpart F ..... How to test for emissions. Subpart G ..... How to calculate emission levels from measured data. Subpart H ..... [ Reserved]. Subpart I ...... How to measure emissions from engines fueled with an oxygenated fuel such as methanol or ethanol. Subpart J ...... How to do field testing of inuse vehicles and equipment Subpart K ..... Definitions, abbreviations, and other reference information that apply to emission testing § 1065.10 Other test procedures. ( a) Your testing. These test procedures apply for all testing that you do to show compliance with emission standards, with a few exceptions listed in this section. ( b) Our testing. These test procedures generally apply for testing that we do to determine if your engines comply with applicable emission standards. We may conduct other testing as allowed by the Act. ( c) Exceptions. You may be allowed or required to use test procedures other than those specified in this part in the following cases: ( 1) The test procedures in this part are intended to produce emission measurements equivalent to those that would result from measuring emissions during in­ use operation using the same engine configuration installed in a piece of equipment. If good engineering judgment indicates that use of the procedures in this part for an engine would result in measurements that are not representative of in­ use operation of that engine, you must notify us. If we determine that using these procedures would result in measurements that are significantly unrepresentative and that changing the procedures will result in more representative measurements and not decrease the stringency of emission standards, we will specify changes to the procedures. In your notification to us, you should recommend specific changes you think are necessary. ( 2) You may ask to use emission data collected using other test procedures, such as those of the California Air Resources Board or the International Organization for Standardization. We will allow this only if you show us that these data are equivalent to data collected using our test procedures. ( 3) You may ask to use alternate procedures that produce measurements equivalent to those from the specified procedures. If you send us a written request showing your procedures are equivalent, and we agree that they are equivalent, we will allow you to use them. You may not use an alternate procedure until we approve them, either by: telling you directly that you may use this procedure; or issuing guidance to all manufacturers, which allows you to use the alternate procedure without additional approval. ( 4) You may ask to use special test procedures if your engine cannot be tested under the specified procedures ( for example, your engine cannot operate on the specified transient cycle). In this case, tell us in writing why you cannot satisfactorily test your engines using this part's procedures and ask to use a different approach. We will approve your special test procedures if we determine they would produce emission measurements that are representative of those that would result from measuring emissions during in­ use operation. You may not use special procedures until we approve them. ( 5) The standard­ setting part may contain other specifications for test procedures that apply for your engines. In cases where it is not possible to comply with both the test procedures in those parts and the test procedures in this part, you must comply with the test procedures specified in the standardsetting part. Those other parts may also allow you to deviate from the test procedures of this part for other reasons. § 1065.15 Engine testing. ( a) This part describes the procedures for performing exhaust emission tests on engines that must meet emission standards. ( b) Generally, you must test an engine while operating it on a laboratory dynamometer over a prescribed sequence. ( Subpart J of this part describes in­ use testing of engines installed in vehicles or equipment.) You need to sample and analyze the exhaust gases generated during engine operation to determine the concentration of the regulated pollutants. ( c) Concentrations are converted into units of grams of pollutant per kilowatthour ( g/ kW­ hr) or similar units for comparison to emission standards. If the applicable emission standards are expressed as g/ bhp­ hr, references in this part to kW should generally be interpreted to mean horsepower. § 1065.20 Limits for test conditions. ( a) Unless specified elsewhere in this chapter, you may conduct tests to determine compliance with duty­ cycle emission standards at ambient temperatures of 20 30 ° C ( 68 86 ° F), ambient pressures of 600 775 mm Hg, and any ambient humidity level. ( b) Follow the standard­ setting part for ambient conditions when testing to determine compliance with not­ toexceed or other off­ cycle emission standards. ( c) For engine testing in a laboratory, you may heat, cool, and/ or dehumidify the dilution air before it enters the CVS. ( d) For engine testing in a laboratory, if the barometric pressure observed while generating the maximum­ torque curve changes by more than 25 mm Hg from the value measured when you started mapping, you must remap the engine. Also, to have a valid test, the average barometric pressure observed during the exhaust emission test must be within 25 mm Hg of the average observed during the maximum torque curve generation ( see § 1065.510). Subpart B Equipment and Analyzers § 1065.101 Overview. This subpart describes equipment and analyzers for measuring emissions. Subpart D of this part describes how to calibrate these devices and subpart C of this part defines the accuracy and purity specifications of analytical gases. § 1065.105 Dynamometer and engine equipment specifications. ( a) The engine dynamometer system must be able to control engine torque and speed simultaneously over the applicable test cycles within the accuracies specified in § 1065.530. If your dynamometer cannot meet the accuracy requirements in § 1065.530, you must get our approval before using it. For transient testing, issue command set points for engine torque and speed at 5 Hz or greater ( 10 Hz recommended). Record feedback engine torque and speed at least once every second during the test. In addition to these general requirements, make sure your engine or dynamometer's readout signals for speed and torque meet the following accuracies for all testing: ( 1) Engine speed readout must be accurate to within ± 2 percent of the absolute standard value. A 60­ tooth ( or greater) wheel in combination with a common mode rejection frequency counter is considered an absolute standard for engine or dynamometer speed. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68412 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 2) Engine flywheel torque readout must meet one of the two following standards for accuracy: ( i) Within ± 3 percent of the NIST true value torque ( as defined in § 1065.315). ( ii) The following accuracies: If the full­ scale torque value is... Engine flywheel torque readout must be within... T 550 ft­ lbs. ............ ± 2.5 ft­ lbs. of NIST true value. 550 < T 1050 ft­ lbs. ± 5.0 ft­ lbs. of NIST true value. T > 1050 ft­ lbs. ± 10.0 ft­ lbs. of NIST true value. ( 3) Option: You may use internal dynamometer signals ( such as armature current) to measure torque if you can show that the engine flywheel torque during the test cycle conforms to paragraph ( b)( 2) of this section. Your measurements must compensate for increased or decreased flywheel torque because of the armature's inertia during accelerations and decelerations in the test cycle. ( b) To verify that the test engine has followed the test cycle correctly, collect the dynamometer or engine readout signals for speed and torque so you can statistically correlate the engine's actual performance with the test cycle ( see § 1065.530). Normally, to do this, you would convert analog signals from the dynamometer or engine into digital values for computer storage, but all conversions must meet two criteria: ( 1) Speed values used to evaluate cycles must be accurate to within 2 percent of the readout value for dynamometer or engine speed. ( 2) Engine flywheel torque values used to evaluate cycles must be accurate to within 2 percent of the readout value for dynamometer or engine flywheel torque. ( c) You may combine the tolerances in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section if you use the root mean square ( RMS) method and refer accuracies of the RMS values to absolute­ standard or NIST true values. ( 1) Speed values used to evaluate cycles must be accurate to within ± 2.8 percent of the absolute standard values, as defined in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. ( 2) Engine flywheel torque values used to evaluate cycles must be accurate to within ± 3.6 percent of NIST true values, as determined in § 1065.315. § 1065.110 Exhaust gas sampling system; spark­ ignition ( SI) engines. ( a) General. The exhaust gas sampling system described in this section is designed to measure the true mass of gaseous emissions in the exhaust of SI engines. ( If the standard­ setting part requires determination of THCE or NMHCE for your engine, then see subpart I of this part for additional requirements.) Under the constantvolume sampler ( CVS) concept, you must measure the total volume of the mixture of exhaust and dilution air and collect a continuously proportioned volume of sample for analysis. You must control flow rates so that the ratio of sample flow to CVS flow remains constant. You then determine the mass emissions from the sample concentration and total flow over the test period. ( 1) Do not let the CVS or dilution air inlet system artificially lower exhaust system backpressure. To verify proper backpressures, measure pressure in the raw exhaust immediately upstream of the inlet to the CVS. Continuously measure and compare the static pressure of the raw exhaust observed during a transient cycle with and without the CVS operating. Static pressure measured with the CVS system operating must remain within ± 5 inches of water ( 1.2 kPa) of the static pressure measured when disconnected from the CVS, at identical moments in the test cycle. ( Note: We will use sampling systems that can maintain the static pressure to within ± 1 inch of water ( 0.25 kPa) if your written request shows that this closer tolerance is necessary.) This requirement serves as a design specification for the CVS/ dilution air inlet system, and should be performed as often as good engineering practice dictates ( for example, after installing an uncharacterized CVS, adding an unknown inlet restriction on the dilution air, or otherwise altering the system). ( 2) The system for measuring temperature ( sensors and readout) must have an accuracy and precision of ± 3.4 ° F ( ± 1.9 ° C). The temperature measuring system for a CVS without a heat exchanger must respond within 1.50 seconds to 62.5 percent of a temperature change ( as measured in hot silicone oil). For a CVS with a heat exchanger, there is no specific requirement for response time. ( 3) The system for measuring pressure ( sensors and readout) must have an accuracy and precision of ± 3 mm Hg ( 0.4 kPa). ( 4) The flow capacity of the CVS must be large enough to keep water from condensing in the system. You may dehumidify the dilution air before it enters the CVS. You also may heat or cool the air if three conditions exist: ( i) The air ( or air plus exhaust gas) temperature does not exceed 250 ° F ( 121 ° C). ( ii) You calculate the CVS flow rate necessary to prevent water condensation based on the lowest temperature in the CVS before sampling. ( We recommend insulating the CVS system when you use heated dilution air.) ( iii) The dilution ratio is high enough to prevent condensation in bag samples as they cool to room temperature. ( 5) Bags for collecting dilution air and exhaust samples must be big enough for samples to flow freely. ( 6) The general CVS sample system consists of a dilution air filter ( optional) and mixing assembly, cyclone particulate separator ( optional), a sample line for the bag sample or other sample lines a dilution tunnel, and associated valves and sensors for pressure and temperature. Except for the system to sample hydrocarbons from two­ stroke engines, the temperature of the sample lines must be more than 3 ° C above the mixture's maximum dew point and less than 121 ° C. We recommend maintaining them at 113 ± 8 ° C. For the hydrocarbon sampling system with two­ stroke engines, the temperature of the sample lines should be maintained at 191 ± 11 ° C. A general schematic of the SI sampling system is shown in Figure 1065.110 1, which follows: BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 04 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68413 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations BILLING CODE 6460 50 C ( b) Steady­ state testing. Constant proportional sampling is required throughout transient testing, but is not required throughout steady­ state testing. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08NO02.017</ GPH> 68414 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Steady­ state testing requires that you draw a proportional sample for each test mode, but you may sample in different proportions for different test modes, as long as you know the ratio of the sample flow to total flow during each test mode. This allowance means that you may use simpler flow control systems for steadystate testing than are shown in Figure 1065.110 1 of this section. ( c) Configuration variations. Since various configurations can produce equivalent results, you need not conform exactly to the drawings in this subpart. You may use other components such as instruments, valves, solenoids, pumps and switches to provide more information and coordinate the components' functions. Based on good engineering judgment, you may exclude other components that are not needed to maintain accuracy on some systems. ( d) CFV CVS component description. The flow characteristics of a Critical­ Flow Venturi, Constant­ Volume Sampler ( CFV CVS) are governed by the principles of fluid dynamics associated with critical flow. The CFV system is commonly called a constant­ volume system ( CVS) even though the mass flow varies. More properly, they are constantproportion sampling systems, because small CFVs in each of the sample lines maintains proportional sampling while temperatures vary. This CFV maintains the mixture's flow rate at choked flow, which is inversely proportional to the square root of the gas temperature, and the system computes the actual flow rate continuously. Because pressures and temperatures are the same at all venturi inlets, the sample volume is proportional to the total volume. The CFV CVS sample system uses critical flow venturis for the bag sample or other sample lines ( these are shown in the figure as flow control valves) and a critical flow venturi for the dilution tunnel. All venturis must be maintained at the same temperature. ( e) EFC CVS component description. The electronic flow control­ CVS ( EFC CVS) system for sampling is identical to the CFV system described in paragraph ( b) of this section, except that it adds electronic flow controllers ( instead of sampling venturis), a subsonic venturi and an electronic flow controller for the CVS ( instead of the critical flow venturi), metering valves, and separate flow meters ( optional) to totalize sample flow volumes. The EFC sample system must conform to the following requirements: ( 1) The system must meet all the requirements in paragraph ( b) of this section. ( 2) The ratio of sample flow to CVS flow must not vary by more than ± 5 percent from the test's setpoint. ( 3) Sample flow totalizers must meet the accuracy specifications in § 1065.150. You may obtain total volumes from the flow controllers, with our advance approval, if you can show they meet these accuracies. ( f) Component description, PDP CVS. The positive­ displacement pump­ CVS ( PDP CVS) system for sampling is identical to the CFV system described in paragraph ( b) of this section, except for the following changes: ( 1) Include a heat exchanger. ( 2) Use positive­ displacement pumps for the CVS flow and sampling­ system flow. You do not need sampling venturis or a venturi for the dilution tunnel. All pumps must operate at a constant flow rate. ( 3) All pumps must operate at a nominally constant temperature. Maintain the gas mixture's temperature measured at a point just ahead of the positive­ displacement pump ( and after the heat exchanger for the main CVS pump) within ± 10 ° F ( ± 5.6 ° C) of the average operating temperature observed during the test. ( You may estimate the average operating temperature from the temperatures observed during similar tests.) The system for measuring temperature ( sensors and readout) must have an accuracy and precision of ± 3.4 ° F ( 1.9 ° C), and response time consistent with good engineering judgment. ( g) Mixed systems. You may combine elements of paragraphs ( d), ( e), and ( f) consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, you may control the CVS flow rate using a CFV, and control sample flow rates using electronic flow controllers. § 1065.115 Exhaust gas sampling system; compression­ ignition engines. [ Reserved] § 1065.120 Raw sampling. [ Reserved] § 1065.125 Analyzers ( overview/ general response characteristics). ( a) General. The following sections and subparts describe the specifications for analyzers and analytical equipment: ( 1) The analyzers for measuring hydrocarbon, NOX, CO, and CO2 emission concentrations are specified in § 1065.130 through § 1065.140. ( 2) The analytical equipment for measuring particulate emissions is specified in Subpart H of this part. ( 3) The analytical equipment for measuring emissions of oxygenated compounds ( for example, methanol) is specified in Subpart I of this part. ( 4) The analytical equipment for measuring in­ use emissions is specified in Subpart J of this part. ( b) Response time. Analyzers must have the following response characteristics: ( 1) For steady­ state testing and transient testing with bag sample analysis, the analyzer must reach at least 90 percent of its final response within 5.0 seconds after any step change to the input concentration at or above 80 percent of full scale. ( 2) For transient testing with continuous measurement, the analyzer must reach at least 90 percent of its final response within 1.0 second after any step change to the input concentration at or above 80 percent of full scale. ( c) Precision and noise. Analyzers must meet the following characteristics for precision and noise: ( 1) Precision must be no worse than ± 1 percent of full­ scale concentration for each range used above 155 ppm ( or ppmC), or ± 2 percent for each range used below 155 ppm ( or ppmC). For this paragraph ( c)( 1), we define precision as 2.5 times the standard deviation of 10 repetitive responses to a given calibration or span gas. ( 2) Peak­ to­ peak response to zero and calibration or span gases over any 10­ second period must be no more than 2 percent of full­ scale chart deflection on all ranges used. ( d) Drift. Analyzers must meet specifications for zero­ response and span drift. ( 1) The zero­ response drift during one hour must be less than 2 percent of fullscale chart deflection on the lowest range used. Zero­ response is the mean response, including noise, to a zero­ gas during a 30­ second interval. ( 2) The span drift during one hour must be less than 2 percent of full­ scale chart deflection on the lowest range used. Span is the difference between the span­ response and the zero­ response. Span­ response is the mean response, including noise, to a span gas during a 30­ second interval. ( e) Calibration. See subpart D of this part for specifications to calibrate analyzers. § 1065.130 Hydrocarbon analyzers. This section describes the requirements for flame ionization detectors ( FIDs) used to measure hydrocarbons. ( a) Fuel the FID with a mixture of hydrogen in helium and calibrate it using propane. ( b) If you use a heated FID ( required only for diesels and two­ stroke, sparkignition engines), keep the temperature 191 ± 11 ° C). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68415 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( c) Use an overflow sampling system for heated continuous FIDs. ( In an overflow system excess zero gas or span gas spills out of the probe when you are doing zero or span checks.) ( d) Do not premix the FID fuel and burner air. ( e) Make sure the FID meets accuracy and precision specifications in ISO 8178 1 ( incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010). § 1065.135 NOX analyzers. This section describes the requirements for chemiluminescent detectors ( CLD) used to measure NOX. Good engineering practice may require the use of other detectors. ( a) A CLD must meet the following requirements: ( 1) Make sure your CLD meets the accuracy and precision specifications in ISO 8178 1 ( incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010). ( 2) The NO to NO2 converter must have an efficiency of at least 90 percent. ( 3) Use an overflow sampling system for continuous CLDs. ( In an overflow system excess zero gas or span gas spills out of the probe when you are doing zero or span checks.) ( 4) You do not need a heated CLD to test spark­ ignition engines. ( b) Using CLDs is generally acceptable even though they measure only NO and NO2, since conventional engines do not emit significant amounts of other NOX species. § 1065.140 CO and CO2 analyzers. This section describes the requirements for non­ dispersive infrared absorption detectors ( NDIR) to measure CO and CO2. ( a) The NDIR must meet the applicable accuracy and precision specifications of ISO 8178 1 ( incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010). ( b) The NDIR must meet the applicable quench and interference requirements of ISO 8178 1 ( incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010). § 1065.145 Smoke meters. [ Reserved] § 1065.150 Flow meters. ( a) Flow meters must have accuracy and precision of ± 2 percent of point or better and be traceable to NIST standards. ( b) You may correct flow measurements for temperature or pressure, if your temperature and pressure measurements have accuracy and precision of ± 2 percent of point or better ( absolute). § 1065.155 Temperature and pressure sensors. ( a) Except where we specify otherwise in this part, must meet the applicable accuracy and precision specifications of ISO 8178 1 ( incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010). ( b) Use good engineering judgment to design and operate your temperature and pressure measuring systems to minimize delays in response time and avoid hysteresis. Subpart C Test Fuels and Analytical Gases § 1065.201 General requirements for test fuels. ( a) For all emission tests, use test fuels meeting the specifications in this subpart, unless the standard­ setting part directs otherwise. For any service accumulation on a test engine, if we do not specify a fuel, use the specified test fuel or a fuel typical of what you would expect the engine to use in service. ( b) We may require you to test the engine with each type of fuel it can use ( for example, gasoline and natural gas). ( c) If you will produce engines that can run on a type of fuel ( or mixture of fuels) that we do not specify in this subpart, we will allow you to test with fuel representing commercially available fuels of that type. However, we must approve your fuel's specifications before you may use it for emission testing. ( d) You may use a test fuel other than those we specify in this subpart if you do all of the following: ( 1) Show that it is commercially available. ( 2) Show that your engines will use only the designated fuel in service. ( 3) Show that operating the engines on the fuel we specify would increase emissions or decrease durability. ( 4) Get our written approval before you start testing. ( e) We may allow you to use other test fuels ( for example, California Phase 2 gasoline) if they do not affect the demonstration of compliance. § 1065.205 Test fuel specifications for distillate diesel fuel. [ Reserved] § 1065.210 Test fuel specifications for gasoline. Gasoline used as a test fuel must meet the following specifications: ( a) Unless the standard­ setting part requires testing with fuel appropriate for low temperatures, use gasoline test fuels meeting the specifications in the following table: TABLE 1 OF § 1065.210. GENERAL TEST­ FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR GASOLINE Item Procedure1 Value1 Distillation Range: 1. Initial boiling point, ° C .................................................................................................................. ASTM D 86 01 23.9 35.02 2. 10% point, ° C ............................................................................................................................... ASTM D 86 01 48.9 57.2 3.50% point, ° C ................................................................................................................................ ASTM D 86 01 93.3 110.0 4. 90% point, ° C ............................................................................................................................... ASTM D 86 01 148.9 162.8 5. End point, ° C ( maximum) ............................................................................................................. ASTM D 86 01 212.8. Hydrocarbon composition: 1. Olefins, volume % ........................................................................................................................ ASTM D 1319 02 10 maximum 2. Aromatics, volume % .................................................................................................................... ASTM D 1319 02 35 maximum 3. Saturates ...................................................................................................................................... ASTM D 1319 02 Remainder Lead ( organic), g/ liter ............................................................................................................................... ASTM D 3237 97 0.013 maximum Phosphorous, g/ liter ................................................................................................................................. ASTM D 3231 02 0.0013 maximum VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68416 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1 OF § 1065.210. GENERAL TEST­ FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR GASOLINE Continued Item Procedure1 Value1 Sulfur, weight % ....................................................................................................................................... ASTM D 1266 98 0.008 maximum Volatility ( Reid Vapor Pressure), kPa ...................................................................................................... ASTM D 323 99a 60.0 to 63.4.2,3 1All ASTM standards are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. 2For testing at altitudes above 1 219 m, the specified volatility range is 52 to 55 kPa ( 7.5 to 8.0) and the specified initial boiling point range is 23.9 ° to 40.6 ° C. 3For testing unrelated to evaporative emissions, the specified range is 55 to 63 kPa ( 8.0 to 9.1 psi). ( b) If the standard­ setting part requires testing with fuel appropriate for low temperatures, use gasoline test fuels meeting the specifications in the following table: TABLE 2 OF § 1065.210. LOW­ TEMPERATURE TEST­ FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR GASOLINE Item Procedure1 Value1 Distillation Range: 1. Initial boiling point, ° C .................................................................................................................. ASTM D 86 01 24.4 35.6. 2. 10% point, ° C ............................................................................................................................... ASTM D 86 01 36.7 47.8. 3. 50% point, ° C ............................................................................................................................... ASTM D 86 01 81.7 101.1. 4. 90% point, ° C ............................................................................................................................... ASTM D 86 01 157.8 174.4. 5. End point, ° C ( maximum) ............................................................................................................. ASTM D 86 01 211.7. Hydrocarbon composition: 1. Olefins, volume % ........................................................................................................................ ASTM D 1319 02 17.5 maximum. 2. Aromatics, volume % .................................................................................................................... ASTM D 1319 02 30.4 maximum. 3. Saturates ...................................................................................................................................... ASTM D 1319 02 Remainder. Lead ( organic), g/ liter ............................................................................................................................... ASTM D 3237 97 0.013 maximum. Phosphorous, g/ liter ................................................................................................................................. ASTM D 3231 02 0.005 maximum. Sulfur, weight % ....................................................................................................................................... ASTM D 1266 98 0.08 maximum. Volatility ( Reid Vapor Pressure), kPa ...................................................................................................... ASTM D 323 99a 11.2 11.8 psi. 1All ASTM standards are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. ( c) Use gasoline test fuel with octane values that represent commercially available fuels for the appropriate application. § 1065.215 Test fuel specifications for natural gas. ( a) Natural gas used as a test fuel must meet the specifications in the following table: TABLE 1 OF § 1065.215. TEST­ FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR NATURAL GAS Item Procedure1 Value ( mole percent) 1. Methane ............................................................................................................................................... ASTM D 1945 96 87.0 minimum. 2. Ethane .................................................................................................................................................. ASTM D 1945 96 5.5 maximum. 3. Propane ............................................................................................................................................... ASTM D 1945 96 1.2 maximum. 4. Butane .................................................................................................................................................. ASTM D 1945 96 0.35 maximum. 5. Pentane ................................................................................................................................................ ASTM D 1945 96 0.13 maximum. 6. C6 and higher ...................................................................................................................................... ASTM D 1945 96 0.1 maximum. 7. Oxygen ................................................................................................................................................. ASTM D 1945 96 1.0 maximum. 8. Inert gases ( sum of CO2 and N2) ........................................................................................................ ASTM D 1945 96 5.1 maximum. 1All ASTM standards are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. ( b) At ambient conditions, the fuel must have a distinctive odor detectable down to a concentration in air of not more than one­ fifth of the lower flammability limit. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68417 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations § 1065.220 Test fuel specifications for liquefied petroleum gas. ( a) Liquefied petroleum gas used as a test fuel must meet the specifications in the following table: TABLE 1 OF § 1065.220. TEST­ FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS Item Procedure1 Value 1. Propane .......................................................................................................................... ASTM D 2163 91 85.0 vol. percent minimum. 2. Vapor pressure at 38 ° C ................................................................................................ ASTM D 1267 02 or 2598 02 2 14 bar maximum. 3. Volatility residue ( evaporated temp., 35 ° C) .................................................................. ASTM D 1837 02 38 ° C maximum. 4. Butanes .......................................................................................................................... ASTM D 2163 91 5.0 vol. percent maximum. 5. Butenes .......................................................................................................................... ASTM D 2163 91 2.0 vol. percent maximum. 6. Pentenes and heavier .................................................................................................... ASTM D 2163 91 0.5 vol. percent maximum. 7. Propene .......................................................................................................................... ASTM D 2163 91 10.0 vol. percent maximum. 8. Residual matter ( residue on evap. of 100 ml oil stain observ.) .................................... ASTM D 2158 02 0.05 ml maximum pass. 3 9. Corrosion, copper strip ................................................................................................... ASTM D 1838 91 No. 1 maximum. 10. Sulfur ............................................................................................................................ ASTM D 2784 98 80 ppm maximum. 11. Moisture content ........................................................................................................... ASTM D 2713 91 pass. 1 All ASTM standards are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. 2 If these two test methods yield different results, use the results from ASTM D 1267 02. 3 The test fuel must not yield a persistent oil ring when you add 0.3 ml of solvent residue mixture to a filter paper in 0.1 ml increments and examine it in daylight after two minutes ( see ASTM D 2158 02). ( b) At ambient conditions, the fuel must have a distinctive odor detectable down to a concentration in air of not over one­ fifth of the lower flammability limit. § 1065.240 Lubricating oils. Lubricating oils you use to comply with this part must be commercially available and represent the oil that will be used with your in­ use engines. § 1065.250 Analytical gases. Analytical gases that you use to comply with this part must meet the accuracy and purity specifications of this section. You must record the expiration date specified by the gas supplier and may not use any gas after the expiration date. ( a) Pure gases. Use the `` pure gases'' shown in the following table: TABLE 1 OF § 1065.250. CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR PURE GASES Gas type Maximum contaminant concentrations Oxygen content Organic carbon Carbon monoxide Carbon dioxide Nitric oxide ( NO) Purified Nitrogen .......... 1 ppmC ....................... 1 ppm .......................... 400 ppm ...................... 0.1 ppm ....................... NA. Purified Oxygen ........... NA ............................... NA ............................... NA ............................... NA ............................... 99.5 100.0%. Purified Synthetic Air, or Zero­ Grade Air. 1 ppmC ....................... 1 ppm .......................... 400 ppm ...................... 0.1 ppm ....................... 18 21%. ( b) Fuel for flame ionization detectors. Use a hydrogen­ helium mixture as the fuel. Make sure the mixture contains 40 ± 2 percent hydrogen and no more than 1 ppmC of organic carbon or 400 ppm of CO2. ( c) Calibration and span gases. Apply the following provisions to calibration and span gases: ( 1) Use the following gas mixtures, as applicable, for calibrating and spanning your analytical instruments: ( i) Propane in purified synthetic air. You may ask us to allow you to use propane in purified nitrogen for high concentrations of propane. ( ii) CO in purified nitrogen. ( iii) NO and NO2 in purified nitrogen ( the amount of NO2 in this calibration gas must not exceed 5 percent of the NO content). ( iv) Oxygen in purified nitrogen. ( v) CO2 in purified nitrogen. ( vi) Methane in purified synthetic air. ( 2) The calibration gases in paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section must be traceable to within one percent of NIST gas standards or other gas standards we have approved. Span gases in paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section must be accurate to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68418 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations within two percent of true concentration, where true concentration refers to NIST gas standards, or other gas standards we have approved. Record concentrations of calibration gas as volume percent or volume ppm. ( 3) You may use gases for species other than those in paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section ( such as methanol in air gases used to determine response factors), as long as they meet the following criteria: ( i) They are traceable to within ± 2 percent of NIST gas standards or other standards we have approved. ( ii) They remain within ± 2 percent of the labeled concentration. Show this by measuring quarterly with a precision of ± 2 percent ( two standard deviations) or by using another method we approve. You may take multiple measurements. If the true concentration of the gas changes by more than two percent, but less than ten percent, you may relabel the gas with the new concentration. ( 4) You may generate calibration and span gases using precision blending devices ( gas dividers) to dilute gases with purified nitrogen or with purified synthetic air. Make sure the mixing device produces a concentration of blended calibration gases that is accurate to within ± 1.5 percent. To do so, you must know the concentration of primary gases used for blending to an accuracy of at least ± 1 percent, traceable to NIST gas standards or other gas standards we have approved. For each calibration incorporating a blending device, verify the blending accuracy between 15 and 50 percent of full scale. You may optionally check the blending device with an instrument that is linear by nature ( for example, using NO gas with a CLD). Adjust the instrument's span value with the span gas connected directly to it. Check the blending device at the used settings to ensure that the difference between nominal values and measured concentrations at each point stays within ± 0.5 percent of the nominal value. ( d) Oxygen interference gases. Gases to check oxygen interference are mixtures of oxygen, nitrogen, and propane. The oxygen concentration must be 20 22 percent and the propane concentration must be 50 90 percent of the maximum value in the most typically used FID range. Independently measure the concentration of total hydrocarbons plus impurities by chromatographic analysis or by dynamic blending. Subpart D Analyzer and Equipment Calibrations § 1065.301 Overview. Calibrate all analyzers and equipment at least annually, but make the actual frequency consistent with good engineering judgment. We may establish other guidelines as appropriate. Calibrate following specifications in one of three sources: ( a) Recommendations from the manufacturer of the analyzers or equipment. ( b) 40 CFR part 86, subpart F or subpart N. ( c) 40 CFR part 90, subparts D and E, as applicable. § 1065.305 International calibration standards. ( a) You may ask to use international standards for calibration. ( b) You need not ask for approval to use standards that have been shown to be traceable to NIST standards. § 1065.310 CVS calibration. [ Reserved] § 1065.315 Torque calibration. You must use one of two techniques to calibrate torque: the lever­ arm deadweight or the transfer technique. You may use other techniques if you show they are equally accurate. The NIST `` true value'' torque is defined as the torque calculated by taking the product of an NIST traceable weight or force and a sufficiently accurate horizontal distance along a lever arm, corrected for the lever arm's hanging torque. ( a) The lever­ arm dead­ weight technique involves placing known weights at a known horizontal distance from the torque­ measuring device's center of rotation. You need two types of equipment: ( 1) Calibration weights. This technique requires at least six calibration weights for each range of torque­ measuring device used. Equally space the weights and make sure each one is traceable to NIST weights. You also may use weights certified by a U. S. state government's bureau of weights and measures. If your laboratory is outside the U. S., see § 1065.305 for information about using non­ NIST standards. You may account for effects of changes in gravitational constant at the test site. ( 2) Lever arm. This technique also requires a lever arm at least 20 inches long. Make sure the horizontal distance from the torque­ measurement device's centerline to the point where you apply the weight is accurate to within ± 0.10 inches. You must balance the arm or know its hanging torque to within ± 0.1 ft­ lbs. ( b) The transfer technique involves calibrating a master load cell ( dynamometer case load cell). You may calibrate the master load cell with known calibration weights at known horizontal distances. Or you may use a hydraulically actuated, precalibrated, master load cell and then transfer this calibration to the device that measures the flywheel torque. The transfer technique involves three main steps: ( 1) Precalibrate a master load cell or calibrate it following paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. Use known weights traceable to NIST with the lever arms specified in paragraph ( b)( 2) of this section. Run or vibrate the dynamometer during this calibration to reduce static hysteresis. ( 2) Use lever arms at least 20 inches long. The horizontal distances from the master load cell's centerline to the dynamometer's centerline and to the point where you apply weight or force must be accurate to within ± 0.10 inches. Balance the arms or know their net hanging torque to within ± 0.1 ft­ lbs. ( 3) Transfer calibration from the case or master load cell to the torquemeasuring device with the dynamometer operating at a constant speed. Calibrate the torquemeasurement device's readout to the master load cell's torque readout at a minimum of six loads spaced about equally across the full useful ranges of both measurement devices. ( Good engineering practice requires that both devices have about the same useful ranges of torque measurement.) Transfer the calibration so it meets the accuracy requirements in § 1065.105( a)( 2) for readouts from the torque­ measurement device. Subpart E Engine Selection, Preparation, and Service Accumulation § 1065.401 Selecting a test engine. While all engine configurations within a certified engine family must comply with the applicable standards in the standard­ setting part, you are not required to test each configuration for certification. ( a) Select for testing according to the following guidance the engine configuration within the engine family that is most likely to exceed an emission standard: ( 1) Test the engine that we specify, whether we do this through general guidance or give you specific instructions. ( 2) If we do not tell you which engine to test, follow any instructions in the standard­ setting part. ( 3) If we do not tell you which engine to test and the standard­ setting part does VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68419 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations not include specifications for selecting test engines, use good engineering judgment to select the engine configuration within the engine family that is most likely to exceed an emission standard. ( b) In the absence of other information, the following characteristics are appropriate to consider when selecting the engine to test: ( 1) Maximum fueling rates. ( 2) Maximum in­ use engine speed ( governed or ungoverned, as applicable). ( 3) Highest sales volume. ( c) We may select any engine configuration within the engine family for our testing. § 1065.405 Preparing and servicing a test engine. ( a) If you are testing an emission­ data engine for certification, make sure you have built it to represent production engines. ( b) Run the test engine, with all emission­ control systems operating, long enough to stabilize emission levels. If you accumulate 50 hours of operation, you may consider emission levels stable without measurement. ( c) Do not service the test engine before you stabilize emission levels, unless we approve other maintenance in advance. This prohibition does not apply to your recommended oil and filter changes for newly produced engines, or to idle­ speed adjustments. ( d) Select engine operation for accumulating operating hours on your test engines to represent normal in­ use operation for the engine family. ( e) If you need more than 50 hours to stabilize emission levels, record your reasons and the method you use to do this. Give us these records if we ask for them. § 1065.410 Service limits for stabilized test engines. ( a) After you stabilize the test engine's emission levels, you may do scheduled maintenance, other than during emission testing, as the standard­ setting part specifies. ( b) You may not do any unscheduled maintenance to the test engine or its emission­ control system or fuel system without our advance approval. Unscheduled maintenance includes adjusting, repairing, removing, disassembling, cleaning, or replacing the test engine. We may approve routine maintenance that is not scheduled such as maintaining the proper oil level. ( 1) We may approve other unscheduled maintenance if all of the following occur: ( i) You determine that a part failure or system malfunction ( or the associated repair) does not make the engine unrepresentative of production engines in the field and does not require anyone to access the combustion chamber. ( ii) Something clearly malfunctions ( such as persistent misfire, engine stall, overheating, fluid leakage, or loss of oil pressure) and needs maintenance or repair. ( iii) You give us a chance to verify the extent of the malfunction before you do the maintenance. ( 2) If we determine that a part's failure or a system's malfunction ( or the associated repair) has made the engine unrepresentative of production engines, you may no longer use it as a test engine. ( 3) You may not do unscheduled maintenance based on emission measurements from the test engine. ( 4) Unless we approve otherwise in advance, you may not use equipment, instruments, or tools to identify bad engine components unless you specify they should be used for scheduled maintenance on production engines. In this case, if they are not generally available, you must also make them available at dealerships and other service outlets. ( c) If you do maintenance that might affect emissions, you must completely test the engine for emissions before and after the maintenance, unless we waive this requirement. ( d) If your test engine has a major mechanical failure that requires you to take it apart, you may no longer use it as a test engine. § 1065.415 Durability demonstration. If the standard­ setting part requires durability testing, you must accumulate service in a way that represents how you expect the engine to operate in use. You may accumulate service hours using an accelerated schedule, such as through continuous operation. ( a) Maintenance. The following limits apply to the maintenance that we allow you to do on test engine: ( 1) You may perform scheduled maintenance that you recommend to operators, but only if it is consistent with the standard­ setting part's restrictions. ( 2) You may perform additional maintenance only if we approve it in advance, as specified in § 1065.410( b). ( 3) If your test engine has a major mechanical failure that requires you to take it apart, you may no longer use it as a test engine. ( b) Emission measurements. You must measure emissions following two main requirements: ( 1) Perform emission tests to determine deterioration factors consistent with good engineering judgment. Evenly space any tests between the first and last test points throughout the durability period. ( 2) Perform emission tests following the provisions of this part and the standard­ setting part. Subpart F Running an Emission Test § 1065.501 Overview of the engine dynamometer test procedures. ( a) The engine dynamometer test procedure measures brake­ specific emissions of hydrocarbons ( total and nonmethane, as applicable), carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen. To perform this test procedure, you first dilute exhaust emissions with ambient air and collect a continuous proportional sample for analysis, then analyze the composite samples ( either in bags after the test or continuously during the test). The general test procedure consists of a test cycle made of one or more segments ( check the standard­ setting part for specific cycles): ( 1) Either a cold­ start cycle ( where you measure emissions) or a warm­ up cycle ( where you do not measure emissions). ( 2) A hot­ start transient test ( some test cycles may omit engine starting from the `` hot­ start'' cycle). ( 3) A steady­ state test. ( b) Measure power using the dynamometer's feedback signals for torque and speed. The power measurement produces a brake kilowatthour value that allows you to calculate brake­ specific emissions ( see Subpart G of this part). ( c) Prepare engines for testing consistent with § 1065.10( c)( 1) and according to the following provisions: ( 1) When you test an engine or operate it for service accumulation, use the complete engine with all emissioncontrol devices installed and functioning. ( 2) Install the fan for any air­ cooled engine ( if applicable). ( 3) You may install accessories such as an oil cooler, alternators, and air compressors or simulate their loading if they are typical of in­ use operation. Apply this loading during all testing operations, including mapping. ( 4) You may install a production­ type starter on the engine. ( 5) Cool the engine in a way that will maintain its operating temperatures including the intake air, oil, water temperatures about the same as they would be during normal operation. You may use auxiliary fans if necessary. You may use rust inhibitors and lubrication additives, up to the levels that the additive manufacturer recommends. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68420 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations You may also use antifreeze mixtures and other coolants typical of those approved for use by the manufacturer. ( 6) Use representative exhaust and airintake systems. Make sure the exhaust restriction is 80 to 100 percent of the recommended maximum specified exhaust restriction and the air inlet restriction is between that of a clean filter and the maximum restriction specification. As the manufacturer, you are liable for emission compliance from the minimum in­ use restrictions to the maximum restrictions you specify for that particular engine. § 1065.510 Engine mapping procedures. ( a) Torque map. Map your engine's torque while it is mounted on the dynamometer. Use the torque curve resulting from the mapping to convert the normalized torque values in the engine cycle to actual torque values for the test cycle. Make sure the speed ranges at least from the warm no­ load idle speed to 105 percent of the maximum test speed. Because you determine the maximum test speed from the torque map, you may have to perform a preliminary torque map to determine the full mapping range. You may perform this preliminary torque map while the engine warms up. To map the engine, do the following things in sequence: ( 1) Warm up the engine so oil and water temperatures ( on an absolute scale such as the Kelvin scale) vary by less than two percent for two minutes; or until the thermostat opens if the enginecoolant system includes a thermostat. ( 2) Operate the engine at the warm noload idle speed. ( 3) Fully open the throttle. ( 4) While maintaining wide­ open throttle and full­ load, keep the engine at minimum speed for at least 15 seconds. Record the average torque during the last 5 seconds. ( 5) In increments of 100 ± 20 rpm, determine the maximum torque curve for the full speed range. Hold each test point for 15 seconds and record the average torque over the last 5 seconds. You may use larger increments for engines with maximum test speed over 4000 rpm, as long as you include at least 40 points and space them evenly. ( 6) Fit all data points recorded with a cubic spline, Akima, or other technique we approve in advance. The resultant curve must be accurate to within ± 1.0 ftlbs of all recorded engine torques. ( b) Torque map with continual engine speed sweep. In place of paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( a)( 4) of this section, you may do a continual sweep of engine speed. While operating at wide­ open throttle, increase the engine speed at an average rate of 8 ± 1 rpm/ sec over the full speed range. You may use higher sweeping rates for naturally­ aspirated engines, in accordance with good engineering judgment. Record speed and torque points at a rate of at least one point per second. Connect all points generated under this approach by linear interpolation. ( c) Alternate mapping. You may use other mapping techniques if you believe those in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section are unsafe or unrepresentative for any engine or engine family. These alternate techniques must satisfy the intent of the specified mapping procedures to determine the maximum available torque at all engine speeds that occur during the test cycles. Report deviations from this section's mapping techniques for reasons of safety or representativeness. In no case, however, may you use descending continual sweeps of engine speed for governed or turbocharged engines. ( d) Replicate tests. You need not map an engine before every test, but you do need to remap the engine in any of the following situations: ( 1) Good engineering judgment determines that an unreasonable amount of time has passed since the last map. ( 2) The barometric pressure before the test begins has changed more than 25 mm Hg from the average barometric pressure observed during the map. ( 3) The engine has undergone physical changes or recalibration that might affect its performance. ( e) Power map. Where applicable, generate a power map using the procedures this section specifies for torque maps. You may generate the power map directly or convert the torque map to a power map using engine speeds. The power map is also called a lug curve. ( f) Cycles based only on torque/ power at maximum test speed. If the applicable test cycle for your engine does not require map information for engine speeds other than the maximum test speed, you may make the following simplifications: ( 1) You need not perform the entire torque or power map, as long as you map the engines for speeds between 75 and 105 percent of the maximum test speed. ( 2) You need not remap an engine according to paragraph ( d) of this section. You need only verify the maximum torque or power at maximum test speed. § 1065.515 Test cycle generation. ( a) Denormalizing test cycles. The standard­ setting parts establish the applicable test cycles consisting of second­ by­ second specifications for normalized torque and speed for transient cycles, or modal specifications for normalized torque and speed ( or power and speed) for steady­ state cycles. You must denormalize these values to get actual torque and speed for your engine. ( 1) Torque is normalized to a maximum­ torque value. Check the standard­ setting part to see if it is normalized based on the maximum torque at the given speed or based on the maximum torque for all speeds. To denormalize the torque values in the cycle, use the engine's maximum­ torque point or its torque map ( § 1065.510 describes how to generate the torque map). ( 2) Power is normalized to a maximum­ power value. Check the standard­ setting part to see if it is normalized based on the maximum power at the given speed or based on the maximum power for all speeds. To denormalize the power values in the cycle, use the engine's maximum­ power point or its power map ( § 1065.510 describes how to generate the power map). ( 3) To denormalize speed, use the following equation: Actual engine speed = ( 0.01) × (% engine speed) × ( Maximum test speed warm idle speed) + warm idle speed ( 4) Paragraph ( d) of this section describes how to calculate maximum test speed. ( b) Example of denormalizing a test points. For an engine with maximum test speed of 3800 rpm and warm idle speed of 600 rpm, denormalize the following test point: percent engine speed = 43, percent torque = 82. ( 1) Calculate actual engine speed. The following equation applies for this example: Actual engine speed = ( 0.01) × ( 43) × ( 3800 ¥ 600) + 600 = 1976 rpm. ( 2) Determine actual torque. Determine the maximum observed torque at 1976 rpm from the maximum torque curve. Then multiply this value ( for example, 358 ft­ lbs.) by 0.82. The resulting actual torque is 294 ft­ lbs. ( c) Cold­ start enhancement devices. If an engine has a properly operating automatic enhancement device for cold starts, let it override the zero­ percent speed specified in the test cycles. ( d) Maximum test speed. For constant­ speed engines, maximum test speed is the same as the engine's maximum operating speed in use. Maximum test speed for variable­ speed engines occurs on the lug curve at the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68421 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations point farthest from the origin on a plot of power vs. speed. To find this speed, follow three main steps: ( 1) Generate the lug curve. Before testing an engine for emissions, generate data points for maximum measured brake power with varying engine speed ( see § 1065.510). These data points form the lug curve. ( 2) Normalize the lug curve. To normalize the lug curve, do three things: ( i) Identify the point ( power and speed) on the lug curve where maximum power occurs. ( ii) Normalize the power values of the lug curve divide them by the maximum power and multiply the resulting values by 100. ( iii) Normalize the engine speed values of the lug curve divide them by the speed at which maximum power occurs and multiply the resulting values by 100. ( 3) Determine maximum test speed. Calculate the maximum test speed from the following speed­ factor analysis: ( i) For a given power­ speed point, the speed factor is the normalized distance to the power­ speed point from the zeropower zero­ speed point. Compute the speed factor's value: Speed factor = ( power) ( speed) 2 2 + ( ii) Determine the maximum value of speed factors for all the power­ speed data points on the lug curve. Maximum test speed is the speed at which the speed factor's maximum value occurs. Note that this maximum test speed is the 100­ percent speed point for normalized transient duty cycles. ( e) Intermediate test speed. Determine intermediate test speed with the following provisions: ( 1) If peak torque speed is 60 to 75 percent of the maximum test speed, the intermediate speed point is at that same speed. ( 2) If peak torque speed is less than 60 percent of the maximum test speed, the intermediate speed point is at 60 percent of maximum test speed. ( 3) If peak torque speed is greater than 75 percent of the maximum test speed, the intermediate speed point is at 75 percent of maximum test speed. § 1065.520 Engine starting, restarting, and shutdown. Unless the standard­ setting part specifies otherwise, follow the steps in this section to start and shut down the test engine: ( a) Engine starting. Start the engine according to the manufacturer's recommended starting procedure in the owner's manual, using either a production starter motor or the dynamometer. Use the dynamometer to crank ( or motor) the engine at the typical in­ use cranking speed with a fully charged battery ( nominal speed ± 10 percent), accelerating the engine to cranking speed in the same time it would take with a starter motor ( nominal ± 0.5 seconds). Stop motoring by the dynamometer within one second of starting the engine. The cycle's freeidle period begins when you determine that the engine has started. ( 1) If the engine does not start after 15 seconds of cranking, stop cranking and determine the reason it failed to start. While diagnosing the problem, turn off the device that measures gas flow ( or revolution counter) on the constantvolume sampler ( and all integrators when measuring emissions continuously). Also, turn off the constant­ volume sampler or disconnect the exhaust tube from the tailpipe. If failure to start is an operational error, reschedule the engine for testing ( this may require soaking the engine if the test requires a cold­ start). ( 2) If longer cranking times are necessary, you may use them instead of the 15­ second limit, as long as the owner's manual and the service­ repair manual describe the longer cranking times as normal. ( 3) If an engine malfunction causes a failure to start, you may correct it in less than 30 minutes and continue the test. Reactivate the sampling system at the same time cranking begins. When the engine starts, begin the timing sequence. If an engine malfunction causes a failure to start, and you cannot restart the engine, the test is void. ( b) Engine stalling. Respond to engine stalling as follows: ( 1) If the engine stalls during the warm­ up period, the initial idle period of test, or the steady­ state segment, you may restart the engine immediately using the appropriate starting procedure and continue the test. ( 2) If the engine stalls at any other time, the test is void. ( c) Engine shutdown. Shut the engine down according to the manufacturer's specifications. § 1065.525 Engine dynamometer test run. Take the following steps for each test: ( a) Prepare the engine, dynamometer, and sampling system. Change filters or other replaceable items and check for leaks as necessary. ( b) If you are using bag samples, connect evacuated sample­ collection bags to the collection system for the dilute exhaust and dilution air sample. ( c) Attach the CVS to the engine's exhaust system any time before starting the CVS. ( d) Start the CVS ( if not already started), the sample pumps, the engine cooling fans, and the data­ collection system. Before the test begins, preheat the CVS's heat exchanger ( if used) and the heated components of any continuous sampling systems to designated operating temperatures. ( e) Adjust the sample flow rates to the desired levels and set to zero the devices in the CVS that measure gas flow. The venturi design fixes the sample flow rate in a CFV CVS. ( f) Start the engine if engine starting is not part of the test cycle, as specified in the standard­ setting part. ( g) Run the test cycle specified in the standard­ setting part and collect the test data. ( h) As soon as practical after the test cycle is complete, analyze the bag samples. § 1065.530 Test cycle validation criteria. ( a) Steady­ state emission testing. Make sure your engine's speeds and loads stay within ± 2 percent of the set point during the sampling period. ( b) Transient emission testing performed by EPA. Emission tests must meet the specifications of this paragraph ( b). Otherwise, they do not comply with the test cycle requirements of the standard­ setting part, unless we determine the cause of the failure to meet these specifications is related to the engine rather than the test equipment. ( 1) Shifting feedback signals. The time lag between the feedback and referencecycle values may bias results. To reduce this effect, you may advance or delay the entire sequence of engine­ speed and torque­ feedback signals with respect to the reference sequence for speed and torque. If you shift the feedback signals, you must shift speed and torque the same amount in the same direction. ( 2) Calculating brake kilowatt­ hour emissions. Calculate brake kilowatt­ hour emissions for each pair of feedback values recorded for engine speed and torque. Also calculate the reference brake kilowatt­ hour for each pair of reference values for engine speed and torque. Calculate to five significant figures. ( 3) Performing regression­ line analysis. Perform regression analysis to calculate validation statistics as follows: ( i) Perform linear regressions of feedback value on reference value for speed, torque, and brake power on 1 Hz data after the feedback shift has occurred ( see paragraph ( b)( 1) of this section). Use the method of least squares, with the best­ fit equation having the form: y = mx + b VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 ER08NO02.015</ MATH> 68422 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Where: y = The feedback ( actual) value of speed ( rpm), torque ( ft­ lbs.), or brake power. m = Slope of the regression line. x = The reference value ( speed, torque, or brake power). b = The y­ intercept of the regression line. ( ii) Calculate the standard error of estimate ( SE) of y on x and the coefficient of determination ( r2) for each regression line. ( iii) For a valid test, make sure the feedback cycle's integrated brake kilowatt­ hour is within 5 percent of the reference cycle's integrated brake kilowatt­ hour. Also, ensure that the slope, intercept, standard error, and coefficient of determination meet the criteria in the following table ( you may delete individual points from the regression analyses, consistent with good engineering judgment): TABLE 1 OF § 1065.530. STATISTICAL CRITERIA FOR VALIDATING TEST CYCLES Speed Torque Power 1. Slope of the regression line ( m) 0.980 to 1.020 .............................. 0.880 to 1.030 .............................. 0.880 to 1.030. 2. Y intercept of the regression line ( b). b 40 rpm ................................. b 5.0 percent of maximum torque from power map. b 3.0 percent of maximum torque from power map. 3. Standard error of the estimate of Y on X ( SE). 100 rpm ........................................ 15 percent of maximum torque from power map. 10 percent of maximum power from power map. 4. Coefficient of determination ( r2) r2 0.970 ...................................... r2 0.900 ...................................... r2 0.900. ( c) Transient testing performed by manufacturers. Emission tests that meet the specifications of paragraph ( b) of this section satisfy the standard­ setting part's requirements for test cycles. You may ask to use a dynamometer that cannot meet those specifications, consistent with good engineering practice. We will approve your request as long as using the alternate dynamometer does not affect your ability to show that you comply with all applicable emission standards. Subpart G Data Analysis and Calculations § 1065.601 Overview. This subpart describes how to use the responses on the analyzers and other meters to calculate final gram per kilowatt­ hour emission rates. Note: Volume and density values used in these calculations are generally corrected to standard conditions of 20 ° C and 101.3 kPa.) § 1065.605 Required records. Retain the following information for each test: ( a) Test number. ( b) System or device tested ( brief description). ( c) Date and time of day for each part of the test schedule. ( d) Test results. ( e) Operator's name. ( f) Engine: ID number, manufacturer, model year, emission standards, engine family, basic engine description, fuel system, engine code, and idle speed, as applicable. ( g) Dynamometer: Dynamometer identification, records to verify compliance with the duty cycle requirements of the test. ( h) Gas analyzers: Analyzer bench identification, analyzer ranges, recordings of analyzer output during zero, span, and sample readings. ( i) Recorder charts: Test number, date, identification, operator's name, and identification of the measurements recorded. ( j) Test cell barometric pressure, ambient temperature, and humidity as required. ( Some test systems may require continuous measurements; others may require a single measurement, or measurements before and after the test.) ( k) Temperatures: Records to verify compliance with the ambient temperature requirements throughout the test procedure. ( l) CFV CVS: Total dilute exhaust volume ( Vmix) for each phase of the exhaust test. ( m) PDP CVS: Test measurements for calculating the total dilute exhaust volume ( Vmix), and the Vmix for each phase of the exhaust test. ( n) The humidity of the dilution air. Note: If you do not use conditioning columns, this measurement is not necessary. If you use conditioning columns and take the dilution air from the test cell, you may use the ambient humidity for this measurement. § 1065.610 Bag sample analysis. ( a) Zero the analyzers and obtain a stable zero reading. Recheck after tests. ( b) Introduce span gases and set instrument gains. To avoid errors, span and calibrate at the same flow rates used to analyze the test sample. Span gases should have concentrations equal to 75 to 100 percent of full scale. If gain has shifted significantly on the analyzers, check the calibrations. Show actual concentrations on the chart. ( c) Check zeroes; if necessary, repeat the procedure in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section. ( d) Check flow rates and pressures. ( e) Measure HC, CO, CO2, and NOX concentrations of samples. ( f) Check zero and span points. If the difference is greater than 2 percent of full scale, repeat the procedure in paragraphs ( a) through ( e) of this section. § 1065.615 Bag sample calculations. ( a) Calculate the dilution factor. The dilution factor is the ratio of the total volume of the raw exhaust to the total volume of the diluted exhaust. It is calculated as 134,000 divided by the sum of the diluted ppmC concentrations of carbon­ containing compounds in the exhaust, as follows: DF = 134,000/ ( CO2sample+ THCsample+ COsample), Where: CO2sample and COsample are expressed as ppm, and THCsample is expressed as ppmC. ( b) Calculate mass emission rates ( g/ test) for the transient segment using the general equation in paragraph ( b)( 1) of this section: ( 1) The general equation is: Emission rate = ( total dilute exhaust flow volume)( ppm)( density factor)/ 106 Mx = ( Vmix)( Ci)( fdi)/ 106 Where: Mx = Mass emission rate in g/ test segment. Vmix = Total dilute exhaust flow volume flow in m3 per test segment corrected to 20 ° C and 101.3 kPa. Ci = The concentration of species i, in ppm or ppmC, corrected for background VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68423 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations contribution according to the equation in paragraph ( b)( 2) of this section. fdi = The density factor for species i. The density factors are 576.8 g/ m3 for THC, 1913 g/ m3 for NOX, and 1164 g/ m3 for CO. ( 2) The equation to calculate Ci is: Ci = Csample Cbackground [ 1 ( 1/ DF)] Where: Csample = Concentration of species i in the diluted exhaust sample, in ppm or ppmC. Cbackground = Concentration of species i in the dilution air background sample, in ppm or ppmC. DF = Dilution factor, as calculated in paragraph ( a) of this section. ( c) Calculate total brake work ( kW hr) done during the emissions sampling period of each segment or mode. ( d) Calculate emissions in g/ kW hr by dividing the mass emission rate ( g/ test segment) by the total brake work for the test segment. ( e) Apply deterioration factors or other adjustment factors to the brakespecific emission rate in paragraph ( e) as specified in the standard­ setting part. Subpart H Particulate Measurements [ Reserved] Subpart I Testing With Oxygenated Fuels § 1065.801 Applicability. ( a) This subpart applies for testing with oxygenated fuels. Except where specified otherwise in the standardsetting part, compliance with this subpart is not required for fuels that contain less than 25 percent oxygenated compounds by volume. For example, you generally would not need to follow the requirements of this subpart for tests performed using a fuel that was 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline, but you would need to follow these requirements for tests performed using a fuel that was 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. ( b) This subpart specifies sampling procedures and calculations that are different than those used for nonoxygenated fuels. The other test procedures of this part apply for testing with oxygenated fuels. § 1065.805 Sampling system. ( a) Use the sampling procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86 for methanol and formaldehyde to measure alcohols and aldehydes in the exhaust. This requires the following: ( 1) Bubbling a sample of the exhaust through water to collect the alcohols. ( 2) Passing a sample of the exhaust through cartridges impregnated with 2,4­ dinitrophenylhydrazine to measure aldehydes. ( b) Use good engineering judgment to measure other oxygenated compounds in the exhaust. § 1065.810 Calculations. ( a) THCE emissions. ( 1) Calculate THCE emissions as the sum of the mass of the nonoxygenated hydrocarbons in the exhaust and the carbon­ equivalent mass of each measured oxygenated species in the exhaust. ( 2) Calculate carbon­ equivalent mass of each measured oxygenated species from the following equation: Carbon equivalent = 13.8756 × MOC/ MWPC Where: MOC is the mass of the oxygenated compound in the exhaust, and MWPC is the molecular weight of compound per carbon atom of compound. ( b) NMHCE emissions. Calculate NMHCE emissions as either: ( 1) The sum of the mass of the nonoxygenated nonmethane hydrocarbons in the exhaust and the carbon­ equivalent mass of each measured oxygenated species in the exhaust. ( 2) THCE minus the mass of methane in the exhaust. ( c) Sample calculation. ( 1) Assume the following emissions for a test: 40.00 grams of nonoxygenated hydrocarbons, 100.00 grams of ethanol, and 10.00 grams of acetaldehyde, and 1.00 gram of formaldehyde. ( 2) The carbon­ equivalent of the masses of oxygenated compounds are: ( i) 13.8756 × 100.00/( 46.068/ 2) = 60.24 grams of ethanol. ( ii) 13.8756 × 10.00/( 44.052/ 2) = 6.30 grams of acetaldehyde. ( iii) 13.8756 × 1.00/( 30.026) = 0.46 grams of formaldehyde. ( 3) THCE = 40.00 + 60.24 + 6.30 + 0.46 = 107.00 grams per test. Subpart J Field Testing § 1065.901 Applicability. ( a) The test procedures in this subpart measure brake­ specific emissions from engines while they remain installed in vehicles or equipment in the field. ( b) These test procedures apply to your engines as specified in the standard­ setting part. For example, part 1048 of this chapter specifies emission standard to be used for in­ use tests conducted in accordance with the provisions of this part. Unless this subpart is specifically mentioned in the standard­ setting part, compliance with the provisions of this subpart is not required. § 1065.905 General provisions. ( a) Unless the standard­ setting part specifies deviations from the provisions of this subpart, testing conducted under this subpart must conform to all of the provisions of this subpart. ( b) Testing conducted under this subpart may include any normal in­ use operation of the engine. § 1065.910 Measurement accuracy and precision. ( a) Measurement systems used for inuse testing must be accurate to within ± 5 percent compared to engine dynamometer testing conducted according to the test procedures of this part that are applicable for your engine. These systems must also have a precision of ± 5 percent or better. Determine accuracy and precision of an in­ use system by simultaneously measuring emissions using the enginedynamometer test procedures of this part and the in­ use system. To have a statistically valid sample, measure emissions during at least 3 tests each for at least 3 different engines. You must conduct these verification tests using the test cycle specified in the standardsetting part, unless we approve a different test cycle. ( 1) A system must meet the following conditions to be considered sufficiently accurate: ( i) The correlation coefficient ( r) for a least­ squares linear fit that includes the origin must be 0.95 or higher. ( ii) The average ratio ( for all tests) of the emission rate from the in­ use system divided by the emission rate from the dynamometer procedure must be 0.97 to 1.05. ( 2) For a system to be considered sufficiently precise, the average coefficient of variance for all engines must be 5 percent or less for each pollutant. Note: Increasing the length of the sampling period may be an effective way to improve precision. ( b) Measurement systems that conform to the provisions of § § 1065.915 through 1065.950 are considered to be in compliance with the accuracy and precision requirements of paragraph ( a) of this section. § 1065.915 Equipment specifications for SI engines. This section describes equipment you may use to measure in­ use emissions. You may use other equipment and measurement systems that conform to the requirements of § § 1065.905 and 1065.910. ( a) The primary components of the inuse measurement system are a mass air flow sensor, a portable FID, a zirconia­ VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68424 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations based NOX sensor, a zirconia­ based air/ fuel ratio sensor, and a portable NDIR analyzer. ( 1) The mass air flow sensor must meet the requirements of § 1065.930. ( 2) The portable FID must meet the requirements of § 1065.935. ( 3) The NOX and air/ fuel sensors must meet the requirements of § 1065.940 ( 4) The NDIR analyzer must meet the requirements of § 1065.945. ( b) You must measure the following parameters continuously at a rate of 3 Hz or higher and store the data electronically: ( 1) THC, NOX, CO concentrations. ( 2) Mass air­ fuel ratio. ( 3) Intake air flow rate. ( 4) Engine speed. ( 5) Parameters used to calculate torque. ( c) You must minimize sample line length for any analyzers that require a physical sample be drawn from the exhaust to the analyzer ( i. e., THC and CO analyzers). You must draw these samples at a constant flow rate. In no case may you use any combination of sample line length and sample flow rate that would require more than 10 seconds for the analyzer to reach 90 percent of its final response after a step change to the input concentration at the opening of the sample probe. For residence time delays between 1 and 10 seconds, you must correct the measurements to be consistent with the data for engine speed, torque, and air intake. You may also correct other measurements with less than delays less than 1 second. ( d) You may insert the sample probes and sensors into the exhaust pipe, or mount them in an exhaust extension that is connected to the exhaust pipe with negligible leaking. Place the sample probes and sensors close enough to the center line of the exhaust pipe to minimize boundary layer effects from the wall. § 1065.920 Equipment setup and test run for SI engines. This section describes how to set up the equipment specified in § 1065.915, and how to use it to measure in­ use emissions from SI engines. ( a) Inspect the vehicle or equipment to determine whether it meets any applicable requirements of the standardsetting part. This may include requirements related to model year, accumulated hours of operation, fuel specifications, maintenance history, engine temperatures, etc. ( b) Perform calibrations as specified in this subpart. In the field, this generally will require only zeroing and spanning the instruments. However, each instrument must have been fully calibrated according to the instrument manufacturer's specifications. Nonlinear calibrations generated previously from the full calibration may be used after zeroing and spanning the instruments. Spanning can be performed using a single gas bottle, consistent with good engineering practice, and provided that stability of the span mixture has been demonstrated. ( c) Connect the data recorder ( with any necessary signal interpreters or converters) to the engine's electronic control module. ( d) Disconnect the air intake system, as necessary, to attach the mass air flow sensor. Reconnect the system after attaching the mass air flow sensor. ( e) Attach the sample extension to the exhaust outlet. ( f) Turn on instruments and allow them to warm up as necessary. ( g) Begin sampling. You do not need to begin recording the data at this point. ( h) Begin operating the vehicle or equipment in a normal manner. Note: We may require you to operate the vehicle or equipment in a specific manner. ( i) Begin recording engine speed, engine torque ( or surrogate), intake air flow, emissions data ( THC, NOX, CO, air/ fuel ratio), and time. This time marks the beginning of the sampling period. ( j) Continue recording data and operating the vehicle or equipment in a normal manner until the end of the sampling period. The length of the sampling period is based on good engineering practice, the precision requirements of § 1065.910, and applicable limits in the standard­ setting part. ( k) You may measure background concentrations and correct measured emission values accordingly. However, if any background corrections are equivalent to 5 percent or more of the maximum emissions allowed by the applicable standard, the test shall be voided and repeated in an environment with lower background concentrations. § 1065.925 Calculations. ( a) [ Reserved] ( b) Convert emission analyzer data to instantaneous concentrations in ppm ( ppmC for the FID). ( c) Calculate instantaneous exhaust volumetric flow rates in standard m3/ hr ( volume and density values used in these calculations are corrected to standard conditions of 20 ° C and 101.3 kPa.). Calculate exhaust volumetric flow rate from the following equation: Exhaust volumetric flow rate = ( intake air mass flow rate)( 1+ mass fuel/ air ratio)/( density of exhaust) ( 1) If you do not know the instantaneous density of the exhaust, use the minimum density of the exhaust that occurs over the course of the test, corrected to standard conditions. ( 2) For gasoline­ fueled engines designed to be operated at stoichiometric fuel/ air ratios, you may assume that the density of the exhaust is 1202 g/ m3 at standard conditions of 20 ° C and 101.3 kPa. ( 3) For LPG­ fueled engines designed to be operated at stoichiometric fuel/ air ratios, you may assume that the density of the exhaust is 1175 g/ m3 at standard conditions of 20 ° C and 101.3 kPa. ( 4) For CNG­ fueled engines designed to be operated at stoichiometric fuel/ air ratios, you may assume that the density of the exhaust is 1149 g/ m3 at standard conditions of 20 ° C and 101.3 kPa. ( d) Calculate instantaneous emission rates ( g/ hr) using the following general equation: Emission rate = ( exhaust volumetric flow rate)( ppm)( density factor)/ 106 Where: Density factors are 576.8 g/ m3 for THC, 1913 g/ m3 for NOX, 1164 g/ m3 for CO. ( e) Integrate instantaneous emission rates for the entire specified sample period. ( f) Determine instantaneous brake torque and speed. ( g) Calculate instantaneous brake power. ( h) Integrate instantaneous brake power for the entire specified sample period. ( i) Divide the integrated emission rates by the integrated brake power. These are your final brake­ specific emission rates. § 1065.930 Specifications for mass air flow sensors. ( a) Measure the intake air flow using the engine's mass air flow sensor. If the engine is not equipped with a mass air flow sensor, you need to install one. ( b) The sensor design must have an accuracy and precision of ± 5 percent under steady­ state laboratory conditions. ( c) The sensor must reach at least 90 percent of its final response within 0.3 seconds after any step change to the flow rate greater than or equal 80 percent of full scale. ( d) Calibrate the sensor according to good engineering practice. Verify for each engine before testing that the sensor accurately reads the idle intake air flow rate based on measured manifold temperature ( TM) and pressure PM). Use the following equation: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68425 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Intake air flow = ( displacement)( rpm)( volumetric efficiency)( PM/ 101.3 kPa)( 293.15 K/ TM) § 1065.935 Specifications for THC analyzers. ( a) Use a flame ionization detector ( FID). ( b) The analyzer must have an accuracy and precision of ± 2 percent of point or better under steady­ state laboratory conditions. ( c) The analyzer must reach at least 90 percent of its final response within 1.0 second after any step change to the input concentration greater than or equal 80 percent of full scale. ( d) Zero and span the analyzer daily during testing. Calibrate it according to the analyzer manufacturer's specifications. § 1065.940 Specifications for NOX and air/ fuel sensors. ( a) Use stabilized zirconia­ based sensors. ( b) The sensors must have an accuracy and precision of ± 2 percent of point or better under steady­ state laboratory conditions. ( c) The sensors must reach at least 90 percent of its final response within 1.0 second after any step change to the input concentration greater than or equal 80 percent of full scale. ( d) The sensors must be zeroed and spanned daily during testing, and must be calibrated according to the sensor manufacturer's specifications. § 1065.945 Specifications for CO analyzers. ( a) Use a non­ dispersive infrared ( NDIR) detector that is compensated for CO2 and water interference. ( b) The analyzer must have an accuracy and precision of ± 2 percent of point or better under steady­ state laboratory conditions. ( c) The analyzer must reach at least 90 percent of its final response within 5.0 second after any step change to the input concentration greater than or equal 80 percent of full scale. ( d) The analyzer must be zeroed and spanned daily during testing, and must be calibrated according to the analyzer manufacturer's specifications. § 1065.950 Specifications for speed and torque measurement. ( a) Determine torque from a previously determined relationship of torque and engine speed, throttle position, and/ or manifold absolute pressure. Torque estimates must be between 85 percent and 105 percent of the true value. You can demonstrate compliance with this accuracy requirement using steady­ state laboratory data. ( b) Measure speed from the engine's electronic control module. Speed estimates must be within ± 5 rpm of the true value. Subpart K Definitions and Other Reference Information § 1065.1001 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this part. The definitions apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the meaning the Act gives to them. The definitions follow: Accuracy means the maximum difference between a measured or calculated value and the true value, where the true value is determined by NIST. Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Adjustable parameter means any device, system, or element of design that someone can adjust ( including those which are difficult to access) and that, if adjusted, may affect emissions or engine performance during emission testing or normal in­ use operation. Aftertreatment means relating to any system, component, or technology mounted downstream of the exhaust valve or exhaust port whose design function is to reduce exhaust emissions. Auxiliary emission­ control device means any element of design that senses temperature, engine speed, motive speed, transmission gear, atmospheric pressure, manifold pressure or vacuum, or any other parameter to activate, modulate, delay, or deactivate the operation of any part of the emissioncontrol system. This also includes any other feature that causes in­ use emissions to be higher than those measured under test conditions, except as we allow under this part. Brake power has the meaning given in the standard­ setting part. If it is not defined in the standard­ setting part, brake power means the usable power output of the engine not including power required to operate fuel pumps, oil pumps, or coolant pumps. Calibration means the set of specifications and tolerances specific to a particular design, version, or application of a component or assembly capable of functionally describing its operation over its working range. Certification means obtaining a certificate of conformity for an engine family that complies with the emission standards and requirements in this part. Compression­ ignition means relating to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion engine that is not a sparkignition engine. Constant­ speed engine means an engine governed to operate only at its rated speed. Designated Officer means the Manager, Engine Programs Group ( 6405 J), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. Emission­ control system means any device, system, or element of design that controls or reduces the regulated emissions from an engine. Emission­ data engine means an engine that is tested for certification. Emission­ related maintenance means maintenance that substantially affects emissions or is likely to substantially affect emissions deterioration. Engine means an engine to which this part applies. Engine­ based means having emission standards related to measurements using an engine dynamometer, in units of grams of pollutant per kilowatt­ hour. Engine family means a group of engines with similar emission characteristics, as specified in the standard­ setting part. Equipment­ based or vehicle­ based means relating to programs that require that a piece of equipment of vehicle be certified, rather than only the engine. Fuel system means all components involved in transporting, metering, and mixing the fuel from the fuel tank to the combustion chamber( s), including the fuel tank, fuel tank cap, fuel pump, fuel filters, fuel lines, carburetor or fuelinjection components, and all fuelsystem vents. Fuel type means a general category of fuels such as gasoline or LPG. There can be multiple grades within a single type of fuel, such as summer­ grade gasoline and winter­ grade gasoline. Good engineering judgment has the meaning we give it in § 1068.5 of this chapter. Identification number means a unique specification ( for example, model number/ serial number combination) that allows someone to distinguish a particular engine from other similar engines. Idle speed means the lowest engine speed with zero load. Note: Warm idle speed is the idle speed of a warmed­ up engine. Manufacturer has the meaning given in section 216( 1) of the Act. In general, this term includes any person who manufactures an engine for sale in the United States or otherwise introduces a new engine into commerce in the United States. This includes importers that import engines for resale. Maximum test torque means: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68426 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 1) For throttled engines, the torque output observed at wide­ open throttle at a given speed. ( 2) For non­ throttled engines, the torque output observed with the maximum fueling rate possible at a given speed. Nonmethane hydrocarbons means the sum of all hydrocarbon species measured by a FID except methane, expressed with an assumed mass 13.876 grams per mole of carbon atoms. Nonroad means relating to nonroad engines. Nonroad engine has the meaning given in § 89.2 of this chapter. In general this means all internal combustion engines except motor vehicle engines, stationary engines, or engines used solely for competition. Oxides of nitrogen means compounds containing only nitrogen and oxygen. Oxides of nitrogen are expressed quantitatively as if the NO is in the form of NO2 ( assume a molecular weight for all oxides of nitrogen equivalent to that of NO2). This correction is included in the equations specified for calculating NOX emissions. Oxygenated fuel means a fuel that is comprised of oxygen­ containing compound, such as ethanol or methanol. Generally, testing engines that use oxygenated fuels requires the use of the sampling methods in subpart I of this part. However, you should read the standard­ setting part and subpart I of this part to determine which sampling methods to use. Precision means two times the coefficient of variance of multiple measurements, except where specified otherwise. Revoking a certificate of conformity means discontinuing the certificate for an engine family. If we revoke a certificate, you must apply for a new certificate before continuing to introduce into commerce the affected engines. This does not apply to engines you no longer possess. Scheduled maintenance means maintenance ( i. e., adjusting, repairing, removing, disassembling, cleaning, or replacing components or systems) that is periodically needed to keep a part from failing or malfunctioning. It also may mean actions you expect are necessary to correct an overt indication of failure or malfunction for which periodic maintenance is not appropriate. Span means to adjust an instrument so that it gives a proper response to a calibration standard that represents between 75 and 100 percent of the maximum value in the instrument range ( e. g. a span gas). Spark­ ignition means relating to a gasoline­ fueled engine or other engines with a spark plug ( or other sparking device) and with operating characteristics significantly similar to the theoretical Otto combustion cycle. Spark­ ignition engines usually use a throttle to regulate intake air flow to control power during normal operation. Standard­ setting part means the part in the Code of Federal Regulations that defines emission standards for a particular engine ( see § 1065.1( a)). Stoichiometry means the proportion of a mixture of air and fuel such that the fuel is fully oxidized with no remaining oxygen. For example, stoichiometric combustion in gasoline engines typically occurs at an air­ fuel mass ratio of about 14.7. Suspending a certificate of conformity means temporarily discontinuing the certificate for an engine family. If we suspend a certificate, you may not sell engines from that engine family unless we reinstate the certificate or approve a new one. Test engine means an engine in a test sample. Test sample means the collection of engines selected from the population of an engine family for emission testing. Total Hydrocarbon ( THC) means the sum of all hydrocarbon species measured by an FID, expressed with an assumed mass 13.876 grams per mole of carbon atoms. Total Hydrocarbon Equivalent means the sum of the carbon mass contributions of non­ oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and aldehydes, or other organic compounds that are measured separately as contained in a gas sample, expressed as petroleumfueled engine hydrocarbons. The hydrogen­ to­ carbon ratio of the equivalent hydrocarbon is 1.85: 1. United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Wide­ open throttle means maximum throttle opening for throttled engines. Unless this is specified at a given speed, it refers to maximum throttle opening at maximum speed. For electronically controlled or other engines with multiple possible fueling rates, wideopen throttle also means the maximum fueling rate at maximum throttle opening under test conditions. Zero means to adjust an instrument so that it gives a proper response to a blank calibration standard ( e. g. zero­ grade air). § 1065.1005 Symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations. The following symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations apply to this part: ° degrees. inches. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials. C Celsius. cc cubic centimeters. CFR Code of Federal Regulations. CFV critical­ flow venturi. CI compression­ ignition. CLD chemiluminescent detector. CO carbon monoxide. CO2 carbon dioxide. CVS constant­ volume sampler. DF deterioration factor. F Fahrenheit. EFC electronic flow control. EPA Environmental Protection Agency. ft feet. FID flame ionization detector. g/ kW­ hr grams per kilowatt­ hour. g/ liter grams per liter. g/ m3 grams per cubic meter. Hz hertz. IBP initial boiling point. ISO International Organization for Standardization. kPa kilopascal. lbs. pounds. LPG liquefied petroleum gas. m meters. ml milliliters. mm Hg millimeters of mercury. NDIR nondispersive infrared. NIST National Institute for Standards and Testing. NMHC nonmethane hydrocarbons. NMHCE nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent. NO nitric oxide. NO2 nitrogen dioxide. NOX oxides of nitrogen ( NO and NO2). O2 oxygen. PDP positive­ displacement pump. ppm parts per million. ppmC parts per million carbon. RMS root­ mean square. rpm revolutions per minute. sec seconds. SI spark­ ignition. THC total hydrocarbon. THCE total hydrocarbon equivalent. U. S. C. United States Code. § 1065.1010 Reference materials. We have incorporated by reference the documents listed in this section. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference as prescribed in 5 U. S. C. 552( a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U. S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460 or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol St., NW., 7th Floor, Suite 700, Washington, DC. ( a) ASTM material. Table 1 of § 1065.1010 lists material from the American Society for Testing and VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68427 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Materials that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the sections of this part where we reference it. Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Table 1 follows: TABLE 1 OF § 1065.1010. ASTM MATERIALS Document number and name Part 1065 reference ASTM D 86 01, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure ......................................... 1065.210 ASTM D 323 99a, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products ( Reid Method) ............................................. 1065.210 ASTM D 1266 98, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products ( Lamp Method) ........................................................... 1065.210 ASTM D 1319 02, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1065.210 ASTM D 1267 02, Standard Test Method for Gage Vapor Pressure of Liquefied Petroleum ( LP) Gases ( LP­ Gas Method) .......... 1065.220 ASTM D 1837 02, Standard Test Method for Volatility of Liquefied Petroleum ( LP) Gases ............................................................. 1065.220 ASTM D 1838 91 ( Reapproved 2001), Standard Test Method for Copper Strip Corrosion by Liquefied Petroleum ( LP) Gases .... 1065.220 ASTM D 1945 96 ( Reapproved 2001), Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography .................... 1065.215 ASTM D 2158 02, Standard Test Method for Residues in Liquefied Petroleum ( LP) Gases ........................................................... 1065.220 ASTM D 2163 91 ( Reapproved 1996), Standard Test Method for Analysis of Liquefied Petroleum ( LP) Gases and Propene Concentrates by Gas Chromatography ........................................................................................................................................... 1065.220 ASTM D 2598 02, Standard Practice for Calculation of Certain Physical Properties of Liquefied Petroleum ( LP) Gases from Compositional Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 1065.220 ASTM D 2713 91 ( Reapproved 2001), Standard Test Method for Dryness of Propane ( Valve Freeze Method) ............................ 1065.220 ASTM D 2784 98, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Liquefied Petroleum Gases ( Oxy­ Hydrogen Burner or Lamp) ................... 1065.220 ASTM D 3231 02, Standard Test Method for Phosphorus in Gasoline ............................................................................................. 1065.210 ASTM D 3237 97, Standard Test Method for Lead in Gasoline By Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy ............................................. 1065.210 ( b) ISO material. Table 2 of § 1065.1010 lists material from the International Organization for Standardization that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the section of this part where we reference it. Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the International Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. Table 2 follows: TABLE 2 OF § 1065.1010. ISO MATERIALS Document number and name Part 1065 reference ISO 8178 1, Reciprocating internal combustion engines Exhaust emission measurement Part 1: Testbed measurement of gaseous and particulate exhaust emissions, 1996. 1065.130, 1065.135, 1065.140, 1065.155. § 1065.1015 Confidential information. ( a) Clearly show what you consider confidential by marking, circling, bracketing, stamping, or some other method. We will store your confidential information as described in 40 CFR part 2. Also, we will disclose it only as specified in 40 CFR part 2. ( b) If you send us a second copy without the confidential information, we will assume it contains nothing confidential whenever we need to release information from it. ( c) If you send us information without claiming it is confidential, we may make it available to the public without further notice to you, as described in § 2.204 of this chapter. PART 1068 GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS FOR NONROAD PROGRAMS Subpart A Applicability and Miscellaneous Provisions Sec. 1068.1 Does this part apply to me? 1068.5 How must manufacturers apply good engineering judgment? 1068.10 How do I request EPA to keep my information confidential 1068.15 Who is authorized to represent the Agency? 1068.20 May EPA enter my facilities for inspections? 1068.25 What information must I give to EPA? 1068.30 What definitions apply to this part? 1068.35 What symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations does this part use? VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68428 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Subpart B Prohibited Actions and Related Requirements 1068.101 What general actions does this regulation prohibit? 1068.105 What other provisions apply to me specifically if I manufacture equipment needing certified engines? 1068.110 What other provisions apply to engines in service? 1068.115 When must manufacturers honor emission­ related warranty claims? 1068.120 What requirements must I follow to rebuild engines? 1068.125 What happens if I violate the regulations? Subpart C Exemptions and Exclusions 1068.201 Does EPA exempt or exclude any engines from the prohibited acts? 1068.210 What are the provisions for exempting test engines? 1068.215 What are the provisions for exempting manufacturer­ owned engines? 1068.220 What are the provisions for exempting display engines? 1068.225 What are the provisions for exempting engines for national security? 1068.230 What are the provisions for exempting engines for export? 1068.235 What are the provisions for exempting engines used solely for competition? 1068.240 What are the provisions for exempting new replacement engines? 1068.245 What temporary provisions address hardship due to unusual circumstances? 1068.250 What are the provisions for extending compliance deadlines for small­ volume manufacturers under hardship? 1068.255 What are the provisions for exempting engines for hardship for equipment manufacturers and secondary engine manufacturers? Subpart D Imports 1068.301 Does this subpart apply to me? 1068.305 How do I get an exemption or exclusion for imported engines? 1068.310 What are the exclusions for imported engines? 1068.315 What are the permanent exemptions for imported engines? 1068.320 How must I label an imported engine with a permanent exemption? 1068.325 What are the temporary exemptions for imported engines? 1068.330 How do I import engines to modify for other applications? 1068.335 What are the penalties for violations? Subpart E Selective Enforcement Auditing 11068.401 What is a selective enforcement audit? 1068.405 What is in a test order? 1068.410 How must I select and prepare my engines? 1068.415 How do I test my engines? 1068.420 How do I know when my engine family fails an SEA? 1068.425 What happens if one of my production­ line engines exceeds the emission standards? 1068.430 What happens if an engine family fails an SEA? 1068.435 May I sell engines from an engine family with a suspended certificate of conformity? 1068.440 How do I ask EPA to reinstate my suspended certificate? 1068.445 When may EPA revoke my certificate under this subpart and how may I sell these engines again? 1068.450 What records must I send to EPA? 1068.455 What records must I keep? Appendix A to Subpart E of Part 1068­ Plans for Selective Enforcement Auditing Subpart F Reporting Defects and Recalling Engines 1068.501 How do I report engine defects? 1068.505 How does the recall program work? 1068.510 How do I prepare and apply my remedial plan? 1068.515 How do I mark or label repaired engines? 1068.520 How do I notify affected owners? 1068.525 What records must I send to EPA? 1068.530 What records must I keep? 1068.535 How can I do a voluntary recall for emission­ related problems? 1068.540 What terms do I need to know for this subpart? Subpart G Hearings 1068.601 What are the procedures for hearings? Appendix I to Part 1068 Emission­ Related Components Appendix II to Part 1068 Emission­ Related Parameters and Specifications Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 7671( q). Subpart A Applicability and Miscellaneous Provisions § 1068.1 Does this part apply to me? ( a) The provisions of this part apply to everyone with respect to the following engines or to equipment using the following engines ( including owners, operators, parts manufacturers, and persons performing maintenance): ( 1) Large nonroad spark­ ignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 1048. ( 2) Recreational SI engines and vehicles that we regulate under 40 CFR part 1051 ( such as snowmobiles and offhighway motorcycles). ( b) This part does not apply to any of the following engine or vehicle categories: ( 1) Light­ duty motor vehicles ( see 40 CFR part 86). ( 2) Heavy­ duty motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines ( see 40 CFR part 86). ( 3) Aircraft engines ( see 40 CFR part 87). ( 4) Locomotive engines ( see 40 CFR part 92). ( 5) Land­ based nonroad diesel engines ( see 40 CFR part 89). ( 6) Marine diesel engines ( see 40 CFR parts 89 and 94) ( 7) Marine outboard and personal watercraft engines ( see 40 CFR part 91). ( 8) Small nonroad spark­ ignition engines ( see 40 CFR part 90). ( c) For equipment subject to this part and regulated under equipment­ based standards, interpret the term `` engine'' in this part to include equipment ( see § 1068.30). ( d) Paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section identifies the parts of the CFR that define emission standards and other requirements for particular types of engines and vehicles. This part 1068 refers to each these other parts generically as the `` standard­ setting part.'' For example, 40 CFR part 1051 is always the standard­ setting part for snowmobiles. Follow the provisions of the standard­ setting part if they are different than any of the provisions in this part. § 1068.5 How must manufacturers apply good engineering judgment? ( a) You must use good engineering judgment for decisions related to any requirements under this chapter. This includes your applications for certification, any testing you do to show that your production­ line or in­ use engines comply with requirements that apply to them, and how you select, categorize, determine, and apply these requirements. ( b) If we send you a written request, you must give us a written description of the engineering judgment in question. Respond within 15 working days of receiving our request unless we allow more time. ( c) We may reject your decision if it is not based on good engineering judgment or is otherwise inconsistent with the requirements that apply, based on the following provisions: ( 1) We may suspend, revoke, or void a certificate of conformity if we determine you deliberately used incorrect information or overlooked important information, that you did not decide in good faith, or that your decision was not rational. ( 2) If we believe a different decision would better reflect good engineering judgment, but none of the provisions of paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section apply, we will tell you of our concern ( and its basis). You will have 30 days to respond to our concerns, or more time if we agree that you need it to generate more information. After considering your information, we will give you a final ruling. If we conclude that you did not use good engineering judgment, we may reject your decision and apply the new ruling to similar situations as soon as possible. ( d) We will tell you in writing of the conclusions we reach under paragraph VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68429 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( c) of this section and explain our reasons for them. ( e) If you disagree with our conclusions, you may file a request for a hearing with the Designated Officer as described in subpart F of this part. In your request, specify your objections, include data or supporting analysis, and get your authorized representative's signature. If we agree that your request raises a substantial factual issue, we will hold the hearing according to subpart F of this part. § 1068.10 How do I request EPA to keep my information confidential ( a) Clearly identify any information you consider confidential by marking, circling, bracketing, stamping, or some other method. We will store your confidential information as described in 40 CFR part 2. Also, we will disclose it only as specified in 40 CFR part 2. This procedure applies equally to the Environmental Appeals Board. ( b) If you send us a second copy without the confidential information, we will assume it contains nothing confidential whenever we need to release information from it. ( c) If you send us information without claiming it is confidential, we may make it available to the public without further notice to you, as described in § 2.204 of this chapter. § 1068.15 Who is authorized to represent the Agency? ( a) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or any official to whom the Administrator has delegated specific authority may represent the Agency. For more information, ask for a copy of the relevant sections of the EPA Delegation Manual from the Designated Officer. ( b) The regulations in this part and in the standard­ setting part have specific requirements describing how to get EPA approval before you take specific actions. These regulations also allow us to waive some specific requirements. For provisions or flexibilities that we address frequently, we may choose to provide detailed guidance in supplemental compliance instructions for manufacturers. Such instructions will generally state how they relate to the need for pre­ approval. Unless we explicitly state so, you should not consider full compliance with the instructions to be equivalent to EPA approval. § 1068.20 May EPA enter my facilities for inspections? ( a) We may inspect your engines, testing, manufacturing processes, engine storage facilities ( including port facilities for imported engines or other relevant facilities), or records, as authorized by the Act, to enforce the provisions of this chapter. Inspectors will have authorizing credentials and will limit inspections to reasonable times usually, normal operating hours. ( b) If we come to inspect, we may or may not have a warrant or court order. ( 1) If we do not have a warrant or court order, you may deny us entry. ( 2) If we have a warrant or court order, you must allow us to enter the facility and carry out the activities it describes. ( c) We may seek a warrant or court order authorizing an inspection described in this section, whether or not we first tried to get your permission to inspect. ( d) We may select any facility to do any of the following: ( 1) Inspect and monitor any aspect of engine manufacturing, assembly, storage, or other procedures, and any facilities where you do them. ( 2) Inspect and monitor any aspect of engine test procedures or test­ related activities, including test engine selection, preparation, service accumulation, emission duty cycles, and maintenance and verification of your test equipment's calibration. ( 3) Inspect and copy records or documents related to assembling, storing, selecting, and testing an engine. ( 4) Inspect and photograph any part or aspect of engines and components you use for assembly. ( e) You must give us reasonable help without charge during an inspection authorized by the Act. For example, you may need to help us arrange an inspection with the facility's managers, including clerical support, copying, and translation. You may also need to show us how the facility operates and answer other questions. If we ask in writing to see a particular employee at the inspection, you must ensure that he or she is present ( legal counsel may accompany the employee). ( f) If you have facilities in other countries, we expect you to locate them in places where local law does not keep us from inspecting as described in this section. We will not try to inspect if we learn that local law prohibits it, but we may suspend your certificate if we are not allowed to inspect. § 1068.25 What information must I give to EPA? If you are subject to the requirements of this part, we may require you to give us information to evaluate your compliance with any regulations that apply, as authorized by the Act. This includes the following things: ( a) You must provide the information we require in this chapter. ( b) You must establish and maintain records, perform tests, make reports and provide additional information that we may reasonably require under section 208 of the Act. This also applies to engines we exempt from emission standards. § 1068.30 What definitions apply to this part? The following definitions apply to this part. The definitions apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the meaning the Act gives to them. The definitions follow: Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Aircraft means any vehicle capable of sustained air travel above treetop heights. Certificate holder means a manufacturer ( including importers) with a valid certificate of conformity for at least one engine family in a given calendar year. Designated Officer means the Manager of the Engine Programs Group ( 6405 J), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460. Emission­ related defect means a defect in design, materials or workmanship ( in an emission control device or vehicle component or system) that affects an emission­ related component, parameter, or specification that is identified in Appendix I or Appendix II of this part. Engine means an engine to which this part applies. For equipment subject to this part and regulated under equipment­ based standards, the term engine in this part shall be interpreted to include equipment. Engine­ based means having emission standards related to measurements using an engine dynamometer, in units of grams of pollutant per kilowatt­ hour. Engine manufacturer means the manufacturer that is subject to the certification requirements of the standard­ setting part. For vehicles/ equipment subject to this part and regulated under vehicle/ equipmentbased standards, the term engine manufacturer in this part includes vehicles/ equipment manufacturers. Equipment­ based means having emission standards related to measurements from an engine installed in a vehicle using a chassis dynamometer, in units of grams of pollutant per kilometer. Equipment manufacturer means any company producing a piece of equipment ( such as a vehicle) for sale or use in the United States. Manufacturer has the meaning given in section 216( 1) of the Act. In general, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68430 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations this term includes any person who manufactures an engine or vehicle for sale in the United States or otherwise introduces a new engine or vehicle into commerce in the United States. This includes importers that import new engines or new equipment into the United States for resale. It also includes secondary engine manufacturers. New has the meaning we give it in the standard­ setting part. Nonroad engine means: ( 1) Except as discussed in paragraph ( 2) of this definition, a nonroad engine is any internal combustion engine: ( i) In or on a piece of equipment that is self­ propelled or serves a dual purpose by both propelling itself and performing another function ( such as garden tractors, off­ highway mobile cranes and bulldozers); or ( ii) In or on a piece of equipment that is intended to be propelled while performing its function ( such as lawnmowers and string trimmers); or ( iii) That, by itself or in or on a piece of equipment, is portable or transportable, meaning designed to be and capable of being carried or moved from one location to another. Indicia of transportability include, but are not limited to, wheels, skids, carrying handles, dolly, trailer, or platform. ( 2) An internal combustion engine is not a nonroad engine if: ( i) The engine is used to propel a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for competition, or is subject to standards promulgated under section 202 of the Act; or ( ii) The engine is regulated by a federal New Source Performance Standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act; or ( iii) The engine otherwise included in paragraph ( 1)( iii) of this definition remains or will remain at a location for more than 12 consecutive months or a shorter period of time for an engine located at a seasonal source. A location is any single site at a building, structure, facility, or installation. Any engine ( or engines) that replaces an engine at a location and that is intended to perform the same or similar function as the engine replaced will be included in calculating the consecutive time period. An engine located at a seasonal source is an engine that remains at a seasonal source during the full annual operating period of the seasonal source. A seasonal source is a stationary source that remains in a single location on a permanent basis ( i. e., at least two years) and that operates at that single location approximately three months ( or more) each year. This paragraph ( 2)( iii) does not apply to an engine after the engine is removed from the location. Operating hours means: ( 1) For engine storage areas or facilities, times during which people other than custodians and security personnel are at work near, and can access, a storage area or facility. ( 2) For other areas or facilities, times during which an assembly line operates or any of the following activities occurs: ( i) Testing, maintenance, or service accumulation. ( ii) Production or compilation of records. ( iii) Certification testing. ( iv) Translation of designs from the test stage to the production stage. ( v) Engine manufacture or assembly. Piece of equipment means any vehicle, vessel, locomotive, aircraft, or other type of equipment using engines to which this part applies. Placed into service means used for its intended purpose. Reasonable technical basis means information that would lead a person familiar with engine design and function to reasonably believe a conclusion, related to compliance with the requirements of this part. For example, it would be reasonable to believe that parts performing the same function as the original parts ( and to the same degree) would control emissions to the same degree as the original parts. Standard­ setting part means the part in the Code of Federal Regulations that defines emission standards for a particular engine ( see § 1068.1( a)). For example, the standard­ setting part for non­ recreational spark­ ignition engines over 19 kW is part 1048 of this chapter. Ultimate purchaser means the first person who in good faith buys a new engine for purposes other than resale. United States means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. We ( us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and any authorized representatives. § 1068.35 What symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations does this part use? The following symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations apply to this part: $ U. S. dollars. CFR Code of Federal Regulations. EPA Environmental Protection Agency. U. S. United States. U. S. C. United States Code. Subpart B Prohibited Actions and Related Requirements § 1068.101 What general actions does this regulation prohibit? This section specifies actions that are prohibited and the maximum civil penalties that we can assess for each violation. The maximum penalty values listed in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section are shown for calendar year 2002. As described in paragraph ( e) of this section, maximum penalty limits for later years are set forth in 40 CFR part 19. ( a) The following prohibitions and requirements apply to manufacturers of new engines and manufacturers of equipment containing these engines, except as described in subparts C and D of this part: ( 1) You may not sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into commerce in the United States or import into the United States any new engine or equipment after emission standards take effect for that engine or equipment, unless it has a valid certificate of conformity for its model year and the required label or tag. You also may not take any of the actions listed in the previous sentence with respect to any equipment containing an engine subject to this part's provisions, unless the engine has a valid certificate of conformity for its model year and the required engine label or tag. This requirement also covers new engines you produce to replace an older engine in a piece of equipment, unless the engine qualifies for the replacementengine exemption in § 1068.240. We may assess a civil penalty up to $ 31,500 for each engine in violation. ( 2) This chapter requires you to record certain types of information to show that you meet our standards. You must comply with these requirements to make and maintain required records ( including those described in § 1068.501). You may not deny us access to or copying of your records if we have the authority to see or copy them. Also, you must give us the required reports or information without delay. Failure to comply with the requirements of this paragraph is prohibited. We may assess a civil penalty up to $ 31,500 for each day in violation. ( 3) You may not keep us from entering your facility to test engines or inspect if we are authorized to do so. Also, you must perform the tests we require ( or have the tests done for you). Failure to perform this testing is prohibited. We may assess a civil penalty up to $ 31,500 for each day in violation. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68431 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( b) The following prohibitions apply to everyone with respect to the engines to which this part applies: ( 1) You may not remove or disable a device or element of design that may affect an engine's emission levels. This restriction applies before and after the engine is placed in service. Section 1068.120 describes how this applies to rebuilding engines. For a manufacturer or dealer, we may assess a civil penalty up to $ 31,500 for each engine in violation. For anyone else, we may assess a civil penalty up to $ 3,150 for each engine in violation. This does not apply in any of the following situations: ( i) You need to repair an engine and you restore it to proper functioning when the repair is complete. ( ii) You need to modify an engine to respond to a temporary emergency and you restore it to proper functioning as soon as possible. ( iii) You modify a new engine that another manufacturer has already certified to meet emission standards, intending to recertify it under your own engine family. In this case you must tell the original manufacturer not to include the modified engines in the original engine family. ( 2) You may not knowingly manufacture, sell, offer to sell, or install, an engine part if one of its main effects is to bypass, impair, defeat, or disable the engine's control of emissions. We may assess a civil penalty up to $ 3,150 for each part in violation. ( 3) For an engine that is excluded from any requirements of this chapter because it is a stationary engine, you may not move it or install it in any mobile equipment, except as allowed by the provisions of this chapter. You may not circumvent or attempt to circumvent the residence­ time requirements of paragraph ( 2)( iii) of the nonroad engine definition in § 1068.30. We may assess a civil penalty up to $ 31,500 for each day in violation. ( 4) For an uncertified engine or piece of equipment that is excluded or exempted from any requirements of this chapter because it is to be used solely for competition, you may not use it in a manner that is inconsistent with use solely for competition. We may assess a civil penalty up to $ 31,500 for each day in violation. ( 5) You may not import an uncertified engine or piece of equipment if it is defined to be new in the standardsetting part, and it would have been subject to standards had it been built in the United States. We may assess a civil penalty up to $ 31,500 for each day in violation. Note the following: ( i) The definition of new is broad for imported engines; uncertified engines and equipment ( including used engines and equipment) are generally considered to be new when imported. ( ii) Engines that were originally manufactured before applicable EPA standards were in effect are generally not subject to emission standards. ( c) Exemptions from these prohibitions are described in subparts C and D of this part. ( d) The standard­ setting parts describe more requirements and prohibitions that apply to manufacturers ( including importers) and others under this chapter. ( e) The maximum penalty values listed in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section are shown for calendar year 2002. Maximum penalty limits for later years may be adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index. The specific regulatory provisions for changing the maximum penalties, published in 40 CFR part 19, reference the applicable U. S. Code citation on which the prohibited action is based. The following table is shown here for informational purposes: TABLE 1 OF § 1068.101. LEGAL CITATION FOR SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS FOR DETERMINING MAXIMUM PENALTY AMOUNTS Part 1068 regulatory citation of prohibited action General description of prohibition U. S. Code citation for Clean Air Act authority § 1068.101( a)( 1) ................................................................ Introduction into commerce of an uncertified product .... 42 U. S. C. 7522( a)( 1) § 1068.101( a)( 1) ................................................................ Failure to provide information ......................................... 42 U. S. C. 7522( a)( 2) § 1068.101( a)( 3) ................................................................ Denying access to facilities ............................................. 42 U. S. C. 7522( a)( 2) § 1068.101( b)( 1) ................................................................ Tampering with emission controls by a manufacturer or dealer. 42 U. S. C. 7522( a)( 3) Tampering with emission controls by someone other than a manufacturer or dealer. § 1068.101( b)( 2) ................................................................ Sale or use of a defeat device ........................................ 42 U. S. C. 7522( a)( 3) § 1068.101( b)( 3) ................................................................ Mobile use of a stationary engine ................................... 42 U. S. C. 7522( a)( 1) § 1068.101( b)( 4) ................................................................ Noncompetitive use of an uncertified engine that is exempted for competition. 42 U. S. C. 7522( a)( 1) § 1068.101( b)( 5) ................................................................ Importation of an uncertified product .............................. 42 U. S. C. 7522( a)( 1) § 1068.105 What other provisions apply to me specifically if I manufacture equipment needing certified engines? ( a) Transitioning to new standards. You may use up your normal inventory of engines not certified to new emission standards if they were built before the date of the new standards. However, stockpiling these engines violates § 1068.101( a)( 1). ( b) Installing engines. You must follow the engine manufacturer's emission­ related installation instructions. For example, you may need to constrain where you place an exhaust aftertreatment device or integrate into your equipment models a device for sending visual or audible signals to the operator. Not meeting the manufacturer's emission­ related installation instructions is a violation of § 1068.101( b)( 1). ( c) Attaching a duplicate label. If you obscure the engine's label, you must do three things to avoid violating § 1068.101( a)( 1): ( 1) Permanently attach to your equipment a duplicate label. Secure it to a part needed for normal operation and not normally requiring replacement. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68432 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 2) Make sure your label is identical to the engine label. You may make the label yourself or get it from the engine manufacturer. ( 3) Make sure an average person can easily read it. ( d) Producing nonroad equipment certified to highway emission standards. You may produce nonroad equipment from complete or incomplete motor vehicles with the motor vehicle engine if you meet three criteria: ( 1) The engine or vehicle is certified to 40 CFR part 86. ( 2) The engine is not adjusted outside the manufacturer's specifications. ( 3) The engine or vehicle is not modified in any way that may affect its emission control. This applies to evaporative emission controls, but not refueling emission controls. § 1068.110 What other provisions apply to engines in service? ( a) Aftermarket parts and service. As the engine manufacturer, you may not require anyone to use your parts or service to maintain or repair an engine, unless we approve this in your application for certification. It is a violation of the Act for anyone to manufacture an engine or vehicle part if one of its main effects is to reduce the effectiveness of the emission controls. See § 1068.101( b)( 2). ( b) Certifying aftermarket parts. As the manufacturer or rebuilder of an aftermarket engine part, you may but are not required to certify according to § 85.2114 of this chapter that using the part will not cause engines to fail to meet emission standards. Whether you certify or not, however, you must keep any information showing how your parts or service affect emissions. ( c) Compliance with standards. We may test engines or equipment to investigate compliance with emission standards. We may also require the manufacturer to do this testing. ( d) Defeat devices. We may test engines or equipment to investigate potential defeat devices. We may also require the manufacturer to do this testing. If we choose to investigate one of your designs, we may require you to show us that it does not have a defeat device. To do this, you may have to share with us information regarding test programs, engineering evaluations, design specifications, calibrations, onboard computer algorithms, and design strategies. It is a violation of the Act for anyone to make, install or use defeat devices. See § 1068.101( b)( 2) and the standard­ setting part. ( e) Warranty and maintenance. Owners may make warranty claims against the manufacturer for emissionrelated parts, as described in § 1068.115. This generally includes any emissionrelated engine parts that were not in common use before we have adopted emission standards. In general, we consider replacement or repair of any other components to be the owner's responsibility. The warranty period begins when the engine is first placed into service. See the standard­ setting part for specific requirements. It is a violation of the Act for anyone to disable emission controls. See § 1068.101( b)( 1) and the standardsetting part. § 1068.115 When must manufacturers honor emission­ related warranty claims? Section 207( a) of the Clean Air Act ( 42 U. S. C. 7541( a)) requires certifying manufacturers to warrant to purchasers that their engines are designed, built, and equipped to conform at the time of sale to the applicable regulations for their full useful life, including a warranty that the engines are free from defects in materials and workmanship that would cause an engine to fail to conform to the applicable regulations during the specified warranty period. This section codifies the warranty requirements of section 207( a) without intending to limit these requirements. ( a) As a certifying manufacturer, you may deny warranty claims for failures that have been caused by the owner's or operator's improper maintenance or use. For example, you would not need to honor warranty claims for failures that have been directly caused by the operator's abuse of an engine or the operator's use of the engine in a manner for which it was not designed, and are not attributable to you in any way. ( b) As a certifying manufacturer, you may not deny emission­ related warranty claims based on any of the following: ( 1) Maintenance or other service you or your authorized facilities performed. ( 2) Engine repair work that an operator performed to correct an unsafe, emergency condition attributable to you, as long as the operator tries to restore the engine to its proper configuration as soon as possible. ( 3) Any action or inaction by the operator unrelated to the warranty claim. ( 4) Maintenance that was performed more frequently than you specify. ( 5) Anything that is your fault or responsibility. ( 6) The use of any fuel that is commonly available where the engine operates, unless your written maintenance instructions state that this fuel would harm the engine's emission control system and operators can readily find the proper fuel. § 1068.120 What requirements must I follow to rebuild engines? ( a) This section describes the steps to take when rebuilding engines to avoid violating the tampering prohibition in § 1068.101( b)( 1). These requirements apply to anyone rebuilding an engine subject to this part, but the recordkeeping requirements in paragraphs ( j) and ( k) of this section apply only to businesses. ( b) The term `` rebuilding'' refers to a rebuild of an engine or engine system, including a major overhaul in which you replace the engine's pistons or power assemblies or make other changes that significantly increase the service life of the engine. It also includes replacing or rebuilding an engine's turbocharger or aftercooler or the engine's systems for fuel metering or electronic control so that it significantly increases the service life of the engine. For these provisions, rebuilding may or may not involve removing the engine from the equipment. Rebuilding does not normally include the following: ( 1) Scheduled emission­ related maintenance that the standard­ setting part allows during the useful life period ( such as replacing fuel injectors). ( 2) Unscheduled maintenance that occurs commonly within the useful life period. For example, replacing a water pump is not rebuilding. ( c) For maintenance or service that is not rebuilding, you may not make changes that might increase emissions, but you do not need to keep any records. ( d) If you rebuild an engine or engine system, you must have a reasonable technical basis for knowing that the rebuilt engine has the same emissions performance as the engine in its certified configuration. Identify the model year of the resulting engine configuration. You have a reasonable basis if you meet two main conditions: ( 1) Install parts new, used, or rebuilt so a person familiar with engine design and function would reasonably believe that the engine with those parts will control emissions to the same degree as with the original parts. For example, it would be reasonable to believe that parts performing the same function as the original parts ( and to the same degree) would control emissions to the same degree as the original parts. ( 2) Adjust parameters or change design elements only according to the original engine manufacturer's instructions. Or, if you differ from these instructions, you must have data or some other technical basis to show you should not expect in­ use emissions to increase. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68433 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( e) If the rebuilt engine remains installed or is reinstalled in the same piece of equipment, you must rebuild it to the original configuration or another certified configuration of the same or later model year. ( f) If the rebuilt engine replaces another engine in a piece of equipment, you must rebuild it to a certified configuration that equals the emissions performance of the engine you are replacing. ( g) Do not erase or reset emissionrelated codes or signals from onboard monitoring systems without diagnosing and responding appropriately to any diagnostic codes. This requirement applies regardless of the manufacturer's reason for installing the monitoring system and regardless of its form or interface. Clear any codes from diagnostic systems when you return the rebuilt engine to service. Do not disable a diagnostic signal without addressing its cause. ( h) When you rebuild an engine, check, clean, adjust, repair, or replace all emission­ related components ( listed in Appendix I of this part) as needed according to the original manufacturer's recommended practice. In particular, replace oxygen sensors, replace the catalyst if there is evidence of malfunction, clean gaseous fuel system components, and replace fuel injectors ( if applicable), unless you have a reasonable technical basis for believing they do not need replacement. ( i) If you are installing an engine that someone else has rebuilt, check all emission­ related components listed in Appendix I of this part as needed according to the original manufacturer's recommended practice. ( j) Keep at least the following records: ( 1) Identify the hours of operation ( or mileage, as appropriate) at time of rebuild. ( 2) Identify the work done on the engine or any emission­ related control components, including a listing of parts and components you used. ( 3) Describe any engine parameter adjustments. ( 4) Identify any emission­ related codes or signals you responded to and reset. ( k) You must show us or send us your records if we ask for them. Keep records for at least two years after rebuilding an engine. Keep them in any format that allows us to readily review them. ( 1) You do not need to keep information that is not reasonably available through normal business practices. We do not expect you to have information that you cannot reasonably access. ( 2) You do not need to keep records of what other companies do. ( 3) You may keep records based on engine families rather than individual engines if that is the way you normally do business. § 1068.125 What happens if I violate the regulations? ( a) Civil penalties and injunctions. We may bring a civil action to assess and recover civil penalties and/ or enjoin and restrain violations in the United States District Court for the district where you allegedly violated a requirement, or the district where you live or have your main place of business. Actions to assess civil penalties or restrain violations of § 1068.101 must be brought by and in the name of the United States. The selected court has jurisdiction to restrain violations and assess civil penalties. ( 1) To determine the amount of a civil penalty and reach a just conclusion, the court considers these main factors: ( i) The seriousness of your violation. ( ii) How much you benefitted or saved because of the violation. ( iii) The size of your business. ( iv) Your history of compliance with Title II of the Act. ( v) What you did to remedy the violation. ( vi) How the penalty will affect your ability to continue in business. ( vii) Such other matters as justice may require. ( 2) Subpoenas for witnesses who must attend a district court in any district may apply to any other district. ( b) Administrative penalties. Instead of bringing a civil action, we may assess administrative penalties if the total is less than $ 250,000 against you individually. This maximum penalty may be greater if the Administrator and the Attorney General jointly determine that is appropriate for administrative penalty assessment, or if the limit is adjusted under 40 CFR part 19. No court may review such a determination. Before we assess an administrative penalty, you may ask for a hearing ( subject to 40 CFR part 22). The Administrator may compromise or remit, with or without conditions, any administrative penalty that may be imposed under this section. ( 1) To determine the amount of an administrative penalty, we will consider the factors described in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. ( 2) An administrative order we issue under this paragraph ( b) becomes final 30 days after we issue it, unless you ask for judicial review by that time ( see paragraph ( c) of this section). You may ask for review by any of the district courts listed in paragraph ( a) of this section. Send the Administrator a copy of the filing by certified mail. ( 3) We will not pursue an administrative action for a violation if either of the following two conditions is true: ( i) We are separately prosecuting the violation under this part. ( ii) We have issued a final order for a violation, no longer subject to judicial review, for which you have already paid a penalty. ( c) Judicial review. If you ask a court to review a civil or administrative penalty, we will file in the appropriate court within 30 days of your request a certified copy or certified index of the record on which the court or the Administrator issued the order. ( 1) The judge may set aside or remand any order issued under this section only if one of the following is true: ( i) Substantial evidence does not exist in the record, taken as a whole, to support finding a violation. ( ii) The Administrator's assessment of the penalty is an abuse of discretion. ( 2) The judge may not add civil penalties unless our penalty is an abuse of discretion that favors you. ( d) Effect of enforcement actions on other requirements. Our pursuit of civil or administrative penalties does not affect or limit our authority to enforce any provisions of this chapter. ( e) Penalties. In any proceedings, the United States government may seek to collect civil penalties assessed under this section. ( 1) Once a penalty assessment is final, if you do not pay it, the Administrator will ask the Attorney General to bring a civil action in an appropriate district court to recover the money. We may collect interest from the date of the final order or final judgment at rates established by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ( 26 U. S. C. 6621( a)( 2)). In this action to collect overdue penalties, the court will not review the validity, amount, and appropriateness of the penalty. ( 2) In addition, if you do not pay the full amount of a penalty on time, you must then pay more to cover interest, enforcement expenses ( including attorney's fees and costs for collection), and a quarterly nonpayment penalty for each quarter you do not pay. The nonpayment penalty is 10 percent of your total penalties plus any unpaid nonpayment penalties from previous quarters. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68434 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Subpart C Exemptions and Exclusions § 1068.201 Does EPA exempt or exclude any engines from the prohibited acts? We may exempt new engines from the prohibited acts in subpart B of this part under requirements described in this subpart. We may exempt an engine already placed in service in the United States from the prohibition in § 1068.101( b)( 1) if the exemption for engines used solely for competition applies ( see § 1068.235). In addition, see § 1068.1 and the standard­ setting parts to determine if other engines are excluded from some or all of the regulations in this chapter. ( a) This subpart identifies which engines qualify for exemptions and what information we need. We may ask for more information. ( b) If you violate any of the terms, conditions, instructions, or requirements to qualify for an exemption, we may void the exemption. ( c) If you use an exemption under this subpart, we may require you to add a permanent label to your exempted engines. You may ask us to approve wording on the emission label different than we specify in this subpart if it is more appropriate for your engine. ( d) If you produce engines we exempt under this subpart, we may require you to make and keep records, perform tests, make reports and provide information as needed to reasonably evaluate the validity of the exemption. ( e) If you own or operate engines we exempt under this subpart, we may require you to provide information as needed to reasonably evaluate the validity of the exemption. ( f) Subpart D of this part describes how we apply these exemptions to engines you import ( or intend to import). ( g) If you want to ask for an exemption or need more information, write to the Designated Officer. ( h) You may ask us to modify the administrative requirements for the exemptions described in this subpart. We may approve your request if we determine that such approval is consistent with the intent of this part. For example, waivable administrative requirements might include some reporting requirements, but would not include any eligibility requirements or use restrictions. ( i) If you want to take an action with respect to an exempted or excluded engine that is prohibited by the exemption or exclusion, such as selling it, you need to certify the engine. We will issue a certificate of conformity if you send us an application for certification showing that you meet all the applicable requirements from the standard­ setting part. Also, in some cases, it may be sufficient to modify the engine as needed to make it identical to engines already covered by a certificate. Make sure these engines have emission control information labels that accurately describe their status. § 1068.210 What are the provisions for exempting test engines? ( a) We may exempt engines that are not exempted under other sections of this part that you will use for research, investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training. ( b) Anyone may ask for a testing exemption. ( c) If you are a certificate holder, you may request an exemption for engines you intend to include in test programs over a two­ year period. ( 1) In your request, tell us the maximum number of engines involved and describe how you will make sure exempted engines are used only for this testing. ( 2) Give us the information described in paragraph ( d) of this section if we ask for it. ( d) If you are not a certificate holder do all of the following: ( 1) Show that the proposed test program has a valid purpose under paragraph ( a) of this section. ( 2) Show you need an exemption to achieve the purpose of the test program ( time constraints may be a basis for needing an exemption, but the cost of certification alone is not). ( 3) Estimate the duration of the proposed test program and the number of engines involved. ( 4) Allow us to monitor the testing. ( 5) Describe how you will ensure that you stay within this exemption's purposes. Address at least the following things: ( i) The technical nature of the test. ( ii) The test site. ( iii) The duration and accumulated engine operation associated with the test. ( iv) Ownership of the engines involved in the test. ( v) The intended final disposition of the engines. ( vi) How you will identify, record, and make available the engine identification numbers. ( vii) The means or procedure for recording test results. ( e) If we approve your request for a testing exemption, we will send you a letter or a memorandum for your signature describing the basis and scope of the exemption. The exemption does not take effect until we receive the signed letter or memorandum from you. It will also include any necessary terms and conditions, which normally require you to do the following: ( 1) Stay within the scope of the exemption. ( 2) Create and maintain adequate records that we may inspect. ( 3) Add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in English, to a readily visible part of each exempted engine. This label must include at least the following items: ( i) The label heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( ii) Your corporate name and trademark. ( iii) Engine displacement, engine family identification ( as applicable), and model year of the engine; or whom to contact for further information. ( iv) The statement `` THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.210 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''. ( 4) Tell us when the test program is finished. ( 5) Tell us the final disposition of the engines. ( 6) Send us a written confirmation that you meet the terms and conditions of this exemption. § 1068.215 What are the provisions for exempting manufacturer­ owned engines? ( a) You are eligible for the exemption for manufacturer­ owned engines only if you are a certificate holder. ( b) An engine may be exempt without a request if it is a nonconforming engine under your ownership and control and you operate it to develop products, assess production methods, or promote your engines in the marketplace. You may not lease, sell, or use the engine to generate revenue, either by itself or in a piece of equipment. ( c) To use this exemption, you must do three things: ( 1) Establish, maintain, and keep adequately organized and indexed information on each exempted engine, including the engine identification number, the use of the engine on exempt status, and the final disposition of any engine removed from exempt status. ( 2) Let us access these records, as described in § 1068.20. ( 3) Add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in English, to a readily visible part of each exempted engine. This label must include at least the following items: ( i) The label heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( ii) Your corporate name and trademark. ( iii) Engine displacement, engine family identification, and model year of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68435 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations the engine or whom to contact for further information. ( iv) The statement `` THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.215 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''. § 1068.220 What are the provisions for exempting display engines? ( a) Anyone may request an exemption for display engines. ( b) A nonconforming display engine will be exempted if it is used only for displays in the interest of a business or the general public. This exemption does not apply to engines displayed for private use or any other purpose we determine is inappropriate for a display exemption. ( c) You may operate the exempted engine, but only if we approve specific operation that is part of the display. ( d) You may sell or lease the exempted engine only with our advance approval; you may not use it to generate revenue. ( e) To use this exemption, you must add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in English, to a readily visible part of each exempted engine. This label must include at least the following items: ( 1) The label heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( 2) Your corporate name and trademark. ( 3) Engine displacement, engine family identification, and model year of the engine or whom to contact for further information. ( 4) The statement `` THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.220 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''. ( f) We may set other conditions for approval of this exemption. § 1068.225 What are the provisions for exempting engines for national security? ( a) You are eligible for the exemption for national security only if you are a manufacturer. ( b) Your engine is exempt without a request if you produce it for a piece of equipment owned or used by an agency of the federal government responsible for national defense, where the equipment has armor, permanently attached weaponry, or other substantial features typical of military combat. ( c) You may request a national security exemption for engines not meeting the conditions of paragraph ( b) of this section, as long as your request is endorsed by an agency of the federal government responsible for national defense. In your request, explain why you need the exemption. § 1068.230 What are the provisions for exempting engines for export? ( a) If you export a new engine to a country with emission standards identical to ours, we will not exempt it. These engines must comply with our certification requirements. ( b) If you export an engine to a country with different emission standards or no emission standards, it is exempt from the prohibited acts in this part without a request. If you produce an exempt engine for export and it is sold or offered for sale to someone in the United States ( except for export), we will void the exemption. ( c) Label each exempted engine and shipping container with a label or tag showing the engine is not certified for sale or use in the United States. The label must include at least the statement `` THIS ENGINE IS SOLELY FOR EXPORT AND IS THEREFORE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.230 FROM U. S. EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''. § 1068.235 What are the provisions for exempting engines used solely for competition? ( a) New engines you produce that are used solely for competition are generally excluded from emission standards. See the standard­ setting parts for specific provisions where applicable. ( b) If you modify an engine after it has been placed into service in the United States so it will be used solely for competition, it is exempt without request. This exemption applies only to the prohibition in § 1068.101( b)( 1) and is valid only as long as the engine is used solely for competition. ( c) If you modify an engine under this exemption, you must destroy the original emission label. If you sell or give one of these engines to someone else, you must tell the new owner in writing that it may be used only for competition. § 1068.240 What are the provisions for exempting new replacement engines? ( a) You are eligible for the exemption for new replacement engines only if you are a certificate holder. ( b) The prohibitions in § 1068.101( a)( 1) do not apply to an engine if all the following conditions apply: ( 1) You produce a new engine to replace an engine already placed in service in a piece of equipment. ( 2) The engine being replaced was manufactured before the emission standards that would otherwise apply to the new engine took effect. ( 3) No engine certified to current emission requirements is available with the appropriate physical or performance characteristics for the piece of equipment. ( 4) You or your agent takes possession of the old engine. ( 5) You make the replacement engine in a configuration identical in all material respects to the engine being replaced ( or that of another certified engine of the same or later model year). This requirement applies only if the old engine was certified to emission standards less stringent than those in effect when you produce the replacement engine. ( c) If the old engine was not certified to any emission standards under this chapter, clearly label the replacement engine with the following language: THIS ENGINE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL NONROAD OR HIGHWAY EMISSION REQUIREMENTS. SELLING OR INSTALLING THIS ENGINE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN AS A REPLACEMENT ENGINE IN A VEHICLE OR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT BUILT BEFORE JANUARY 1, [ Insert appropriate year reflecting when standards began to apply to engines of that size and type] IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY. ( d) If the old engine was certified to emission standards less stringent than those in effect when you produce the replacement engine, clearly label the replacement engine with the following language: THIS ENGINE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CURRENT FEDERAL NONROAD OR HIGHWAY EMISSION REQUIREMENTS. SELLING OR INSTALLING THIS ENGINE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN AS A REPLACEMENT ENGINE IN A VEHICLE OR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT BUILT BEFORE JANUARY 1, [ Insert appropriate year reflecting when the earlier tier of emission standards began to apply to the old engine] IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY. § 1068.245 What temporary provisions address hardship due to unusual circumstances? ( a) After considering the circumstances, we may permit you to introduce into commerce engines or equipment that do not comply with emission standards if all the following conditions apply: ( 1) Unusual circumstances that are clearly outside your control and that could not have been avoided with reasonable discretion prevent you from meeting requirements from this chapter. ( 2) You exercised prudent planning and were not able to avoid the violation; you have taken all reasonable steps to minimize the extent of the nonconformity. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68436 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 3) Not having the exemption will jeopardize the solvency of your company. ( 4) No other allowances are available under the regulations in this chapter to avoid the impending violation. ( b) To apply for an exemption, you must send the Designated Officer a written request as soon as possible before you are in violation. In your request, show that you meet all the conditions and requirements in paragraph ( a) of this section. ( c) Include in your request a plan showing how you will meet all the applicable requirements as quickly as possible. ( d) You must give us other relevant information if we ask for it. ( e) We may include reasonable additional conditions on an approval granted under this section, including provisions to recover or otherwise address the lost environmental benefit or paying fees to offset any economic gain resulting from the exemption. For example, in the case of multiple tiers of emission standards, we may require that you meet the less stringent standards. ( f) Add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in English, to a readily visible part of each engine exempted under this section. This label must include at least the following items: ( 1) The label heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( 2) Your corporate name and trademark. ( 3) Engine displacement ( in liters), rated power, and model year of the engine or whom to contact for further information. ( 4) The statement `` THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.245 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''. § 1068.250 What are the provisions for extending compliance deadlines for smallvolume manufacturers under hardship? ( a) After considering the circumstances, we may extend the compliance deadline for you to meet new or revised emission standards, as long as you meet all the conditions and requirements in this section. ( b) To be eligible for this exemption, you must qualify under the standardsetting part for special provisions for small businesses or small­ volume manufacturers. ( c) To apply for an extension, you must send the Designated Officer a written request. In your request, show that all the following conditions and requirements apply: ( 1) You have taken all possible business, technical, and economic steps to comply. ( i) In the case of importers of engines produced by other companies, show that you attempted to find a manufacturer capable of supplying complying products as soon as you became aware of the applicable requirements, but were unable to do so. ( ii) For all other manufacturers, show that the burden of compliance costs prevents you from meeting the requirements of this chapter. ( 2) Not having the exemption will jeopardize the solvency of your company. ( 3) No other allowances are available under the regulations in this chapter to avoid the impending violation. ( d) In describing the steps you have taken to comply under paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section, include at least the following information: ( 1) Describe your business plan, showing the range of projects active or under consideration. ( 2) Describe your current and projected financial standing, with and without the burden of complying fully with the applicable regulations in this chapter. ( 3) Describe your efforts to raise capital to comply with regulations in this chapter ( this may not apply for importers). ( 4) Identify the engineering and technical steps you have taken or plan to take to comply with regulations in this chapter. ( 5) Identify the level of compliance you can achieve. For example, you may be able to produce engines that meet a somewhat less stringent emission standard than the regulations in this chapter require. ( e) Include in your request a plan showing how you will meet all the applicable requirements as quickly as possible. ( f) You must give us other relevant information if we ask for it. ( g) An authorized representative of your company must sign the request and include the statement: `` All the information in this request is true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge.''. ( h) Send your request for this extension at least nine months before the relevant deadline. If different deadlines apply to companies that are not small­ volume manufacturers, do not send your request before the regulations in question apply to the other manufacturers. Otherwise, do not send your request more than three years before the relevant deadline. ( i) We may include reasonable requirements on an approval granted under this section, including provisions to recover or otherwise address the lost environmental benefit. For example, we may require that you meet a less stringent emission standard or buy and use available emission credits. ( j) We will approve extensions of up to one year. We may review and revise an extension as reasonable under the circumstances. ( k) Add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in English, to a readily visible part of each engine exempted under this section. This label must include at least the following items: ( 1) The label heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( 2) Your corporate name and trademark. ( 3) Engine displacement ( in liters), rated power, and model year of the engine or whom to contact for further information. ( 4) The statement `` THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.250 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''. § 1068.255 What are the provisions for exempting engines for hardship for equipment manufacturers and secondary engine manufacturers? This section describes how, in unusual circumstances, we may exempt certain engines to prevent a hardship to an equipment manufacturer or a secondary engine manufacturer. This section does not apply to products that are subject to vehicle­ based emission standards. ( a) Equipment exemption. As an equipment manufacturer, you may ask for approval to produce exempted equipment for up to 12 months. We will generally limit this to the first year that new or revised emission standards apply. Send the Designated Officer a written request for an exemption before you are in violation. In your request, you must show you are not at fault for the impending violation and that you would face serious economic hardship if we do not grant the exemption. This exemption is not available under this paragraph ( a) if you manufacture the engine you need for your own equipment or if complying engines are available from other engine manufacturers that could be used in your equipment, unless we allow it elsewhere in this chapter. We may impose other conditions, including provisions to recover the lost environmental benefit. In determining whether to grant the exemptions, we will consider all relevant factors, including the following: ( 1) The number of engines to be exempted. ( 2) The size of your company and your ability to endure the hardship. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68437 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 3) The amount of time you had to redesign your equipment to accommodate a complying engine. ( 4) Whether there was any breach of contract by an engine supplier. ( 5) The potential for market disruption. ( b) Engine exemption. As an engine manufacturer, you may produce nonconforming engines for the equipment we exempt in paragraph ( a) of this section. You do not have to request this exemption for your engines, but you must have written assurance from equipment manufacturers that they need a certain number of exempted engines under this section. Add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in English, to a readily visible part of each exempted engine. This label must include at least the following items: ( 1) The label heading `` EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''. ( 2) Your corporate name and trademark. ( 3) Engine displacement ( in liters), rated power, and model year of the engine or whom to contact for further information. ( 4) The statement `` THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.255 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''. ( c) Secondary engine manufacturers. As a secondary engine manufacturer, you may ask for approval to produce exempted engines under this section for up to one year. We may require you to certify your engines to compliance levels above the emission standards that apply. For example, if you need an exemption from a second tier of standards, we may require you to meet the standards that applied to earlier model years. ( 1) For the purpose of this section, a secondary engine manufacturer is a manufacturer that produces an engine by modifying an engine that is made by a different manufacturer for a different type of application. This includes, for example, automotive engines converted for use in industrial applications, or land­ based engines converted for use in marine applications. This applies whether the secondary engine manufacturer is modifying a complete or partially complete engine and whether the engine was previously certified to emission standards or not. To be a secondary engine manufacturer, you must not be controlled by the manufacturer of the base engine ( or by an entity that also controls the manufacturer of the base engine). In addition, equipment manufacturers that substantially modify engines become secondary engine manufacturers. For the purpose of this definition, `` substantially modify'' means changing an engine in a way that could change its emission characteristics. ( 2) The provisions in paragraph ( a) of this section that apply to equipment manufacturers requesting an exemption apply equally to you, except that you may manufacture the engines. Before we can approve the exemption under this section, you must commit to a plan to make up the lost environmental benefit. ( i) If you produce uncertified engines under this exemption, we will calculate the lost environmental benefit based on our best estimate of uncontrolled emission rates for your engines. ( ii) If you produce engines under this exemption that are certified to a compliance level less stringent than the emission standards that would otherwise apply, we will calculate the lost environmental benefit based on the compliance level you select for your engines. ( 3) The labeling requirements in paragraph ( b) of this section apply to your exempted engines; however, if you certify engines to specific compliance levels, state on the label the compliance levels that apply to each engine. Subpart D Imports § 1068.301 Does this subpart apply to me? ( a) This subpart applies to you if you import into the United States engines or equipment subject to our emission standards or equipment containing engines subject to our emission standards. ( b) In general, engines that you import must be covered by a certificate of conformity unless they were built before emission standards started to apply. This subpart describes the limited cases where we allow importation of exempt or excluded engines. ( c) The U. S. Customs Service may prevent you from importing an engine if you do not meet the requirements of this subpart. In addition, U. S. Customs Service regulations may contain other requirements for engines imported into the United States ( see 19 CFR Chapter I). § 1068.305 How do I get an exemption or exclusion for imported engines? ( a) Complete the appropriate EPA declaration form before importing any nonconforming engine. These forms are available on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ OMS/ imports/ or by phone at 202 564 9660. ( b) If we ask for it, prepare a written request in which you do the following: ( 1) Give your name, address, telephone number, and taxpayer identification number. ( 2) Give the engine owner's name, address, telephone number, and taxpayer identification number. ( 3) Identify the make, model, identification number, and original production year of each engine. ( 4) Identify which exemption or exclusion in this subpart allows you to import a nonconforming engine and describe how your engine qualifies. ( 5) Tell us where you will keep your engines if you might need to store them until we approve your request. ( 6) Authorize us to inspect or test your engines as the Act allows. ( c) We may ask for more information. ( d) You may import the nonconforming engines you identify in your request if you get prior written approval from us. The U. S. Customs Service may require you to show them the approval letter. We may temporarily or permanently approve the exemptions or exclusions, as described in this subpart. ( e) Make sure the engine meets any labeling requirements that apply. § 1068.310 What are the exclusions for imported engines? Emission standards do not apply to excluded engines that you import. If you show us that your engines qualify under one of the paragraphs of this section, we will approve your request to import excluded engines. You must have our approval to import an engine under paragraph ( a) of this section. You may, but are not required to request our approval for the other exclusions in this section. The following engines are excluded: ( a) Engines used solely for competition. Engines you use solely for competition are excluded. The standardsetting part may set special provisions for the manufacture, sale, or import of engines used solely for competition. Section 1068.101( b)( 4) prohibits using these excluded engines for other purposes. ( b) Stationary engines. This includes engines that will be used in a permanently fixed location and engines meeting the criteria for the exclusion in paragraph ( 2)( iii) of the nonroad engine definition in § 1068.30. Section 1068.101( b)( 3) prohibits using these engines for other purposes. ( c) Other engines. The standardsetting parts may exclude engines used in certain applications. For example, engines used in aircraft, underground mining, and hobby vehicles are generally excluded. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68438 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations § 1068.315 What are the permanent exemptions for imported engines? We may approve a permanent exemption for an imported engine under the following conditions: ( a) National security exemption. You may import engine under the national security exemption in § 1068.225. ( b) Manufacturer­ owned engine exemption. You may import a manufacturer­ owned engine, as described in § 1068.215. ( c) Replacement engine exemption. You may import a nonconforming replacement engine as described in § 1068.240. To use this exemption, you must be a certificate holder for an engine family we regulate under the same part as the replacement engine. ( d) Extraordinary circumstances exemption. You may import a nonconforming engine if we grant hardship relief as described in § 1068.245. ( e) Hardship exemption. You may import a nonconforming engine if we grant an exemption for the transition to new or revised emission standards, as described in § 1068.255. ( f) Identical configuration exemption. You may import a nonconforming engine if it is identical to certified engines produced by the same manufacturer, subject to the following provisions: ( 1) You may import only the following engines under this exemption: ( i) Large nonroad spark­ ignition engines ( see part 1048 of this chapter). ( ii) Recreational nonroad sparkignition engines and equipment ( see part 1051 of this chapter). ( 2) You must meet all the following criteria: ( i) You have owned the engine for at least one year. ( ii) You agree not to sell, lease, donate, trade, or otherwise transfer ownership of the engine for at least five years, or until the engine is eligible for the exemption in paragraph ( g) of this section. During this period, the only acceptable way to dispose of the engine is to destroy or export it. ( iii) You use data or evidence sufficient to show that the engine is in a configuration that is the same as an engine the original manufacturer has certified to meet emission standards that apply at the time the manufacturer finished assembling or modifying the engine in question. If you modify the engine to make it identical, you must follow the original manufacturer's complete written instructions. ( 3) We will tell you in writing if we find the information insufficient to show that the engine is eligible for this exemption. In this case, we will not consider your request further until you address our concerns. ( g) Ancient engine exemption. If you are not the original engine manufacturer, you may import a nonconforming engine that is subject to a standard­ setting part and was first manufactured at least 21 years earlier, as long as it is still in its original configuration. § 1068.320 How must I label an imported engine with a permanent exemption? ( a) For engines imported under § 1068.315 ( a), ( b), ( c), ( d), or ( e), you must place a permanent label or tag on each engine. If no specific label requirements from subpart C of this part apply, you must meet the following requirements: ( 1) Attach the label or tag in one piece so no one can remove it without destroying or defacing it. ( 2) Make sure it is durable and readable for the engine's entire life. ( 3) Secure it to a part of the engine needed for normal operation and not normally requiring replacement. ( 4) Write it in block letters in English. ( 5) Make it readily visible to the average person after the engine is installed in the equipment. ( b) On the engine label or tag, do the following: ( 1) Include the heading `` Emission Control Information.'' ( 2) Include your full corporate name and trademark. ( 3) State the engine displacement ( in liters) and rated power. If the engine's rated power is not established, state the approximate power rating accurately enough to allow a detemination of which stanadards would otherwise apply. ( 4) State: `` THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF [ identify the part referenced in 40 CFR 1068.1( a) that would otherwise apply], AS PROVIDED IN [ identify the paragraph authorizing the exemption ( for example, `` 40 CFR 1068.315( a)'')]. INSTALLING THIS ENGINE IN ANY DIFFERENT APPLICATION IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY.''. ( c) Get us to approve alternate label language if it is more accurate for your engine. § 1068.325 What are the temporary exemptions for imported engines? If we approve a temporary exemption for an engine, you may import it under the conditions in this section. We may ask the U. S. Customs Service to require a specific bond amount to make sure you comply with the requirements of this subpart. You may not sell or lease one of these engines while it is in the United States. You must eventually export the engine as we describe in this section unless you get a certificate of conformity for it or it qualifies for one of the permanent exemptions in § 1068.315. Section 1068.330 specifies an additional temporary exemption allowing you to import certain engines you intend to sell or lease. ( a) Exemption for repairs or alterations. You may temporarily import a nonconforming engine under bond solely to repair or alter it. You may operate the engine in the United States only to repair or alter it or to ship it to or from the service location. Export the engine directly after the engine servicing is complete. ( b) Testing exemption. You may temporarily import a nonconforming engine under bond for testing if you follow the requirements of § 1068.210. You may operate the engine in the United States only to allow testing. This exemption expires one year after you import the engine, unless we approve a one­ time request for an extension of up to one more year. The engine must be exported before the exemption expires. ( c) Display exemption. You may temporarily import a nonconforming engine under bond for display, as described in § 1068.220. This exemption expires one year after you import the engine, unless we approve your request for an extension. We may approve an extension of up to one more year for each request, but no more than three years in total. The engine must be exported by the time the exemption expires or directly after the display concludes, whichever comes first. ( d) Export exemption. You may temporarily import a nonconforming engine to export it, as described in § 1068.230. You may operate the engine in the United States only as needed to prepare it for export. Label the engine as described in § 1068.230. ( e) Diplomatic or military exemption. You may temporarily import nonconforming engines without bond if you represent a foreign government in a diplomatic or military capacity. In your request to the Designated Officer ( see § 1068.305), include either written confirmation from the U. S. State Department that you qualify for this exemption or a copy of your orders for military duty in the United States. We will rely on the State Department or your military orders to determine when your diplomatic or military status expires, at which time you must export your exempt engines. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68439 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations § 1068.330 How do I import engines to modify for other applications? This section allows you to import engines in configurations different than their final configuration. This exemption is temporary, as described in paragraph ( d) of this section. ( a) This section applies in the following cases: ( 1) You import a partially complete engine with the intent to manufacture complete engines for which you have either a certificate of conformity or an exemption that allows you to sell completed engines. ( 2) You import an uncertified complete engine with the intent to modify it for installation in an application different than its otherwise intended application ( for example, you import a land­ based engine to modify it for a marine application). In this case, to qualify for an exemption under this section, you need either a certificate of conformity or an exemption that allows you to sell completed engines. ( 3) You import a complete or partially complete engine to modify for an application for which emission standards do not apply. ( b) You may request this exemption in an application for certification. Otherwise, send your request to the Designated Officer. Your request must include: ( 1) The name of the supplier of the partially complete engine, or the original manufacturer of the complete engine. ( 2) A description of the certificate or exemption that will apply to the engines in the final configuration, or an explanation why a certificate or exemption is not needed. ( 3) A brief description of how and where final assembly will be completed. ( 4) An unconditional statement that the engines will comply with all applicable regulations in their final configuration. ( c) If we approve a temporary exemption for an engine, you may import it under the conditions in this section. We may ask the U. S. Customs Service to require a specific bond amount to make sure you comply with the requirements of this subpart. ( d) These provisions are intended only to allow you to import engines in the specific circumstances identified in this section, so any exemption under this section expires when you complete the assembly of the engine in its final configuration. If the engine in its final configuration is subject to emission standards, then it must be covered by a certificate or a different exemption before you introduce it into commerce. § 1068.335 What are the penalties for violations? ( a) All imported engines. Unless you comply with the provisions of this subpart, importation of nonconforming engines is violation of sections 203 and 213( d) of the Act. You may then have to export the engines, or pay civil penalties, or both. The U. S. Customs Service may seize unlawfully imported engines. ( b) Temporarily imported engines. If you do not comply with the provisions of this subpart for a temporary exemption, you may forfeit the total amount of the bond in addition to the sanctions we identify in paragraph ( a) of this section. We will consider an engine to be exported if it has been destroyed or delivered to the U. S. Customs Service for export or other disposition under applicable Customs laws and regulations. EPA or the U. S. Customs Service may offer you a grace period to allow you to export a temporarily exempted engine without penalty after the exemption expires. Subpart E Selective Enforcement Auditing § 1068.401 What is a selective enforcement audit? ( a) We may conduct or require you to conduct emission tests on your production engines in a selective enforcement audit. This requirement is independent of any requirement for you to routinely test production­ line engines. ( b) If we send you a signed test order, you must follow its directions and the provisions of this subpart. We will tell you where to test the engines. This may be where you produce the engines or any other emission testing facility. ( c) If we select one or more of your engine families for a selective enforcement audit, we will send the test order to the person who signed the application for certification or we will deliver it in person. ( d) Within one working day of receiving the test order, notify the Designated Officer which test facility you have selected for emission testing. ( e) You must do everything we require in the audit without delay. § 1068.405 What is in a test order? ( a) In the test order, we will specify the following things: ( 1) The engine family and configuration ( if any) we have identified for testing. ( 2) The engine assembly plant, storage facility, or ( if you import the engines) port facility from which you must select engines. ( 3) The procedure for selecting engines for testing, including a selection rate. ( 4) The test procedures, duty cycles, and test points, as appropriate, for testing the engines to show that they meet emission standards. ( b) We may state that we will select the test engines. ( c) We may identify alternate engine families or configurations for testing in case we determine the intended engines are not available for testing or if you do not produce enough engines to meet the minimum rate for selecting test engines. ( d) We may include other directions or information in the test order. ( e) We may ask you to show us that you meet any additional requirements that apply to your engines ( closed crankcases, for example). ( f) In anticipation of a potential audit, you may give us a list of your preferred engine families and the corresponding assembly plants, storage facilities, or ( if you import the engines) port facilities from which we should select engines for testing. The information would apply only for a single model year, so it would be best to include this information in your application for certification. If you give us this list before we issue a test order, we will consider your recommendations, but we may select engines differently. ( g) If you also do routine productionline testing with the selected engine family in the same time period, the test order will tell you what changes you might need to make in your productionline testing schedule. § 1068.410 How must I select and prepare my engines? ( a) Selecting engines. Select engines as described in the test order. If you are unable to select test engines this way, you may ask us to approve an alternate plan, as long as you make the request before you start selecting engines. ( b) Assembling engines. Produce and assemble test engines using your normal production and assembly process for that engine family. ( 1) Notify us directly if you make any change in your production, assembly, or quality control processes that might affect emissions between the time you receive the test order and the time you finish selecting test engines. ( 2) If you do not fully assemble engines at the specified location, we will describe in the test order how to select components to finish assembling the engines. Assemble these components onto the test engines using your documented assembly and quality control procedures. ( c) Modifying engines. Once an engine is selected for testing, you may adjust, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68440 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations repair, prepare, or modify it or check its emissions only if one of the following is true: ( 1) You document the need for doing so in your procedures for assembling and inspecting all your production engines and make the action routine for all the engines in the engine family. ( 2) This subpart otherwise allows your action. ( 3) We approve your action in advance. ( d) Engine malfunction. If an engine malfunction prevents further emission testing, ask us to approve your decision to either repair the engine or delete it from the test sequence. ( e) Setting adjustable parameters. Before any test, we may adjust or require you to adjust any adjustable parameter to any setting within its physically adjustable range. ( 1) We may adjust idle speed outside the physically adjustable range as needed until the engine has stabilized emission levels ( see paragraph ( e) of this section). We may ask you for information needed to establish an alternate minimum idle speed. ( 2) We may make or specify adjustments within the physically adjustable range by considering their effect on emission levels, as well as how likely it is someone will make such an adjustment with in­ use engines. ( f) Stabilizing emission levels. Before you test production­ line engines, you may operate the engine to stabilize the emission levels. Using good engineering judgment, operate your engines in a way that represents the way production engines will be used. You may operate each engine for no more than the greater of two periods: ( 1) 50 hours. ( 2) The number of hours you operated your emission­ data engine for certifying the engine family ( see 40 CFR part 1065, subpart E). ( g) Damage during shipment. If shipping an engine to a remote facility for production­ line testing makes necessary an adjustment or repair, you must wait until after the initial emission test to do this work. We may waive this requirement if the test would be impossible or unsafe, or if it would permanently damage the engine. Report to us, in your written report under § 1068.450, all adjustments or repairs you make on test engines before each test. ( h) Shipping engines. If you need to ship engines to another facility for testing, make sure the test engines arrive at the test facility within 24 hours after being selected. You may ask that we allow more time if you are unable to do this. ( i) Retesting after invalid tests. You may retest an engine if you determine an emission test is invalid. Explain in your written report reasons for invalidating any test and the emission results from all tests. If you retest an engine and, within ten days after testing, ask to substitute results of the new tests for the original ones, we will answer within ten days after we receive your information. § 1068.415 How do I test my engines? ( a) Use the test procedures specified in the standard­ setting part for showing that your engines meet emission standards. The test order will give further testing instructions. ( b) If no test cells are available at a given facility, you may make alternate testing arrangements with our approval. ( c) Test at least two engines in each 24­ hour period ( including void tests). However, if your projected U. S. nonroad engine sales within the engine family are less than 7,500 for the year, you may test a minimum of one engine per 24­ hour period. If you request and justify it, we may approve a lower testing rate. ( d) Accumulate service on test engines at a minimum rate of 6 hours per engine during each 24­ hour period. The first 24­ hour period for service accumulation begins when you finish preparing an engine for testing. The minimum service accumulation rate does not apply on weekends or holidays. You may ask us to approve a lower service accumulation rate. Plan your service accumulation to allow testing at the rate specified in § 1068.415. Select engine operation for accumulating operating hours on your test engines to represent normal in­ use engine operation for the engine family. ( e) Test engines is the same order you select them. § 1068.420 How do I know when my engine family fails an SEA? ( a) A failed engine is one whose final deteriorated test results exceed an applicable emission standard for any regulated pollutant. ( b) Continue testing engines until you reach a pass decision for all pollutants or a fail decision for one pollutant. ( c) You reach a pass decision for the SEA requirements when the number of failed engines is less than or equal to the pass decision number in Appendix A to this subpart for the total number of engines tested. You reach a fail decision for the SEA requirements when the number of failed engines is greater than or equal to the fail decision number in Appendix A to this subpart for the total number of engines you test. An acceptable quality level of 40 percent is the basis for the pass or fail decision. ( d) Consider test results in the same order as the engine testing sequence. ( e) If you reach a pass decision for one pollutant, but need to continue testing for another pollutant, we will disregard these later test results for the pollutant with the pass decision. ( f) Appendix A to this subpart lists multiple sampling plans. Use the sampling plan for the projected sales volume you reported in your application for the audited engine family. ( g) We may choose to stop testing after any number of tests. ( h) If we test some of your engines in addition to your own testing, we may decide not to include your test results as official data for those engines if there is substantial disagreement between your testing and our testing. We will reinstate your data as valid if you show us that we made an error and your data are correct. ( i) If we rely on our test data instead of yours, we will notify you in writing of our decision and the reasons we believe your facility is not appropriate for doing the tests we require under this subpart. You may request in writing that we consider your test results from the same facility for future testing if you show us that you have made changes to resolve the problem. § 1068.425 What happens if one of my production­ line engines exceeds the emission standards? ( a) If one of your production­ line engines fails to meet one or more emission standards ( see § 1068.420), the certificate of conformity is automatically suspended for that engine. You must take the following actions before your certificate of conformity can cover that engine: ( 1) Correct the problem and retest the engine to show it complies with all emission standards. ( 2) Include in your written report a description of the test results and the remedy for each engine ( see § 1068.450). ( b) You may at any time ask for a hearing to determine whether the tests and sampling methods were proper ( see subpart G of this part). § 1068.430 What happens if an engine family fails an SEA? ( a) We may suspend your certificate of conformity for an engine family if it fails the SEA under § 1068.420. The suspension may apply to all facilities producing engines from an engine family, even if you find noncompliant engines only at one facility. ( b) We will tell you in writing if we suspend your certificate in whole or in VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68441 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations part. We will not suspend a certificate until at least 15 days after the engine family fails the SEA. The suspension is effective when you receive our notice. ( c) Up to 15 days after we suspend the certificate for an engine family, you may ask for a hearing to determine whether the tests and sampling methods were proper ( see subpart G of this part). If we agree before a hearing that we used erroneous information in deciding to suspend the certificate, we will reinstate the certificate. § 1068.435 May I sell engines from an engine family with a suspended certificate of conformity? You may sell engines that you produce after we suspend the engine family's certificate of conformity only if one of the following occurs: ( a) You test each engine you produce and show it complies with emission standards that apply. ( b) We conditionally reinstate the certificate for the engine family. We may do so if you agree to recall all the affected engines and remedy any noncompliance at no expense to the owner if later testing shows that engines in the engine family still do not comply. § 1068.440 How do I ask EPA to reinstate my suspended certificate? ( a) Send us a written report asking us to reinstate your suspended certificate. In your report, identify the reason for the SEA failure, propose a remedy, and commit to a date for carrying it out. In your proposed remedy include any quality control measures you propose to keep the problem from happening again. ( b) Give us data from production­ line testing showing that engines in the remedied engine family comply with all the emission standards that apply. § 1068.445 When may EPA revoke my certificate under this subpart and how may I sell these engines again? ( a) We may revoke your certificate for an engine family in the following cases: ( 1) You do not meet the reporting requirements. ( 2) Your engine family fails an SEA and your proposed remedy to address a suspended certificate is inadequate to solve the problem or requires you to change the engine's design or emissioncontrol system. ( b) To sell engines from an engine family with a revoked certificate of conformity, you must modify the engine family and then show it complies with the applicable requirements. ( 1) If we determine your proposed design change may not control emissions for the engine's full useful life, we will tell you within five working days after receiving your report. In this case we will decide whether production­ line testing will be enough for us to evaluate the change or whether you need to do more testing. ( 2) Unless we require more testing, you may show compliance by testing production­ line engines as described in this subpart. ( 3) We will issue a new or updated certificate of conformity when you have met these requirements. § 1068.450 What records must I send to EPA? ( a) Within 30 calendar days of the end of each audit, send us a report with the following information: ( 1) Describe any facility used to test production­ line engines and state its location. ( 2) State the total U. S.­ directed production volume and number of tests for each engine family. ( 3) Describe your test engines, including the engine family's identification and the engine's model year, build date, model number, identification number, and number of hours of operation before testing for each test engine. ( 4) Identify where you accumulated hours of operation on the engines and describe the procedure and schedule you used. ( 5) Provide the test number; the date, time and duration of testing; test procedure; initial test results before and after rounding; final test results; and final deteriorated test results for all tests. Provide the emission figures for all measured pollutants. Include information for both valid and invalid tests and the reason for any invalidation. ( 6) Describe completely and justify any nonroutine adjustment, modification, repair, preparation, maintenance, or test for the test engine if you did not report it separately under this subpart. Include the results of any emission measurements, regardless of the procedure or type of equipment. ( 7) Report on each failed engine as described in § 1068.425. ( b) We may ask you to add information to your written report, so we can determine whether your new engines conform with the requirements of this subpart. ( c) An authorized representative of your company must sign the following statement: We submit this report under Sections 208 and 213 of the Clean Air Act. Ourtesting conformed completely with the requirements of 40 CFR part 1068. We have not changed production processes or quality­ control procedures for the engine family in a way that might affect the emission control from production engines. All the information in this report is true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge. I know of the penalties for violating the Clean Air Act and the regulations. ( Authorized Company Representative) ( d) Send reports of your testing to the Designated Officer using an approved information format. If you want to use a different format, send us a written request with justification for a waiver. ( e) We will send copies of your reports to anyone from the public who asks for them. We will release information about your sales or production volumes, which is all we will consider confidential. § 1068.455 What records must I keep? ( a) We may review your records at any time, so it is important to keep required information readily available. Organize and maintain your records as described in this section. ( b) Keep paper records for testing under this subpart for one full year after you complete all the testing required for the selective enforcement audit. For additional storage, you may use any format or media. ( c) Keep a copy of the written reports described in § 1068.450. ( d) Keep the following additional records: ( 1) The names of supervisors involved in each test. ( 2) The name of anyone who authorizes adjusting, repairing, preparing, or modifying a test engine and the names of all supervisors who oversee this work. ( 3) If you shipped the engine for testing, the date you shipped it, the associated storage or port facility, and the date the engine arrived at the testing facility. ( 4) Any records related to your audit that are not in the written report. ( 5) A brief description of any significant events during testing not otherwise described in the written report or in this section. ( e) If we ask, you must give us projected or actual production for an engine family. Include each assembly plant if you produce engines at more than one plant. ( f) We may ask you to keep or send other information necessary to implement this subpart. Appendix A to Subpart E of Part 1068 Plans for Selective Enforcement Auditing The following tables describe sampling plans for selective enforcement audits, as described in § 1068.420: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68442 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE A 1. SAMPLING PLAN CODE LETTER Projected engine family sales Code letter 1 Minimum number of tests Maximum number of tests To pass To fail 20 50 ............................................................................................................................. AA 3 5 20 20 99 ............................................................................................................................. A 4 6 30 100 299 ......................................................................................................................... B 5 6 40 300 499 ......................................................................................................................... C 5 6 50 500 + ................................................................................................................................ D 5 6 60 1 A manufacturer may optionally use either the sampling plan for code letter `` AA'' or sampling plan for code letter `` A'' for Selective enforcement Audits of engine families with annual sales between 20 and 50 engines. Additionally, the manufacturer may switch between these plans during the audit. TABLE A 2. SAMPLING PLANS FOR DIFFERENT ENGINE FAMILY SALES VOLUMES Stage a AA A B C D Pass # Fail # Pass # Fail # Pass # Fail # Pass # Fail # Pass # Fail # 1. 2. 3 ........................ 0 4 ........................ .................... 0 5 ........................ 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 ........................ 1 6 1 6 1 6 0 6 0 6 7 ........................ 2 6 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 8 ........................ 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 8 9 ........................ 3 7 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 10 ...................... 3 8 3 8 3 8 3 9 3 9 11 ...................... 4 8 3 8 3 9 3 9 3 9 12 ...................... 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 10 4 10 13 ...................... 5 9 5 10 4 10 4 10 4 10 14 ...................... 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 11 5 11 15 ...................... 6 10 6 11 5 11 5 11 5 11 16 ...................... 6 10 6 11 6 12 6 12 6 12 17 ...................... 7 10 7 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 18 ...................... 8 10 7 12 7 13 7 13 7 13 19 ...................... 8 10 8 13 8 13 7 13 7 13 20 ...................... 9 10 8 13 8 14 8 14 8 14 21 ...................... 9 14 9 14 8 14 8 14 22 ...................... 10 14 9 15 9 15 9 15 23 ...................... 10 15 10 15 10 15 9 15 24 ...................... 11 15 10 16 10 16 10 16 25 ...................... 11 16 11 16 11 16 11 16 26 ...................... 12 16 11 17 11 17 11 17 27 ...................... 12 17 12 17 12 17 12 17 28 ...................... 13 17 12 18 12 18 12 18 29 ...................... 14 17 13 18 13 18 13 19 30 ...................... 16 17 13 19 13 19 13 19 31 ...................... 14 19 14 19 14 20 32 ...................... 14 20 14 20 14 20 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68443 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE A 2. SAMPLING PLANS FOR DIFFERENT ENGINE FAMILY SALES VOLUMES Continued Stage a AA A B C D Pass # Fail # Pass # Fail # Pass # Fail # Pass # Fail # Pass # Fail # 33 ...................... 15 20 15 20 15 21 34 ...................... 16 21 15 21 15 21 35 ...................... 16 21 16 21 16 22 36 ...................... 17 22 16 22 16 22 37 ...................... 17 22 17 22 17 23 38 ...................... 18 22 18 23 17 23 39 ...................... 18 22 18 23 18 24 40 ...................... 21 22 19 24 18 24 41 ...................... 19 24 19 25 42 ...................... 20 25 19 26 43 ...................... 20 25 20 26 44 ...................... 21 26 21 27 45 ...................... 21 27 21 27 46 ...................... 22 27 22 28 47 ...................... 22 27 22 28 48 ...................... 23 27 23 29 49 ...................... 23 27 23 29 50 ...................... 26 27 24 30 51 ...................... 24 30 52 ...................... 25 31 53 ...................... 25 31 54 ...................... 26 32 55 ...................... 26 32 56 ...................... 27 33 57 ...................... 27 33 58 ...................... 28 33 59 ...................... 28 33 60 32 33 a Stage refers to the cumulative number of engines tested. Subpart F Reporting Defects and Recalling Engines § 1068.501 How do I report engine defects? ( a) General provisions. As an engine manufacturer, you must investigate in certain circumstances whether emission­ related components are defective and send us reports as specified by this section. ( 1) The term emission­ related component includes those components listed in Appendix I of this part. For the purposes of this section, complete engines shall also be considered an emissions­ related component. It also includes factory settings of emissionrelated parameters and specifications listed in Appendix II of this part. ( 2) For the purposes of this section, defects do not include damage to emission­ related components ( or maladjustment of parameters) caused by owners improperly maintaining or abusing their engine. ( 3) You must track the information specified in paragraph ( b)( 1) of this section. You are not required to collect additional information other than that specified in paragraph ( b)( 1) of this section before reaching the threshold for an investigation specified in paragraph ( e) of this section. ( 4) You may ask us to allow you to use alternate methods for tracking, investigating, reporting, and correcting emission­ related defects. In your request, explain and demonstrate why you believe your alternate system will be at least as effective in tracking, identifying, investigating, evaluating, reporting, and correcting potential and actual emissions­ related defects as the requirements in this section. ( 5) If we determine that emissionrelated defects result in a substantial number of properly maintained and used engines not conforming to the regulations of this chapter during their VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 22 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68444 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations useful life, we may order you to conduct a recall of your engines ( see § 1068.505). ( 6) Send the defect reports and status reports required by this section to the Designated Officer. ( b) Investigation of possible defects. If the number of engines that possibly have a defect, as defined by paragraph ( b)( 1) of this section, exceed the thresholds specified in paragraph ( e) of this section, you must conduct an investigation to determine if an emission­ related component is actually defective. ( 1) You must track warranty claims, parts shipments, and the other information specified in paragraph ( b)( 1)( iii) of this section. You must classify an engine as possibly having a defective component if any of the following is true: ( i) A warranty claim is submitted for the component, whether this is under your emission­ related warranty or any other warranty. ( ii) You ship a replacement component other than for normally scheduled maintenance during the useful life of the engine. ( iii) You receive any other information indicating the component may be defective, such as information from dealers or hot line complaints. ( 2) Your investigation must be prompt, thorough, consider all relevant information, follow scientific and engineering principles, and be designed to obtain all the information specified in paragraph ( d) of this section. ( 3) Your investigation only needs to consider defects that occur within the useful life period, or within five years after the end of the model year, whichever is longer. ( 4) You must continue your investigation until you are able to obtain all the information specified for a defect report in paragraph ( d) of this section. Send us an updated defect report anytime you have significant additional information. ( 5) If a component believed to be defective is used in additional engine families or model years, you must investigate whether the component or part is defective when used in these additional engine families or model years, and include these results as part of your defect report. ( 6) If your initial investigation concludes that the number of engines with a defect is fewer than the thresholds specified in paragraph ( f) of this section, but other information becomes available that may show that the number of engines with a defect exceeds these thresholds, then you must resume your investigation. If you resume an investigation, you must include the information from the earlier investigation to determine whether to send a defect report. ( c) Reporting defects. You must send us a defect report in either of the following cases: ( 1) Your investigation shows that the number of engines with a defect exceeds the thresholds specified in paragraph ( f) of this section. Send the defect report within 15 days after the date you identify this number of defective engines. ( 2) You know a defective emissionrelated component exists in a number of engines that exceeds the thresholds specified in paragraph ( f) of this section, regardless of how you obtain this information. Send the defect report within 15 days after you learn that the number of defects exceeds one of these thresholds. ( d) Contents of a defect report. Include the following information in a defect report: ( 1) Your corporate name and a person to contact regarding this defect. ( 2) A description of the defect, including a summary of any engineering analyses and associated data, if available. ( 3) A description of the engines that may have the defect, including engine families, models, and range of production dates. Note that you must address all model years for the engines, not just the model year for which you triggered the reporting requirement. ( 4) An estimate of the number and percentage of each class or category of affected engines that have or may have the defect, and an explanation of how you determined this number. ( 5) An estimate of the defect's impact on emissions, with an explanation of how you calculated this estimate and a summary of any emission data demonstrating the impact of the defect, if available. ( 6) A description of your plan for addressing the defect or an explanation of your reasons for not believing the defects must be remedied. ( e) Thresholds for conducting a defect investigation. Unless the standardsetting part specifies otherwise, you must begin a defect investigation based on the following threshold values: ( 1) For engine with rated power under 560 kW: ( i) When the component is a catalytic converter ( or other aftertreatment device), if the number of engines in an engine family that may have the defect exceeds 2 percent of the total number of engines in the engine family or 2,000 engines, whichever is less. ( ii) When the emission­ related component is anything but a catalytic converter ( or other aftertreatment device), if the number of engines in an engine family that may have the defect exceeds 4 percent of the total number of engines in the engine family or 4,000 engines, whichever is less. ( 2) For engine with rated power greater than or equal to 560 kW, if the number of engines in an engine family that may have the defect exceeds 1 percent of the total number of engines in the engine family or 5 engines, whichever is greater. ( f) Thresholds for filing a defect report. You must send a defect report based on the following threshold values: ( 1) For engine with rated power under 560 kW: ( i) When the component is a catalytic converter ( or other aftertreatment device), if the number of engines in an engine family that has the defect exceeds 0.125 percent of the total number of engines in the engine family or 125 engines, whichever is less. ( ii) When the emission­ related component is anything but a catalytic converter ( or other aftertreatment device), if the number of engines in an engine family that has the defect exceeds 0.250 percent of the total number of engines in the engine family or 250 engines, whichever is less. ( 2) For engine with rated power greater than or equal to 560 kW, if the number of engines in an engine family that has the defect exceeds 0.5 percent of the total number of engines in the engine family or 2 engines, whichever is greater. ( g) How to count defects. In most cases, you may track defects separately for each model year and engine family. For families with annual U. S.­ directed production volumes under 5,000 engines, you may apply the percentage thresholds in paragraphs ( e) and ( f) of this section on the basis of multiple model years, for engines using the same emission­ related components. To determine whether you exceed the investigation threshold in paragraph ( e) of this section, count defects that you correct before they reach the ultimate purchaser. Do not count these corrected defects to determine whether you exceed the reporting threshold in paragraph ( f) of this section. ( h) Status reports. You must send us a mid­ year or end­ of­ year status report if you concluded an investigation during the previous six months without filing a defect report or if you have an unresolved investigation at the end of the six­ month period. Include the information specified in paragraph ( c) of this section, or explain why the information is not relevant. Send these VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68445 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations status reports no later than June 30 and December 31 of each year. ( i) Future production. If you identify a design or manufacturing defect that prevents engines from meeting the requirements of this part, you must correct the defect as soon as possible for any future production for engines in every family affected by the defect. This applies without regard to whether you are required to conduct a defect investigation or submit a defect report under this section. § 1068.505 How does the recall program work? ( a) If we make a determination that a substantial number of properly maintained and used engines do not conform to the regulations of this chapter during their useful life, you must submit a plan to remedy the nonconformity of your engines. We will notify you of our determination in writing. Our notice will identify the class or category of engines affected and describe how we reached our conclusion. If this happens, you must meet the requirements and follow the instructions in this subpart. You must remedy at your expense noncompliant engines that have been properly maintained and used. You may not transfer this expense to a dealer or equipment manufacturer through a franchise or other agreement. ( b) You may ask for a hearing if you disagree with our determination ( see subpart G of this part). ( c) Unless we withdraw the determination of noncompliance, you must respond to it by sending a remedial plan to the Designated Officer by the later of these two deadlines: ( 1) Within 60 days after we notify you. ( 2) Within 60 days after a hearing. ( d) Once you have sold an engine to the ultimate purchaser, we may inspect or test the engine only if he or she permits it, or if state or local inspection programs separately provide for it. ( e) You may ask us to allow you to conduct your recall differently than specified in this subpart, consistent with section 207( c) of the Act. § 1068.510 How do I prepare and apply my remedial plan? ( a) In your remedial plan, describe all of the following: ( 1) The class or category of engines to be recalled, including the number of engines involved and the model year or other information needed to identify the engines. ( 2) The modifications, alterations, repairs, corrections, adjustments, or other changes you will make to correct the affected engines. ( 3) A brief description of the studies, tests, and data that support the effectiveness of the remedy you propose to use. ( 4) The instructions you will send to those who will repair the engines under the remedial plan. ( 5) How you will determine the owners' names and addresses. ( 6) How you will notify owners; include copies of any notification letters. ( 7) The proper maintenance or use you will specify, if any, as a condition to be eligible for repair under the remedial plan. Describe how owners should show they meet your conditions. ( 8) The steps owners must take for you to do the repair. You may set a date or a range of dates, specify the amount of time you need, and designate certain facilities to do the repairs. ( 9) Which company ( or group) you will assign to do or manage the repairs. ( 10) If your employees or authorized warranty agents will not be doing the work, state who will and say they can do it. ( 11) How you will ensure an adequate and timely supply of parts. ( 12) The effect of proposed changes on fuel consumption, driveability, and safety of the engines you will recall; include a brief summary of the information supporting these conclusions. ( 13) How you intend to label the engines you repair and where you will place the label on the engine ( see § 1068.515). ( b) We may require you to add information to your remedial plan. ( c) We may require you to test the proposed repair to show it will remedy the noncompliance. ( d) Use all reasonable means to locate owners. We may require you to use government or commercial registration lists to get owners' names and addresses, so your notice will be effective. ( e) The maintenance or use that you specify as a condition for eligibility under the remedial plan may include only things you can show would cause noncompliance. Do not require use of a component or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name, unless we approved this approach with your original certificate of conformity. Also, do not place conditions on who maintained the engine. ( f) We may require you to adjust your repair plan if we determine owners would be without their engines or equipment for an unreasonably long time. ( g) We will tell you in writing within 15 days of receiving your remedial plan whether we have approved or disapproved it. We will explain our reasons for any disapproval. ( h) Begin notifying owners within 15 days after we approve your remedial plan. If we hold a hearing, but do not change our position about the noncompliance, you must begin notifying owners within 60 days after we complete the hearing, unless we specify otherwise. § 1068.515 How do I mark or label repaired engines? ( a) Attach a label to each engine you repair under the remedial plan. At your discretion, you may label or mark engines you inspect but do not repair. ( b) Make the label from a durable material suitable for its planned location. Make sure no one can remove the label without destroying or defacing it. ( c) On the label, designate the specific recall campaign and state where you repaired or inspected the engine. ( d) We may waive or modify the labeling requirements if we determine they are overly burdensome. § 1068.520 How do I notify affected owners? ( a) Notify owners by first class mail, unless we say otherwise. We may require you to use certified mail. Include the following in your notice: ( 1) State: `` The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined that your engine may be emitting pollutants in excess of the Federal emission standards, as defined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These emission standards were established to protect the public health or welfare from air pollution''. ( 2) State that you ( or someone you designate) will repair these engines at your expense. ( 3) If we approved maintenance and use conditions in your remedial plan, state that you will make these repairs only if owners show their engines meet the conditions for proper maintenance and use. Describe these conditions and how owners should prove their engines are eligible for repair. ( 4) Describe the components your repair will affect and say generally how you will repair the engines. ( 5) State that the engine, if not repaired, may fail an emission inspection test if state or local law requires one. ( 6) Describe any adverse effects on its performance or driveability that would be caused by not repairing the engine. ( 7) Describe any adverse effects on the functions of other engine components that would be caused by not repairing the engine. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68446 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 8) Specify the date you will start the repairs, the amount of time you will need to do them, and where you will do them. Include any other information owners may need to know. ( 9) Include a self­ addressed card that owners can mail back if they have sold the engine ( or equipment in which the engine is installed); include a space for owners to write the name and address of a buyer. ( 10) State that owners should call you at a phone number you give to report any difficulty in obtaining repairs. ( 11) State: `` To ensure your full protection under the emission warranty on your engine by federal law, and your right to participate in future recalls, we recommend you have your engine serviced as soon as possible. We may consider your not servicing it to be improper maintenance''. ( b) We may require you to add information to your notice or to send more notices. ( c) You may not in any communication with owners or dealers say or imply that your noncompliance does not exist or that it will not degrade air quality. § 1068.525 What records must I send to EPA? ( a) Send us a copy of all communications related to the remedial plan you sent to dealers and others doing the repairs. Mail or e­ mail us the information at the same time you send it to others. ( b) From the time you begin to notify owners, send us a report within 25 days of the end of each calendar quarter. Send reports for six consecutive quarters or until all the engines are inspected, whichever comes first. In these reports, identify the following: ( 1) The range of dates you needed to notify owners. ( 2) The total number of notices sent. ( 3) The number of engines you estimate fall under the remedial plan ( explain how you determined this number). ( 4) The cumulative number of engines you inspected under the remedial plan. ( 5) The cumulative number of these engines you found needed the specified repair. ( 6) The cumulative number of these engines you have repaired. ( 7) The cumulative number of engines you determined to be unavailable due to exportation, theft, retirement, or other reasons ( specify). ( 8) The cumulative number of engines you disqualified for not being properly maintained or used. ( c) If your estimated number of engines falling under the remedial plan changes, change the estimate in your next report and add an explanation for the change. ( d) We may ask for more information. ( e) We may waive reporting requirements or adjust the reporting schedule. ( f) If anyone asks to see the information in your reports, we will follow the provisions of § 1068.10 for handling confidential information. § 1068.530 What records must I keep? We may review your records at any time, so it is important that you keep required information readily available. Keep records associated with your recall campaign for three years after you complete your remedial plan. Organize and maintain your records as described in this section. ( a) Keep a paper copy of the written reports described in § 1068.525. ( b) Keep a record of the names and addresses of owners you notified. For each engine, state whether you did any of the following: ( 1) Inspected the engine. ( 2) Disqualified the engine for not being properly maintained or used. ( 3) Completed the prescribed repairs. ( c) You may keep the records in paragraph ( b) of this section in any form we can inspect, including computer databases. § 1068.535 How can I do a voluntary recall for emission­ related problems? If we have made a determination that a substantial number of properly maintained and used engines do not conform to the regulations of this chapter during their useful life, you may not use a voluntary recall or other alternate means to meet your obligation to remedy the noncompliance. Thus, this section only applies where you learn that your engine family does not meet the requirements of this chapter and we have not made such a determination. ( a) To do a voluntary recall under this section, first send the Designated Officer a plan, following the guidelines in § 1068.510. Within 15 days, we will send you our comments on your plan. ( b) Once we approve your plan, start notifying owners and carrying out the specified repairs. ( c) From the time you start the recall campaign, send us a report within 25 days of the end of each calendar quarter, following the guidelines in § 1068.525( b). Send reports for six consecutive quarters or until all the engines are inspected, whichever comes first. ( d) Keep your reports and the supporting information as described in § 1068.530. § 1068.540 What terms do I need to know for this subpart? The following terms apply to this subpart: Days means calendar days. Owner means someone who owns an engine affected by a remedial plan or someone who owns a piece of equipment that has one of these engines. Subpart G Hearings § 1068.601 What are the procedures for hearings? If we agree to hold a hearing related to our decision to order a recall under § 1068.505, we will hold the hearing according to the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1807. For any other issues, you may request an informal hearing, as described in 40 CFR 86.1853 01. Appendix I to Part 1068 Emission­ Related Components This appendix specifies emission­ related components that we refer to for describing such things as emission­ related defects or requirements related to rebuilding engines. I. Emission­ related components include any engine parts related to the following systems: 1. Air­ induction system. 2. Fuel system. 3. Ignition system. 4. Exhaust gas recirculation systems. II. The following parts are also considered emission­ related components: 1. Aftertreatment devices. 2. Crankcase ventilation valves. 3. Sensors. 4. Electronic control units. III. Emission­ related components also include any other part whose only purpose is to reduce emissions or whose failure will increase emissions without significantly degrading engine performance. IV. We also consider the emission­ control information label to be an emissionrelated component. Appendix II to Part 1068 Emission­ Related Parameters and Specifications This appendix specifies emission­ related parameters and specifications that we refer to for describing such things as emission­ related defects or requirements related to rebuilding engines. I. Basic Engine Parameters Reciprocating Engines. 1. Compression ratio. 2. Type of air aspiration ( natural, Rootsblown supercharged, turbocharged). 3. Valves ( intake and exhaust). a. Head diameter dimension. b. Valve lifter or actuator type and valve lash dimension. 4. Camshaft timing. a. Valve opening intake exhaust ( degrees from top­ dead center or bottom­ dead center). b. Valve closing intake exhaust ( degrees from top­ dead center or bottom­ dead center). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2 68447 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 217 / Friday, November 8, 2002 / Rules and Regulations c. Valve overlap ( degrees). 5. Ports two stroke engines ( intake and/ or exhaust). a. Flow area. b. Opening timing ( degrees from top­ dead center or bottom­ dead center). c. Closing timing ( degrees from top­ dead center or bottom­ dead center). II. Intake Air System. 1. Roots blower/ supercharger/ turbocharger calibration. 2. Charge air cooling. a. Type ( air­ to­ air; air­ to­ liquid). b. Type of liquid cooling ( engine coolant, dedicated cooling system). c. Performance. 3. Temperature control system calibration. 4. Maximum allowable inlet air restriction. III. Fuel System. 1. General. a. Engine idle speed. b. Engine idle mixture. 2. Carburetion. a. Air­ fuel flow calibration. b. Idle mixture. c. Transient enrichment system calibration. d. Starting enrichment system calibration. e. Altitude compensation system calibration. f. Hot idle compensation system calibration. 3. Fuel injection for spark­ ignition engines. a. Control parameters and calibrations. b. Idle mixture. c. Fuel shutoff system calibration. d. Starting enrichment system calibration. e. Transient enrichment system calibration. f. Air­ fuel flow calibration. g. Altitude compensation system calibration. h. Operating pressure( s). i. Injector timing calibration. 4. Fuel injection for compression­ ignition engines. a. Control parameters and calibrations. b. Transient enrichment system calibration. c. Air­ fuel flow calibration. d. Altitude compensation system calibration. e. Operating pressure( s). f. Injector timing calibration. IV. Ignition System for Spark­ ignition Engines. 1. Control parameters and calibration. 2. Initial timing setting. 3. Dwell setting. 4. Altitude compensation system calibration. 5. Spark plug voltage. V. Engine Cooling System thermostat calibration. VI. Exhaust System maximum allowable back pressure. VII. System for Controlling Exhaust Emissions. 1. Air injection system. a. Control parameters and calibrations. b. Pump flow rate. 2. EGR system. a. Control parameters and calibrations. b. EGR valve flow calibration. 3. Catalytic converter system. a. Active surface area. b. Volume of catalyst. c. Conversion efficiency. 4. Backpressure. VIII. System for Controlling Crankcase Emissions. 1. Control parameters and calibrations. 2. Valve calibrations. IX. Auxiliary Emission Control Devices ( AECD). 1. Control parameters and calibrations. 2. Component calibration( s). X. System for Controlling Evaporative Emissions. 1. Control parameters and calibrations. 2. Fuel tank. a. Volume. b. Pressure and vacuum relief settings. XI. Warning Systems Related to Emission Controls. 1. Control parameters and calibrations. 2. Component calibrations. [ FR Doc. 02 23801 Filed 11 7 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 09 Nov 07, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 08NOR2. SGM 08NOR2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.327495

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0067-0001

Proposed Rule

Stay of Authority Under 40 CFR 50.9(b) Related to Applicability of 1-Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed Rule

Friday, December 27, 2002 Part VI Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 50 Stay of Authority Under 40 CFR 50.9( b) Related to Applicability of 1­ Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed Rule VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 05: 09 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DEP4. SGM 27DEP4 79460 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Part D of title I of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) contains a number of subparts concerning implementation of the NAAQS. Subpart 1 applies for purposes of implementing all new or revised NAAQS. Subparts 2 5, each apply to one or more specific NAAQS. At the time EPA promulgated the 8­ hour ozone NAAQS, EPA indicated that it believed subpart 1 was the only subpart that would apply for purposes of implementing the revised 8­ hour NAAQS and stated that subpart 2, which specifically addresses ozone, applied only for purposes of implementing the 1­ hour ozone standard. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 50 [ FRL 7430 2] Stay of Authority Under 40 CFR 50.9( b) Related to Applicability of 1­ Hour Ozone Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM). SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to stay its authority under the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b) to determine that an area has attained the 1­ hour standard (`` Proposed Stay'') and that the 1­ hour standard no longer applies. The EPA proposes that the stay shall be effective until such time as EPA takes final action in a subsequent rulemaking addressing whether the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b) should be modified in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U. S. 457 ( 2001), remanding EPA's strategy for the implementation of the 8­ hour ozone NAAQS to EPA for further consideration. In the subsequent rulemaking reconsidering the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b), EPA will consider and address any comments concerning ( a) which, if any, implementation activities for an 8­ hour ozone standard, including designations and classifications, would need to occur before EPA would determine that the 1­ hour ozone standard no longer applies to an area, and ( b) the effect of revising the ozone NAAQS on the existing 1­ hour ozone designations. DATES: To be considered, comments must be received on or before January 27, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted ( in duplicate, if possible) to the EPA Docket Center ( 6102T), Attention: Docket Number OAR 2002 0067, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West ( Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room: B108, Washington, DC 20460, telephone ( 202) 566 1742, fax ( 202) 566 1741, between 8: 30 a. m. and 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. To mail comments through Federal Express, UPS or other courier services, the mailing address is: EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room: B108, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC 20004. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by following the instructions under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document. No confidential business information should be submitted through e­ mail. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this NPRM should be addressed to Annie Nikbakht, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group, MD C539 02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone ( 919) 541 5246. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Availability The official record for this proposed rule, as well as the public version, has been established under Docket Number OAR 2002 0067. Submit comments by e­ mail to address: www. epa. gov/ rpas. Table of Contents I. Background II. Summary of Today's Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. The Revised 8­ Hour Ozone NAAQS On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a revised 8­ hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS) for ozone. The rule was challenged by a number of industry groups and States in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ( D. C. Circuit). The Court granted many aspects of those challenges and remanded the 8­ hour ozone NAAQS to EPA. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027 ( D. C. Cir. 1999) (`` ATA''). With respect to EPA's authority to implement the revised 8­ hour ozone standard, the Court held that the statute was clear on its face that the provisions of `` subpart 2'' applied and then held that under the terms of the statute, the 8­ hour standard `` cannot be enforced.'' 1 Id. at 1048 1050, 1057. The Court also remanded the standard to EPA on the ground that, under EPA's interpretation of its authority to promulgate the NAAQS, the CAA provided an unconstitutional delegation of authority to EPA. Id. at 1034 1040. Finally, the Court held that EPA had failed to consider whether ground­ level ozone had some beneficial effects, in particular, whether groundlevel ozone acted as a shield from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. Id. at 1051 1053. The D. C. Circuit largely denied EPA's request for rehearing, but did modify its decision to say that the 8­ hour NAAQS could be enforced, but only in conformity with certain ozone­ specific provisions ( subpart 2) enacted in 1990. ATA II, 195 F. 3d 4 ( D. C. Cir. 1999). The EPA requested review by the Supreme Court of two aspects of the D. C. Circuit's decision the delegation and implementation issues. The Court agreed to consider the case and on February 27, 2000, rejected the D. C. Circuit's holding that EPA's interpretation of the CAA resulted in an unconstitutional delegation of authority. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 472 476 ( 2001) ( Whitman). While disagreeing with the Court of Appeals that the CAA was clear on its face that subpart 2 applied for purposes of implementing the revised ozone standard, the Court found unreasonable EPA's assertion that subpart 2 was inapplicable for implementation of the 8­ hour ozone NAAQS. The Court remanded the implementation strategy to EPA for further consideration. Id. at 481 486. B. EPA's Revocation Rules Simultaneous with its promulgation of the 8­ hour ozone NAAQS on July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a final rule governing the continued applicability of the existing 1­ hour ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 50.9( b). The relevant language in 40 CFR 50.9( b) provides: `` The 1­ hour standards set forth in this section will no longer apply to an area once EPA determines that the area has air quality meeting the 1­ hour standard. Area designations are codified in 40 CFR part 81.'' In part, EPA based this approach on its interpretation that the provisions of subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA applied as a matter of law for purposes of implementing the 1­ hour ozone NAAQS, but that they would not apply for purposes of implementing the revised ozone standard. Thus, EPA believed it made sense to delay revocation of the 1­ hour standard until such time as the provisions of subpart 2 would no longer apply and, at that time, revoke the 1­ hour standard. Thus, once an area attained the 1­ hour standard and EPA determined the 1­ hour standard no longer applied to that area, the provisions of subpart 2 would also no longer apply. On June 5, 1998, EPA issued a final rule determining that over 2,000 VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 04: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DEP4. SGM 27DEP4 79461 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2 In addition to the two Revocation Rules that were challenged, EPA issued a third Revocation Rule on July 22, 1998 that was not challenged, ( 63 FR 39432). counties had attained the 1­ hour ozone standard and that, therefore, the 1­ hour standard and the associated designation for that standard no longer applied to those areas. See `` Identification of Ozone Areas Attaining the 1­ Hour Standard to Which the 1­ Hour Standard is No Longer Applicable,'' ( 63 FR 31014, June 5, 1998) (`` Revocation Rule''). Subsequently, on August 3, 1998, Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council ( collectively `` Environmental Defense'') filed a petition for review challenging that rule. Environmental Defense v. EPA ( No. 98 1363, D. C. Cir.). On June 9, 1999, EPA issued a final rule determining that the 1­ hour ozone standard no longer applied in an additional ten areas. Appalachian Mountain Club filed a petition for review challenging that action August 9, 1999. Appalachian Mountain Club v. EPA, No. 99 1880 ( 1st Cir.). Because of the doubt cast on the 8­ hour standard and EPA's authority to enforce it by the D. C. Circuit in the ATA case, on July 20, 2000, EPA issued a final rule rescinding the Revocation Rules, ( 65 FR 45182, July 20, 2000) ( Rescission Rule). 2 Thus, EPA reinstated the 1­ hour ozone NAAQS for all of the counties for which EPA previously determined that the 1­ hour ozone NAAQS no longer applied. As part of the Rescission Rule, EPA modified the second sentence in 40 CFR 50.9( b) to provide: `` In addition, after the 8­ hour standard has become fully enforceable under part D of title I of the CAA and subject to no further legal challenge, the 1­ hour standards set forth in this section will no longer apply to an area once EPA determines that the area has air quality meeting the 1­ hour standard. Area designations and classifications with respect to the 1­ hour standards are codified in 40 CFR part 81.'' C. Revocation Rule Litigation The parties in both the Environmental Defense and the Appalachian Mountain Club cases determined to stay the litigation based on EPA's Rescission Rule and the continued litigation regarding the 8­ hour ozone NAAQS and EPA's authority to implement that standard. Following the Supreme Court's decision in the Whitman case, the parties negotiated a Settlement Agreement that provided for EPA to issue this proposal to stay its authority under 40 CFR 50.9( b) while EPA considers whether to modify the language in 40 CFR 50.9( b) regarding the process and basis for revoking the 1­ hour ozone standard. See 67 FR 48896 ( July 26, 2002). Environmental Defense and Appalachian Mountain Club have agreed to dismiss their cases if EPA issues a final rule staying the revocation provision in 40 CFR 50.9( b) until such time as EPA considers in a subsequent rulemaking whether that provision should be modified and, in the final stay, commits to consider and address in the subsequent rulemaking any comments concerning ( a) which, if any, implementation activities for a revised ozone standard ( including but not limited to designation and classification of areas) would need to occur before EPA would determine that the 1­ hour ozone standard no longer applied to an area, and ( b) the effect of revising the ozone NAAQS on existing designations for the pollutant ozone. II. Summary of Today's Action The EPA is proposing to stay its authority under the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b) to determine that an area has attained the 1­ hour standard and that the 1­ hour standard no longer applies. The EPA proposes that the stay shall be effective until such time as EPA takes final agency action in a subsequent rulemaking addressing whether the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b) should be modified in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Whitman regarding implementation of the 8­ hour NAAQS. In developing a revised 8­ hour implementation strategy consistent with the Supreme Court's decision, EPA will consider and address any comments concerning ( a) which, if any, implementation activities for an 8­ hour ozone standard, including designations and classifications, would need to occur before EPA would determine that the 1­ hour ozone standard no longer applied to an area, and ( b) the effect of revising the ozone NAAQS on existing designations for the pollutant ozone. The EPA plans to consider the timeframe and basis for revoking the 1­ hour standard in the implementation rulemaking that it plans to issue in response to the Supreme Court's remand. The EPA believes that it is appropriate to reconsider this issue because, at the time EPA promulgated § 50.9( b), EPA anticipated that subpart 2 would not apply for purposes of implementing the revised ozone standard. It makes sense, in light of the many issues that are now being considered regarding implementation of the 8­ hour standard, including the applicability of subpart 2 for purposes of implementing that standard, for EPA to consider simultaneously the most effective means to transition from implementation of the 1­ hour standard to implementation of the revised 8­ hour ozone NAAQS. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to review by the OMB and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a `` 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 entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this action is not a `` significant regulatory action'' and was not submitted to OMB for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements which require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.). C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to noticeand comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business as defined in the Small VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 04: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DEP4. SGM 27DEP4 79462 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Proposed Rules Business Administration's ( SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 12.201; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not­ forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action proposes to stay EPA's authority under the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b) to determine that an area has attained the 1­ hour standard and that the 1­ hour standard no longer applies. It does not establish requirements applicable to small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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 UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA 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 laws. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA 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 EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This proposed action also does not impose any additional enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or impose any significant or unique impact on small governments as described in UMRA. Because today's action does not create any additional mandates, no further UMRA analysis is needed. E. 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'' are 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.'' Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This proposed action 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. This action stays the language of 40 CFR 50.9( b) regarding EPA's authority to take action and imposes no additional burdens on States or local entities; it does not change the existing relationship between the national government and the States or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various branches of government. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of this Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. F. 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 9, 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.'' This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, 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. Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on such communities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks The EPA interprets 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 Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because this action is not `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866 and there are no environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 04: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DEP4. SGM 27DEP4 79463 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Proposed Rules consider and use `` voluntary consensus standards'' ( VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this proposed action. Today's proposed action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations Under Executive Order 12898, each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low­ income populations. Today's proposed action to stay EPA's authority under 40 CFR 50.9( b) related to applicability of the 1­ hour ozone standard does not have a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities and low­ income populations. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides. Dated: December 19, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 50 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 50 AMENDED 1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7410, et seq. 2. Section 50.9 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph ( c) to read as follows: § 50.9 National 1­ hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone. * * * * * ( c) EPA's authority under paragraph ( b) of this section to determine that an area has attained the 1­ hour standard and that the 1­ hour standard no longer applies is stayed until such time as EPA issues a final rule revising or reinstating such authority. [ FR Doc. 02 32577 Filed 12 26 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 04: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DEP4. SGM 27DEP4

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.518172

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0068-0086

Proposed Rule

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-attainment New Source Review (NSR): Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement

80290 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 [ FRL 7414 6; Docket A 2002 4] RIN 2060 AK28 Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD) and Non­ attainment New Source Review ( NSR): Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revisions to the regulations governing the NSR programs mandated by parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). These proposed changes reflect the EPA's consideration of the President's National Energy Policy ( NEP), EPA's Report to the President on the impact of NSR pursuant to the NEP, and EPA's recommended changes to NSR based on the Report findings and discussions with various stakeholders including representatives from industry, State and local governments, and environmental groups. The proposed changes provide a future category of activities that would be considered to be routine maintenance, repair and replacement ( RMRR) under the NSR program. The changes are intended to provide greater regulatory certainty without sacrificing the current level of environmental protection and benefit derived from the program. We believe that these changes will facilitate the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of affected facilities. DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2003. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 21, 2003, we will hold a public hearing approximately 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in section I. C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Public Hearing. The public hearing, if requested, will be held at the EPA's facilities at 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 or at an alternate facility nearby. The EPA will not hold a hearing if one is not requested. Please check EPA's web page at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ nsr/ whatsnew. html on January 21, 2003 for the announcement of whether the hearing will be held. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dave Svendsgaard, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division ( C339 03), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone ( 919) 541 2380, or electronic mail at svendsgaard. dave@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. What Are the Regulated Entities? Entities potentially affected by this proposed action include sources in all industry groups. The majority of sources potentially affected are expected to be in the following groups. Industry group SECa NAICSb Electric Services ..................................................... 491 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122 Petroleum Refining ................................................. 291 32411 Chemical Processes ............................................... 281 325181, 32512, 325131, 325182, 211112, 325998, 331311, 325188 Natural Gas Transport ............................................ 492 48621, 22121 Pulp and Paper Mills .............................................. 261 32211, 322121, 322122, 32213 Paper Mills .............................................................. 262 322121, 322122 Automobile Manufacturing ...................................... 371 336111, 336112, 336712, 336211, 336992, 336322, 336312, 33633, 33634, 33635, 336399, 336212, 336213 Pharmaceuticals ..................................................... 283 325411, 325412, 325413, 325414 a Standard Industrial Classification b North American Industry Classification System. Entities potentially affected by this proposed action also would include State, local, and tribal governments that are delegated authority to implement these regulations. B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. A 2002 04. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, ( Air Docket), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room: B108, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC, 20004. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 12 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80291 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in section I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002. C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in section I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e­ mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e­ mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. a. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources,'' `` Dockets,'' and `` EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. A 2002 04. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e­ mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. b. E­ mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e­ mail) to a­ and­ rdocket epamail. epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. A 2002 04. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e­ mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e­ mail system automatically captures your e­ mail address. E­ mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e­ mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. c. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in section I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail. Send two copies of your comments to: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West ( Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room: B108, Mail code: 6102T, Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. A 2002 04. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, ( Air Docket), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room: B108, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC, 20004., Attention Docket ID No. A 2002 04. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in section I. B. 1. 4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to the EPA Docket Center at ( 202) 566 1741, Attention Docket ID. No. A 2002 04. D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e­ mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. David Svendsgaard, c/ o OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C339 03), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. A 2002 04. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. ( If you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80292 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare my Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments. Explain your views as clearly as possible. Describe any assumptions that you used. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. Offer alternatives. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments. F. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Public Hearing? Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Pamela J. Smith, Integrated Implementation Group, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division ( C339 03), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 0641, at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also contact Ms. Smith 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. G. Where Can I Obtain Additional Information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed rule is also available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, 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. H. How is This Preamble Organized? The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. What are the regulated entities? B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information? C. How and to whom do I submit comments? D. How should I submit CBI to the Agency? E. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? F. How can I find information about a possible public hearing? G. Where can I obtain additional information? H. How is this preamble organized? II. Purpose III. Background A. How does the process of using the RMRR exclusion currently work? B. Why is the specification of categories of RMRR activities appropriate? C. Process Used to Develop This Rule IV. Overview of Recommended Approaches for RMRR A. Annual Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Allowance B. Equipment Replacement Provision V. Legal Basis for Recommended Approaches VI. Discussion of Issues Under Annual Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Allowance Approach A. Appropriate Time Period for a Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Allowance B. Cost Basis C. Basis for Annual Allowance Stationary Source vs Process Unit D. Basis for Annual Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Allowance Percentage E. How to Calculate Costs F. Applicability Safeguards G. Timing of Determination VII. Discussion of Issues under the Equipment Replacement Approach A. Replacement of Existing Equipment with Identical or Functionally Equivalent Equipment B. Defining `` Process Unit'' for Evaluating Equipment Replacement Cost Percentage C. Miscellaneous Issues D. Quantitative Analysis VIII. Other Options Considered A. Capacity­ Based Option B. Age­ Based Option IX. Administrative Requirements for this Proposed Rulemaking 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. Paperwork Reduction Act F. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. Executive Order 13211 Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use X. Statutory Authority II. Purpose We are proposing a change to the NSR program to provide specific categories of activities that EPA will consider RMRR in the future. We are seeking comment on all aspects of our proposed approaches to specifying categories of RMRR activities under the NSR program, and on other options considered. These approaches would be voluntary, in that owners or operators could opt to continue using the current procedures for determining what activities constitute RMRR at their facilities. This proposal seeks public comments in accordance with section 307( d) of the CAA and should not be used or cited in any litigation as the final position of the Agency. III. Background A. How Does the Process of Using the RMRR Exclusion Currently Work? Under the changes promulgated today to 40 CFR parts 51 and 52, `` major modification'' is defined as any physical change in or change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that would result in: ( 1) A significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant; and ( 2) a significant net emissions increase of that pollutant from the major stationary source. Owners/ operators of major stationary sources are required to obtain a major NSR permit prior to beginning actual construction of a modification that meets this definition. The regulations exclude certain activities from the definition of `` major modification.'' One such exclusion is for RMRR activities. The regulations do not define this term. ( See 40 CFR 51.165( a)( 1)( v)( C)( 1), 51.166( b)( 2)( iii)( a), 52.21( b)( 2)( iii)( a) and 52.24( f)( 5)( iii)( a).) Under our current approach, the RMRR exclusion is applied on a caseby case basis. In interpreting this exclusion, we have followed certain criteria. The preamble to the 1992 `` WEPCO Rule'' ( 57 FR 32314) and applicability determinations made to date describe our current approach to assessing what activities constitute RMRR. These applicability determinations are available electronically from the Region 7 NSR Policy and Guidance Database ( http/:// www. epa. gov/ Region7/ programs/ artd/ air/ nsr/ nsrpg. htm). To summarize these documents, to determine whether proposed work at a facility is routine, EPA makes a case­ by­ VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 12 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80293 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America's Future, Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, May 17, 2001. case determination by weighing the nature, extent, purpose, frequency, and the cost of the work as well as other relevant factors to arrive at a common sense finding. WEPCO at 910. None of these factors, in and of itself, is conclusive. Instead, a reviewing authority should take account of how each of these factors might apply in a particular circumstance to arrive at a conclusion considering the project as a whole. If an owner or operator is uncertain whether he or she is applying the NSR regulations correctly, we encourage the owner or operator to consult the appropriate reviewing authority for assistance. B. Why Is Specification of Categories of RMRR Activities Appropriate? There has been some debate over the years as to the case­ by­ case approach and the types of activities that qualify as RMRR under our current case­ by­ case approach. The case­ specific approach works well in many respects. For example, it is a flexible tool that accommodates the broad range of industries and the diversity of activities that are potentially subject to the NSR program. However, the case­ by­ case approach has certain drawbacks. Unless an owner or operator seeks an applicability determination from his or her reviewing authority or from EPA, it can be difficult for the owner or operator to know with certainty whether a particular activity constitutes RMRR. Applicability determinations can be costly and time consuming for reviewing authorities and industry alike. If a source proceeds without a determination and is later proven to have made an incorrect determination, that source faces potentially serious enforcement consequences. Moreover, under the current case­ by­ case approach, State and local reviewing authorities must devote scarce resources to making complex determinations and consult with other agencies to ensure that any determinations are consistent with determinations made for similar circumstances in other jurisdictions and/ or that EPA or other reviewing authorities would concur with the conclusion. On the other hand, if a source foregoes or defers activities that are important to maintaining its plant when the activities in question are in fact within scope of the exclusion, that can have adverse consequences for the source's reliability, efficiency, and safety. Finally, the source may install less efficient or less modern equipment in order to be more certain that it is within the regulatory bounds, or it may agree to limit its hours of operation or capacity. Any of these approaches will make the source less productive than it would be otherwise. In fact, we concluded in our recent report to the President on the impacts of NSR on the energy sector that there have been cases in which uncertainty about the exclusion for RMRR resulted in delay or cancellation of activities that would have maintained and improved the reliability, efficiency, and safety of existing energy capacity. Such discouragement results in lost capacity and lost opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reduce air pollution. We believe that these problems would be significantly reduced by adding to our current RMRR provision specific categories of activities that will be considered to be RMRR in the future. Such categories would remove disincentives to undertaking RMRR activities and provide more certainty both to source owners and operators who could better plan activities at their facilities, and to reviewing authorities who could better focus resources on activities outside these RMRR categories. Accordingly, the establishment of categories of activities as RMRR is consistent with the central purpose of the CAA, `` to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.'' CAA section 101. It should be noted that there may be some activities which, while fitting within the ambit of the RMRR exclusion could, if implemented, violate other applicable CAA requirements. As has always been the case, compliance with NSR requirements is not a license to violate any of the other applicable CAA requirements such as title V permitting requirements. C. Process Used To Develop This Rule In the 1992 `` WEPCO Rule'' preamble, we indicated that we planned to issue guidance on the subject of RMRR. In 1994, as part of our meetings with the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, we developed, for discussion purposes only, a document on how RMRR could be defined. We received a substantial volume of comments on this document. We subsequently decided not to include a definition of RMRR in our 1996 NSR proposed rulemaking. In 2001, the President's NEP Report 1 directed EPA in consultation with the Department of Energy ( DOE) and other federal agencies to review the impact of NSR on investment in new utility and refinery generation capacity, energy efficiency and environmental protection. The release of the report in May 2001 triggered a review of the impacts of NSR rules. EPA's Report to the President underscored the desirability of specifying certain categories of activities that qualify as RMRR. In parallel with this review, we renewed our exploration of recommendations for improving the NSR program. Recommended improvements suggested during this time represented a continuation of discussions on NSR issues that had taken place during the 1990' s, as well as new ideas. The process of discussing possible improvements to the NSR program included significant interagency consultation, including meetings with representatives from the DOE, the Department of the Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget. Building on what we heard, we held conference calls with various stakeholders during October 2001 ( including representatives from industry, State and local governments, and environmental groups) to discuss new ideas that were raised. During many of these meetings, we discussed ideas for how to define RMRR in order to create more certainty for the industry and reviewing authorities. Today's proposed rule is an outgrowth of ideas discussed in those meetings. IV. Overview of Recommended Approaches for RMRR Ever since EPA's promulgation of its original Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD) regulations in 1980, EPA has defined `` modification'' in its NSR regulations to include commonsense exclusions from the `` physical or operational change'' component of the definition, including an exclusion for RMRR. Today, we are proposing two categories of activities that will in the future be considered RMRR activities: activities within an annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance and replacements that meet our equipment replacement provision criteria. Under the proposal, when an activity falls within either of these categories, it would be considered RMRR and a source's owners or operators would know that the activity was excluded from NSR without regard to other considerations. When an activity did not fall within one of these categories, then it still could qualify as routine VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 12 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80294 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2 A fiscal year period would have to be 12 consecutive months. maintenance, repair, and replacement under the case­ by­ case test. A. Annual Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Allowance First, we are proposing to add new language to the RMRR exclusion at 40 CFR 51.165 ( a)( 1)( v)( C)( 1), 40 CFR 51.166 ( b)( 2)( iii)( a), 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S ( A)( 5)( iii)( a), 40 CFR 52.21( b)( 2)( iii)( a), and 40 CFR 52.24 ( f)( 5)( iii)( a). This proposal would allow certain activities engaged in to promote the safe, reliable and efficient operation of a facility­ that is, those that involve relatively small capital expenditures compared with the replacement cost of the facility to be excluded from NSR provided that total costs did not exceed the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. The annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance and the rules for calculation and summation of activities under the allowance would be defined in new provisions at 40 CFR 51.165( a)( 1)( xxxxii), 40 CFR 51.166( b)( 53), 40 CFR 52.21( b)( 55), and 40 CFR 52.24( f)( 25). Under our proposed approach, a calendar year maintenance, repair and replacement allowance would be established for each stationary source. The owner or operator may elect to use a fiscal year period instead of a calendar year if financial records are typically kept for a period other than calendar year at a facility. 2 Although the proposal contemplates a one­ year allowance, in recognition of the fact that maintenance cycles in many industries extend for more than 1 year, we also seek comment on whether a stationary source should have the option of a multi­ year allowance, such as over 5 years. Under our 1­ year allowance proposal, an owner or operator would sum the costs of the relevant activities performed at the stationary source during the fiscal or calendar year ( from the least expensive to the most expensive) to get a yearly cost. For activities taking more than 1 year to complete, costs associated with those activities would be included in the cost calculations for the year that the costs were incurred ( using an accounting method consistent with that used for other purposes by the stationary source). If the total costs for all activities undertaken for these purposes came within the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance, these activities would all be considered RMRR activities. Other than documentation of the results of this assessment, the owner or operator would not have to do anything further with respect to those activities for purposes of major NSR. Where total yearly costs for all activities undertaken for these purposes at a source exceed the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance, the activities would be reviewed as follows. The owner or operator would subtract activities from the total yearly cost, starting with the most expensive activity, until the remainder is less than or equal to the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. The owner or operator would evaluate on a case­ by­ case basis in accordance with EPA's case­ by­ case test any activities that did not come within the allowance and that are not otherwise excluded, in order to determine whether they are RMRR. If uncertain about a particular activity the owner or operator could seek an applicability determination. If an owner or operator concluded that any such activity was not RMRR, he or she would then have to determine whether it constitutes a `` major modification'' that requires an NSR permit. The annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance would be equal to the product of the replacement cost of the source and a specified maintenance, repair and replacement percentage. ( See § § 51.165( a)( 1)( xxxxii), 51.166( b)( 53), 52.21( b)( 55) and 52.24( f)( 25) of proposed rules.) EPA intends to set this percentage on an industry­ specific basis. There are several ways in which the percentage could be established. One way is to set the threshold so as to cover the RMRR capital and non­ capital costs that an owner or operator incurs to maintain, facilitate, restore, or improve the safety, reliability, availability, or efficiency of the source. We are also requesting comment on other approaches. For example, we could apply a discount factor to the typical costs in order to account for variability within an industry. We also ask for comment on how to determine typical costs for particular industries. We are considering using the Internal Revenue Service `` Annual Asset Guideline Repair Allowance Percentages'' ( AAGRAP), which we use for an exclusion under the New Source Performance Standard ( NSPS) program for increases in production. We also could rely on industry specific data for choosing an appropriate threshold, such as the North American Electric Reliability Council Generating Availability Data System ( NERC/ GADS) database or standard industry reference manuals. The replacement cost used in the calculation described above would be an estimate of the total capital investment necessary to replace the stationary source. The accounting procedures used to document eligibility under this rule should conform to the accounting procedures used for other purposes at a facility. Where several accounting procedures are used at a facility ( e. g., methods for tax accounting and for setting rates often are different), the most appropriate procedures should be used for the purpose of determining costs pursuant to this regulation. EPA also seeks to standardize practices for estimating this investment, along the lines described in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, excluding the costs for installing and maintaining pollution control equipment. See section V. E. of this document for further information on our recommended approach to calculating costs. The control cost manual is available electronically via the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ catc/ dir1/ c_ allchs. pdf. We acknowledge that this manual is geared toward cost calculations for add­ on control equipment but believe the basic concepts can be applied to process equipment as well. These concepts are taken from work done by the American Association of Cost Engineers to define the components of cost calculations for all types of processes, not just emission control equipment. We seek comment on whether this manual or other reference documents or tools provide the best approach for standardizing estimation of these costs, whether different methods should be provided, and whether provision should be made in the form of a requirement or an assurance that if a method is used, we will accept it. Our recommended approach will contain safeguards to help ensure that activities that should be considered a physical change or change in the method of operation under the regulations are ineligible for exclusion from NSR under the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. We are proposing to exclude the following from use of the annual allowance. The construction of a new `` process unit,'' which is a collection of structures and/ or equipment that uses material inputs to produce or store a completed product. See discussion below at section VII for further information regarding process units. The replacement of an entire process unit Any change that would result in an increase in the source's maximum VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 12 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80295 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules 3 Of course, as noted earlier, the traditional caseby case approach to administering the RMRR exclusion will continue to apply to activities that do not qualify under the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance approach described above, but for the reasons noted earlier, we believe that approach would be improved on by the identification of activities that may be found to Continued achievable hourly emissions rate of any regulated NSR pollutant, or in the emission of any regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted by the stationary source. If an owner or operator uses the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance to determine that certain activities at a stationary source are RMRR, all relevant activities performed at that source must be included in the annual cost calculations unless the owner or operator elects to obtain a major NSR permit for the activity. In other words, an owner or operator may not select which activities to review case­ by­ case and which to include in the cost calculations when using the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance to determine RMRR activities. This is because, assuming the threshold is set to approximate the total amount that an owner or operator would typically be expected to spend on RMRR activities ( or a discounted portion of this value selected to account for variability within an industry), the fact that a given activity's cost comes within the allowance can only reasonably assure that it is RMRR if all other relevant activities also are included. If the owner or operator could pick and choose among activities that he or she wished to include in the allowance, such an approach might allow the owner or operator to include large, atypical activities that do not constitute RMRR within the allowance, while applying the case­ by­ case test to smaller activities that quite clearly constitute RMRR under that test. The rule that all relevant activities must be included in the calculation and that lowest cost activities would be counted first should provide sufficient protection against this risk. Owners or operators electing to use the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance to determine RMRR activities will be required to submit an annual report to the appropriate reviewing authority within 60 days after the end of the year over which activity costs have been summed. The report will provide a summary of the estimated replacement value of the stationary source, the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance for the stationary source, a brief description of all maintenance, repair and replacement activities undertaken at the stationary source, and the costs associated with those activities. If the costs of activities in question exceed the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance for a stationary source, the report must identify the activities included within the allowance and the activities that fell outside the allowance. The procedures set out in 40 CFR part 2 are available for confidential and business­ sensitive information submitted as part of this report. The following provides an example of how the process would work. Assume the source's annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance equals $ 2,000,000. During a given year, the owner or operator spends $ 1,000,000 on running maintenance activities, and implements five other discrete maintenance activities at the source with costs as follows in Table 1 ( none of these activities involves the construction of a new process unit, replacement of an existing process unit, or an increase in the maximum achievable hourly emissions rate of a regulated NSR pollutant or in the emission of any regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted by the stationary source). TABLE 1. EXAMPLE SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES COMMENCED DURING YEAR Change Month Cost Activity 1 ................................................................................. January ................................................................................... $ 200,000 Activity 2 ................................................................................. March ...................................................................................... 600,000 Activity 3 ................................................................................. April ........................................................................................ 360,000 Activity 4 ................................................................................. July ......................................................................................... 150,000 Activity 5 ................................................................................. November ............................................................................... 250,000 The sum of costs incurred during the year is $ 2,560,000, $ 560,000 above the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. The most expensive activity commencing during the year was the $ 600,000 activity commencing in March. The source must evaluate on a case­ by­ case basis whether this activity is RMRR. When the cost of Activity 2 is subtracted from the total annual cost, the remainder is $ 1,960,000, less than the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. The remaining activities ( Activities 1, 3, 4, and 5) are considered to be RMRR. We note that this example is framed as if the owner or operator would make these calculations for the first time at the end of the year. In reality, however, an owner or operator who is considering relying on the maintenance, repair and replacement allowance as the basis for his or her conclusion that a particular activity is RMRR is likely to make these calculations before beginning construction on any activity. This is because the owner or operator would know that he or she will only be able to rely on the allowance if the costs of the activity in question, when added with the costs of other activities to assure the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of the plant that the owner or operator is planning for the year, will in fact be within the allowance. B. Equipment Replacement Provision In addition to our proposed annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance, today we are also soliciting comment on an additional approach to be used in the future for those replacement activities that should qualify without regard to other considerations as RMRR. Specifically, we are soliciting comment on whether replacing existing equipment with equipment that serves the same function and that does not alter the basic design parameters of a unit should also qualify without regard for other considerations for RMRR treatment provided the cost of the replacement equipment does not exceed a certain percentage of the cost of the process unit to which the equipment belongs. While we believe the annual maintenance, repair and replacement provisions described above will significantly improve implementation of the RMRR exclusion, we recognize that the allowance may apply only to a subset of the activities that appropriately fall within the exclusion and that are susceptible of being identified as categorically constituting RMRR. 3 VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80296 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules constitute RMRR without requiring case­ by­ case consideration of this type. Accordingly, today we are soliciting comment on an additional approach to be used in the future for determining that certain replacement activities whose costs fall below a specified threshold qualify as RMRR without regard for other considerations. Under this approach, EPA would establish a percentage of the replacement value of a process unit as a threshold for applying the equipment replacement provision. If the replacement component is functionally equivalent to the replaced component, does not change the basic design parameters of the process unit, and does not exceed the cost threshold, it would constitute RMRR. This approach should enable the owner or operator to streamline the RMRR analysis and make this determination more readily and should further alleviate some of the problems noted above. We are soliciting comment on whether this approach would serve to streamline the RMRR determination process for activities that involve the replacement of existing equipment with identical new equipment and the replacement of existing equipment with functionally equivalent equipment. We are also soliciting comment on whether this approach should be adopted along with the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance described above, or whether this approach is preferred over the other such that we should only offer the equipment replacement provision in the final rule. We also solicit comment on what provisions might be needed to clarify and facilitate implementation of a combined approach. For example, should the costs of activities that qualify as an excluded equipment replacement count toward the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance? And, if so, how should they be counted? We are also soliciting comment on whether any other category of activity undertaken for these purposes should be excludable by the owner or operator from the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. For example, activities undertaken to address unanticipated forced outages or catastrophic events such as fires or explosions may be the kind of unforeseeable expenditure that an owner or operator should not have to include because it is not possible to plan for it. Also, the absence of an exclusion for such activities might be a disincentive for maintaining and ensuring safe operation. If excluded from the maintenance, repair and replacement allowance, these activities could still qualify for RMRR status under the equipment replacement provision of this rule if they meet the criteria for that allowance or under the case­ by­ case analysis. Finally, we are soliciting comment on other approaches that might be effective in streamlining the RMRR determination process. V. Legal Basis for Recommended Approaches The modification provisions of the NSR program in parts C and D of title I of the CAA are based on the broad definition of modification in section 111( a)( 4) of the CAA. The term `` modification'' means `` any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted.'' That definition contemplates that you will first determine whether a physical or operational change will occur. If so, then you proceed to determine whether the physical or operational change will result in an emissions increase over baseline levels. The expression `` any physical change * * * or change in the method of operation'' in section 111( a)( 4) of the CAA is not defined. We have recognized that Congress did not intend to make every activity at a source subject to the major NSR program. As a result, we have previously adopted nine exclusions from what may constitute a `` physical or operational change.'' One of these is an exclusion for routine maintenance, repair, and replacement. Today's rulemaking proposes two provisions that will improve and help carry out the purposes of this exclusion. VI. Discussion of Issues Under Annual Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Allowance Approach The following provides a discussion of the key issues we considered in developing our preferred approaches to addressing RMRR under the NSR program. We are requesting comment on all alternatives considered and any other viable alternatives. We are also interested in the impact the use of a cost­ based approach such as the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance will have on reviewing authorities, such as the need for staff knowledgeable in cost estimation, and are requesting comment on this issue. A. Appropriate Time Period for a Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Allowance In developing a maintenance, repair and replacement allowance, we considered setting an allowance based on either a calendar or fiscal year or a multi­ year limit. We believe that a limit applied over a specified period of time is more appropriate than an activitybased limit. We are proposing an annual limit, but we also believe that a multiyear limit is worthy of serious consideration as a possible option that could be chosen by owners or operators with multi­ year maintenance cycles. Under NSR, to determine applicability, the owner or operator of a major source must determine whether an activity performed at a source is a physical change or change in the method of operation that results in a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase. NSR may apply to a single physical change or operational change at a single process unit, to several physical or operational changes at a single process unit, or to multiple changes across multiple process units, each of which changes can vary widely in scope and cost. Developing a maintenance, repair and replacement allowance on an activity basis would be consistent with this framework. However, the variability in the scope of such activities makes it difficult to establish an appropriate cost allowance for individual activities based on data currently available to us. On the other hand, the majority of information that is currently available to us does provide a reasonable basis for developing facility­ wide, annual maintenance, repair and replacement cost estimates. In addition to the difficulty in establishing an activity cost limit, maintenance budgets are typically set on an annual basis rather than an activity basis, making an annual allowance more consistent with industry financial practices. In choosing between an annual versus a multi­ year limit, there are considerations pointing in both directions. The most important argument in favor of a multi­ year option is that in a number of industries, maintenance cycles extend over multiple years. For example, petroleum refineries conduct regularly scheduled maintenance, referred to as a `` turnaround,'' in cycles that can be as long as 8 years depending on the type of units and equipment involved and the particulars of the unit's operations. During a turnaround, all or part of the refinery is shut down, and the owner or operator undertakes numerous VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80297 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules maintenance, repair and/ or replacement activities during the shutdown. Similarly, the power generation sector performs regularly scheduled maintenance, inspections, and repair on varying cycles, which, depending on the equipment involved, can range from 12 months to a number of years. Like refineries, power generation facilities must conduct much of the inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement work when the units are shut down, and to minimize the frequency of scheduled outages, the owner or operator will undertake numerous activities during a given shutdown to minimize maintenance costs, minimize the need for replacement power, and maximize the availability of the units. As a result, for industries of this type, the cost of maintenance will vary significantly from year to year and may be distributed across several years. An annual allowance for industries of this type may be unworkable if the allowance is set at the average of their maintenance costs during their maintenance cycle. But setting the level higher than the average runs the risk of sweeping in non­ routine activity. In addition, an annual allowance might lead owners or operators in such industries to engage in more outages than is efficient in order to make sure that they were not losing a portion of their allowance. This could increase energy costs and reduce energy availability to consumers. If a multi­ year allowance were used, the same principles of summing the costs of activities from least to most costly and excluding the most costly activities from the allowance and instead subjecting them to case­ by­ case scrutiny would continue to apply. This approach also may have its difficulties. For example, as the cycle gets longer, it is harder for owners or operators to project their costs for safeguarding the safety, reliability and efficiency of their plants farther into the future. This, in turn, may contribute to a rule that is more difficult to implement and enforce. If, through the after the fact case­ by­ case review, it is determined that certain activities should have been subject to the NSR program, all parties may be placed in the difficult situation of implementing a preconstruction review program for an activity that was begun or completed significantly prior to the applicability determination. This difficulty may arise to some extent even with a 1­ year allowance period. But extending the period beyond 1 year increases both the possibility for this occurrence and the potential difficulties of an after­ the­ fact applicability determination for older activities. Thus, while using a single year as the time period will reduce the flexibility for some owners or operators, we believe it will help to reduce the likelihood that an after­ the­ fact NSR review will be required. For these reasons, we are proposing the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance approach, but will also be giving serious consideration to the multi­ year approach of up to 5 years. We are requesting comments on the approaches discussed above. We are also proposing that the time period for the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance should be a calendar or fiscal year. If the owner or operator of a major stationary source uses a fiscal year that differs from a calendar year for accounting purposes, the proposed rule would allow the stationary source to elect to use that fiscal year for purposes of applying the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. As proposed, once the choice is made, the choice is permanent. ( See § 51.165( a)( 1)( xxxxii)( A)( 1), § 51.166( b)( 53)( i)( a), § 52.21( b)( 55)( i)( a), and § 52.24( f)( 25)( i)( a) of proposed rules.) We specifically ask for comment on this aspect of the proposal. B. Cost Basis Under our proposal, the replacement cost of a source would be multiplied by the maintenance percentage established by rule to determine the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. ( See § 51.165( a)( 1)( xxxxii), § 51.166( b)( 53), § 52.21( b)( 55), and § 52.24( f)( 25) of proposed rules.) In developing the proposal, we also considered using an invested cost basis adjusted for inflation. There can be advantages to using invested cost. The most obvious advantage is that knowledge of cost estimation is not necessary, because actual cost data would be used. However, complete invested cost information may no longer exist for older stationary sources, or it may not have been provided to the buyer when a source was purchased. As a result, we would still need to provide for an alternative for situations where invested cost data were not available. In addition, even when adjusted for inflation, there could be inequities between facilities if an invested cost basis was used. Adjustment for inflation between sources will not likely take into account variations in site­ specific costs such as land, labor, and materials, among others. Use of replacement cost, which takes into account site­ specific factors to a greater degree, will put all regulated entities on a more equitable footing. Moreover, most decisions regarding maintenance, repair and replacement are more likely to take into consideration the cost of replacement rather than the original invested cost. We are proposing to use source replacement cost; however, we are requesting comment on other potentially appropriate bases for source cost, including invested cost, invested cost adjusted for inflation or any other viable methodology. C. Basis for Annual Allowance Stationary Source vs Process Unit We are considering two approaches for administering the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance the allowance could be established at either an entire stationary source ( source) or at the process unit level. A comprehensive discussion of the term `` process unit,'' along with a proposed definition, is set forth in section VII, below. If we opt for the `` process unit'' approach, we would use the definition and concepts proposed in section VII. We are proposing the stationary source approach but seeking comment on both. If the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance is established for the entire stationary source, the owner or operator would only have to track compliance with a single annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance and would have greater flexibility in decision making with respect to maintenance, repair and replacement activities. It is our understanding that accounting of maintenance activities is most often performed at the facility level and, consequently, managing the RMRR annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance from a facilitywide standpoint is more consistent with current industry practices. In large, complex manufacturing facilities such as refineries, several major processes are constantly being maintained but larger maintenance activities may be rotated throughout the plant during different years to accommodate fiscal and operating cycles. Requiring these facilities to divide their plants into separate process units for maintenance accounting would create disincentives to the source in administering the allowance. A source­ wide approach also may be more sensible to account for situations in which shared services ( e. g., electrical distribution, wastewater treatment) cannot be attributed to a single process at a facility. On the other hand, setting the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance at the source­ wide level presents the possibility that an owner or VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80298 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules operator could forego maintenance at some process units and engage in activities at others that are not truly RMRR and seek to use the maintenance, repair and replacement allowance as a shield for these activities. Setting the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance at the process unit level would help to alleviate this concern. On balance, however, we are not persuaded that this concern is wellfounded If the allowance level is set correctly, the only way an owner or operator could attempt the kind of misuse of the allowance described above would be to forego maintenance, repair and replacement activities at other process units activities that are important to keep those other process units in good working order. It seems unlikely that an owner or operator would think that a prudent or sensible course. Finally, we note that it likely is more difficult to develop reliable estimates of what it typically costs an owner or operator to maintain a process unit. That being the case, the most likely way a process­ unit­ based allowance would be developed would be by taking the numbers that would underlie a sourcewide allowance and allocating them to process units. This approach could present its own opportunities for gaming the system. We are proposing to set the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance at the source­ wide level. ( See § 51.165( a)( 1)( v)( C)( 1), § 51.166( b)( 2)( iii)( a), § 52.21( b)( 2)( iii)( a), and § 52.24( f)( 5)( iii)( a) of proposed rules.) We believe that this approach is, on balance, easier to implement for both the reviewing authorities and the industry and is more consistent with current industry maintenance and financial practices. We specifically request comment on the use of a sourcewide limit, a process unit limit, or any other means of applying a cost threshold. In addition, as noted in section VII, we request comment on our proposed definition of process unit. D. Basis for Annual Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Allowance Percentage The proposed annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance for each source would be determined by multiplying the replacement cost of the source by an annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance percentage specified by rule. ( See § 51.165( a)( 1)( xxxxii), § 51.166( b)( 53), § 52.21( b)( 55), and § 52.24( f)( 25) of proposed rules.) As stated previously, the goal of this portion of the rule is to provide a clear exclusion for the activities whose total costs fall below specified thresholds. We intend to set these thresholds on an industry­ specific basis, and believe the following sources of information should be useful in establishing these thresholds: the IRS AAGRAP, standard engineering reference manuals, and actual industry data available to the EPA. The IRS AAGRAP is the value used in an exclusion under the NSPS for increases in production. The IRS AAGRAP values provide repair allowance percentages for specific industries in order to reflect differing maintenance needs. These percentages range from 0.5 percent to 20 percent of invested cost. For instance, the aerospace industry has an AAGRAP value of 7.5 percent, electric utility steam generation has a value of 5 percent, and cement plants have a value of 3 percent. There is good reason to think that the industry­ specific basis and the specific percentages are appropriate in the RMRR context. For example, the AAGRAP values have been used for over 20 years in the NSPS program, so they are time­ tested and appear to work well in that context. Moreover, because the values were developed in the first instance to differentiate between costs that should be capitalized for tax accounting purposes and costs that properly should be expensed, the values should be well suited to distinguishing maintenance, repair and replacement from nonroutine activities in the NSR context. However, the AAGRAP is based on the invested cost of the facility, not the replacement cost, which may or may not require us to make some adjustments. Also, there are some industries for which an AAGRAP is not available. The policy reasons behind the use of AAGRAP in the tax context also may not be the same as those we need to consider in the NSR context, notwithstanding the fact that the AAGRAP has been used in the NSPS context. Finally, the IRS has moved to other approaches. We solicit comment on the extent to which the AAGRAP, or some derivative of the AAGRAP, may appropriately be employed if we determine that a safe harbor based on replacement cost is preferable. There are also standard reference manuals that provide cost estimation information that is considered to be up to date. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, by Peters and Timmerhaus, and Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, by Perry and Green, are two widely used resources. They provide a range of annual maintenance and repair costs from 2 percent to 10 percent of the fixed capital investment of the stationary source. These two resources, however, are limited to the chemical process industry and may not have broader applicability to other industry sectors ( although there may be comparable resources for other industries). Based on information contained in the resources mentioned above, the appropriate annual maintenance percentages would be in the range of 0.5 percent to 20 percent, depending on the industry. To the extent that we have data, we intend in the final rule to set different percentages for specific industry categories. In selecting appropriate industry­ specific percentages, it would be helpful if further information is made available to us during the public comment period for this proposal; therefore, we are requesting that information relating to types of maintenance, repair and replacement activities undertaken and costs associated with those activities be provided during the public comment period on this proposed rule. For example, relevant information for the electric utility industry might be available from the NERC/ GADS database, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or the Integrated Environmental Control Model maintained by the Energy and Environmental Center at Carnegie­ Mellon University. Commenters should provide actual source, company or industry information, as well as any other data underlying summaries. Substantiated claims and estimates will be given greater consideration than information not supported by actual data. If there is a lack of information with which to set industry specific percentages, we may elect to set a default value. We are seeking comment on the appropriate default percentage to be used, and/ or methods available to determine that percentage. E. How To Calculate Costs In order for a cost­ based approach to be equitable, all owners or operators must include the same categories of expenses in both the replacement cost and the cost sought to be covered by the allowance. Therefore, we believe it may be appropriate to require that costs be calculated using an approach along the lines set out as the elements of Total Capital Investment as defined in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ catc/ dir1/ c_ allchs. pdf). While the manual contains basic concepts that could be used to estimate total capital investment at a process unit, it is geared toward cost calculations for add­ on control VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80299 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules equipment. On the other hand, the underlying concepts are taken from work done by the American Association of Cost Engineers to define the components of cost calculations for all types of processes, not just emission control equipment. We invite comment on whether we should use the manual as the mechanism for standardizing these calculations, whether we should use other manuals, or whether it might make sense to give sources a range of manuals whose approach to this question we believe may be appropriate for their circumstances. We also invite comment on whether EPA should require use of the manuals identified or simply provide assurance that if methods in an identified manual are used, EPA will accept them. Under the EPA Manual, Total Capital Investment includes the costs required to purchase equipment, the costs of labor and materials for installing the equipment ( direct installation costs), costs for site preparation and buildings, and certain other indirect installation costs. However, any costs associated with the installation and maintenance of pollution control equipment would be excluded from the cost calculation. For the purposes of this maintenance, repair and replacement allowance, we believe that equipment that serves a dual purpose of process equipment and control equipment ( that is, combustion equipment used to produce steam and to control Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions, exhaust conditioning in the semiconductor industry, etc.) should be considered process equipment. We ask for comment on this point. Direct installation costs include costs for foundations and supports, erecting and handling the equipment, electrical work, piping, insulation, and painting. Indirect installation costs include such costs as engineering costs; construction and field expenses ( that is, costs for construction supervisory personnel, office personnel, rental of temporary offices, etc.); contractor fees ( for construction and engineering firms involved in the activity); startup and performance test costs; and contingencies. We are also considering whether or not to exclude costs associated with the unanticipated shutdown of equipment, due to component failure or catastrophic failures such as explosions or fires, from the costs that must be included in the allowance. If costs associated with unanticipated outages are excluded, these activities would be subjected to a case­ by­ case review of NSR applicability. We request comment on whether or not repairs and replacements resulting from the unanticipated shutdown of equipment, or of an entire source, should be included in the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance calculations. F. Applicability Safeguards We are proposing to include some safeguards in our rules. There are some relatively inexpensive activities that can be undertaken at a facility that we believe should not be included within the maintenance, repair and replacement allowance because, due to their very nature, they may significantly alter the design of the source or they may result in significantly greater emissions. Ineligibility for the allowance does not mean that the activities will necessarily be subject to NSR. These activities will still be eligible for treatment as RMRR under a case­ by­ case review, may qualify for other exclusions, may not require a major NSR permit because of emissions limitations in a synthetic minor limitation, or may be netted out of NSR applicability. We are proposing to include three such safeguards. ( See § 51.165( a)( 1)( xxxxii)( B), § 51.166( b)( 53)( ii), § 52.21( b)( 55)( ii), and § 52.24( f)( 25)( ii) of proposed rules.) The first of the safeguards is that no new process unit may be added under the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. The addition of a new process unit is not maintenance, repair or replacement of existing equipment at a stationary source in order to ensure continued safe and reliable operation and hence should not qualify for the allowance. The second safeguard is that an owner or operator may not use the maintenance, repair and replacement allowance to replace an entire process unit. We do not believe that replacement of an entire process unit should qualify for the allowance. Because of their nature, wholesale exchanges of a process unit should be subject to greater scrutiny in determining NSR applicability than use of the maintenance, repair and replacement allowance would entail. The third safeguard is not allowing any activity that results in an increase in maximum achievable hourly emissions rate of a regulated NSR pollutant at the stationary source or in the emission of any regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted to be excluded under the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. Such activities are more likely to result in possible significant emissions increases and, therefore, should not be excluded from NSR on the basis that they fall within the maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. We request comment on the appropriateness and adequacy of these proposed safeguards or any additional safeguards that may be appropriate. G. Timing of Determination Under the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance as proposed, an owner or operator will sum the costs of maintenance, repair and replacement activities from least to most expensive to determine which activities are excluded pursuant to the allowance. Actual activity costs will not be known until activities are underway or completed. We have considered two options for the timing of the decision regarding qualification of activities under the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance when summing activities in this manner. The first is to require application of the allowance prior to construction based on planned activities and estimated costs. The second is to perform an endof year reconciliation after the activity costs are known. If an end­ of­ year reconciliation is used, actual costs incurred would be known. However, if costs exceed the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance, some activities that have already been started or completed will have to be evaluated on a case­ by­ case basis unless already excluded from major NSR on some other basis. If it is determined that the activity is not RMRR and does not qualify for another exclusion, and it results in a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase, and it is consequently subject to the requirements of NSR, the owner or operator would be in violation of the CAA for failure to obtain the necessary permit prior to commencing construction. In addition, if in a nonattainment area, the owner or operator could be required to obtain offsets, which may not be readily available in the area. The owner or operator may also be faced with penalties for constructing without a permit. In practice, however, we do not believe this scenario is likely to occur. We expect that an owner or operator who intended to rely on the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance would have planned the year's activities accordingly and would be tracking activities throughout the year in order to avoid this situation. We believe requiring an end­ of­ year reconciliation strikes a reasonable balance, since it will lead owners or operators to make preconstruction VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80300 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules estimates of activities and costs in order to determine qualification for the exclusion but will not require them to become involved in permitting­ type actions with respect to excluded activities. Finally, it is not possible for an owner or operator to plan all maintenance, repair and replacement needs, so there will be inaccuracies in any estimation no matter how diligent an owner or operator may be in seeking to plan these activities. We have considered two other possible ways to address this situation. The first is to allow any unplanned activity to undergo a case­ by­ case determination of RMRR. However, this method might create an incentive to omit smaller, less expensive activities from the preconstruction estimation in order to avoid a case­ by­ case review on larger activities. The second is to make ineligible for the use of the maintenance, repair and replacement allowance any activity that was not included in the preconstruction estimation. But that seems unreasonable, since as noted above actual activity costs may be unintentionally underestimated or omitted, resulting in actual activity costs exceeding the annual maintenance, repair and replacement estimates. After considering the options, we believe that an evaluation based on actual data rather than estimates is preferable. Careful planning by an owner or operator should reduce the likelihood that the annual allowance is exceeded for activities that the owner believes will come within the allowance. Moreover, a prudent owner or operator who believes his RMRR activities will be close to exceeding the allowance will determine whether more costly activities are otherwise excluded, evaluate them under the case­ by­ case test, or seek an applicability determination or a permit to assure compliance with NSR requirements. Therefore, we are proposing to determine qualification for the exclusion through an end­ of­ year reconciliation. ( See § 51.165( a)( 1)( xxxxii)( A)( 5), § 51.166( b)( 53)( i)( e), § 52.21( b)( 55)( i)( e), and § 52.24( f)( 25)( i)( e) of proposed rules). One other possible approach to this question would be to sum costs in the order they occur, rather than from least expensive to most expensive. Under that approach, an owner or operator would maintain a running total of maintenance, repair and replacement costs and could determine before beginning construction on a subsequent activity if there was room under the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. However, this process might encourage an owner or operator to delay less costly activities in order to use the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance for activities that are both larger and more atypical and, therefore, might not qualify for RMRR treatment. Maintaining the least expensive to most expensive methodology discussed above, we could address the issue through an expedited case­ by­ case review of larger activities. An owner or operator would be responsible for obtaining a case­ by­ case determination from the reviewing authority for larger activities to ensure that an activity would still be considered RMRR if it is later found that the activity could not be accommodated under the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. This, however, is inconsistent with our intent that owners or operators be able to use these provisions without obtaining an advance determination from the reviewing authority. Finally, rather than establishing an annual cost threshold to define what activities fit within the allowance, we could establish a threshold per activity. Activities whose costs fell below the threshold could proceed as RMRR. Activities with costs above the threshold would be ineligible to use the allowance, and thus could only constitute RMRR if they either fell within the portion of the RMRR exclusion for equipment replacements or constitute RMRR upon an application of the case­ by­ case test. We are proposing a similar approach for replacement of equipment with functional equivalents. But we believe that any broader activity­ based approach would have the undesirable consequence of forcing industry and the reviewing authorities to address potentially complex questions about how to define whether activities are truly separate and hence below the threshold or whether they are part of some larger activity that exceeds the threshold. To summarize, at this time we are proposing an annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance; to sum activities from least expensive to most expensive to determine eligibility; and an end­ of­ year review and report. We request comment on each of these aspects of the proposal and any additional approaches that commenters wish to recommend. VII. Discussion of Issues Under the Equipment Replacement Approach We recognize that there are numerous occasions when, to maintain, facilitate, restore, or improve efficiency, reliability, availability, or safety within normal facility operations, facilities replace existing equipment with either identical equipment or equipment that serves the same function. Such replacements may be conducted immediately after component failure or they may be conducted preventively to assure a source's continued safe, reliable and efficient operation. We believe that many such replacements typically should be considered RMRR activities. But, allowing replacement of equipment with `` functionally equivalent'' or `` identical'' equipment to qualify as RMRR, if unbounded, could theoretically allow replacement of an entire production line or utility boiler. Thus, there must also be some reasonable bound to equipment replacements that qualify. The following discussion addresses key considerations in determining the appropriate boundary for the types of replacement activities that should be excluded under the equipment replacement provision of the RMRR exclusion. A. Replacement of Existing Equipment With Identical or Functionally Equivalent Equipment One of today's proposals deals with replacing equipment with identical or functionally equivalent equipment. This proposal is based on our view that most replacements of existing equipment that are necessary for the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of practically all industrial operations are not of regulatory concern and should qualify for the RMRR exclusion. Industrial facilities are constructed with the understanding that equipment failures are common and ongoing maintenance programs are routine. Delaying or foregoing maintenance could lead to failure of the production unit and may create or add to safety concerns. When such equipment replacement occurs and the replacement is identical, the replacement is inherent to both the original design and purposes of the facility, and ordinarily will not increase emissions. For example, if a pump associated with a distillation column fails and is replaced with an identical new pump, we believe that such a common activity is and should be considered an excluded replacement. We believe that activities like such pump replacements are routine and VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80301 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules should not trigger NSR permitting requirements. We also recognize that this principle extends beyond the replacement of equipment with identical equipment. When equipment is wearing out or breaks down, it often is replaced with equipment that serves the same purpose or function but is different in some respect or improved in some way in comparison to the equipment that is removed. For example, when worn out pipes are replaced in a chemical process plant, the replacement pipes sometimes are constructed of new or different materials to help reduce corrosion, erosion, or chemical compatibility problems. Moreover, the technology employed in certain types of equipment is constantly changing and evolving. When equipment of this sort needs to be replaced, it often is simply not possible to find the old­ style technology. Owners or operators may have no choice but to purchase and install equipment reflecting current design innovations. Even if it is possible to find old­ style equipment, owners or operators have obvious incentives for wanting to use the best equipment that suits the given need when replacements must be installed. A good example was presented to us by the forest products industry during our review of the NSR program's impacts on the energy sector. A company in that sector needed to replace outdated analog controllers at a series of six batch digesters. The original controllers were no longer manufactured. The new digital controllers, costing approximately $ 50,000, are capable of receiving inputs from the digester vessel temperature, pressure, and chemical/ steam flow. The new controllers would have more precisely filled and pressurized digesters with chips, chemicals, and steam, thus bringing a batch digester on line faster. The source determined that this activity would not be considered routine under today's NSR rules and decided not to proceed with the project. The limiting principle here is that the replacement equipment must be identical or functionally equivalent and must not change the basic design parameters of the affected process unit ( for example, for electric utility steam generating units, this would mean maximum heat input and fuel consumption specifications). Efficiency, however, should not be considered a basic design parameter, as NSR should not impede industry in making energy and process efficiency improvements which, on balance, will be beneficial both economically and environmentally. This should address the concern and perception that the NSR program serves as a barrier to activities undertaken to facilitate, restore, or improve efficiency, reliability, availability, or safety of a facility. We also note, however, that taken to the extreme, even without a change in basic design parameters, an identical or functionally equivalent replacement activity can still go beyond the bounds of the RMRR exclusion. For example, instead of replacing a pump, what if a chemical manufacturing facility replaced an entire production unit? Even if the replacement was identical, we likely would not consider the activity to be an excluded replacement. Such an activity effectively constitutes construction of a new process unit in much the same way the construction of an entirely new process unit at an existing stationary source could not constitute RMRR. This is not the kind of activity that sources typically engage in to maintain their plants, and it is the kind of activity that would likely be a logical point for owners or operators to install state­ of­ the­ art controls. We recognize that it may sometimes be difficult to determine where to draw the line between an activity that should be treated as an excluded replacement activity and one that should be viewed as a physical change that might constitute a major modification when the replacement of equipment with identical or functionally equivalent equipment involves a large portion of an existing unit. At the same time, we believe it is important to provide some clear parameters for making this determination. To that end, we are soliciting comment on an equipment replacement cost approach based on the NSPS program to determine whether identical or functionally equivalent replacement activities constitute RMRR without regard to other considerations. Under the NSPS program, a project at an existing affected source triggers any applicable NSPS when the cost of the project exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely new unit that is, the current capital replacement value of the existing affected source. 40 CFR 60.15( b). In essence, such a `` reconstruction'' is tantamount to new construction and, therefore, triggers any applicable NSPS even if the project would otherwise be excluded. We recognize that, in some respects, an equipment replacement cost threshold such as the NSPS reconstruction test may be viewed as the proper tool to be used in the future for distinguishing between routine and non­ routine identical and functionally equivalent replacements under the NSR program. As noted above, we do not believe it is reasonable to exclude from NSR activities that involve the total replacement of an existing entire process unit. By extension, it is therefore logical and consistent to conclude that activities which, based on their cost, effectively constitute replacement of the process unit should not qualify as RMRR. Thus, we believe that the 50 percent capital replacement threshold used under the NSPS might constitute an appropriate limitation on when identical or functionally equivalent replacements should qualify as RMRR under the equipment replacement provision without regard to other considerations. We also recognize, however, that there are other considerations pointing in favor of a threshold lower than the 50 percent reconstruction threshold that may be appropriate to bound the equipment replacement provision. For example, since under NSPS half of the capital replacement value of an existing affected facility effectively constitutes construction of a new unit, it could be argued that some percentage less than the 50 percent reconstruction threshold might be a suitable line of demarcation in determining whether identical replacements constitute a modification of an existing unit. We are soliciting comment on whether the proposed approach is workable, whether the capital replacement percentage should be 50 percent or another lesser percentage, and whether different percentages should apply to different industrial groupings or different types of industrial processes. For example, it may be appropriate to set a higher percentage for process operations that involve heat and corrosive compounds. Such processes may require more expensive replacements, and a greater degree of maintenance activities than other types of processes. In addition, we solicit comment on whether this equipment replacement provision should be implemented on a component­ bycomponent basis, or some other reasoned basis such as applying the percentage to components that are replaced collectively over a fixed period of time. We recognize that there are widely divergent views as to how expansive the RMRR exclusion should be. From our perspective, the most important thing we can do to improve air quality in the United States with respect to stationary sources is to make substantial reductions in NOX and SO2 emissions VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80302 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules from facilities in the utility sector. Our current view, however, is that if the rules clearly establish a narrow RMRR exclusion and set out to require permits for replacement of larger components or the replacement of components with more efficient ones, owners or operators will comply with these rules but will find ways to make the replacements without having to obtain permits and install state­ of­ the­ art controls. As a result, such rules will not achieve significant reductions in NOX or SO2 on a prospective basis. As discussed below, these owners or operators will likely avoid having to make such reductions through one of several ways plainly permissible under NSR. For example, when a power plant operator plans to undertake an activity that the operator believes may not qualify as RMRR and is assessing compliance alternatives, that operator is faced with three options: ( 1) Proceed with the activity pursuant to an NSR permit, which could require more than $ 100 million to be spent on air pollution controls; ( 2) forego the activity, which likely would result in a permanent reduction in capacity or utilization of the facility or might reduce efficiency and increase emissions per unit of product manufactured or energy produced; or ( 3) proceed with the activity, but take steps to limit future emissions such that the activity would not result in a significant net emissions increase. We also believe that few owners or operators would choose the first option. This option would make economic sense only in circumstances where the current capacity and utilization of the facility are so low that the major investment in air pollution controls would provide an incrementally better payback than the option of investing the same money in other assets or in the development of a new power plant. We also believe that few owners or operators would elect the second option. It makes no sense in most cases for the owners or operators of costly power plants to let these assets significantly deteriorate over time, because the value of the asset will eventually be lost. We believe that most owners or operators would select the third option. We note that industry commenters during our review of the impact of NSR on the energy sector argued that this option would, over time, result in a substantial reduction in the capacity of their facilities. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority reported that, over the last 20 years, it would have lost 32 percent of its coal system's energy capability if it had capped emissions under a `` narrow'' routine maintenance exclusion. In similar analyses, Southern Company estimated that it would have experienced an energy shortfall of 57.5 million MW­ hr, and First Energy estimated that it would have lost 39 percent of its coal­ fired generating capacity between 1981 and 2000. West Associates, the Western System Coordinating Council, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association reported similar results. Notwithstanding these assessments, we believe that most owners or operators would proceed with activities and take emissions limitations. To the extent that such limitations might curtail full utilization of the facility, incremental control measures of modest cost would likely be taken to recover the `` lost'' utilization. For example, use of a slightly lower sulfur coal could produce the marginally lower SO2 emissions that would be needed to recapture some capacity. Likewise, various types of relatively low­ cost combustion or process control modifications could be employed to reduce NOX emissions. Thus, it is not probable that owners or operators would respond to a narrow exclusion by installing state­ of­ the­ art controls every time they need to replace a major component. At the same time, a narrow RMRR exclusion of this type would not allow in many cases the replacement of equipment with equipment that improves process efficiency. This would cause owners or operators to forego replacements that would improve air quality because they would allow greater efficiency. For these reasons, a narrow RMRR exclusion that is clearly established is not expected to achieve significant reductions in historic emissions levels, and might even lead to area wide emissions increases. Most facilities would take lawful steps to avoid having to obtain an NSR permit that would impose strict limitations, even when replacements would be found under this narrow exclusion to be non­ routine. B. Defining `` Process Unit'' for Evaluating Equipment Replacement Cost Percentage In this section, we discuss issues related to what collection of equipment should be considered in applying the equipment replacement approach. We are proposing the term `` process unit'' as the appropriate collection. A definition of process unit currently is included in 40 CFR 63.41. We have built upon that definition to accommodate the intended coverage of activities under the equipment replacement approach. The purpose of this term is, as best as possible, to align implementation of the provision with generally accepted and practical understandings of what constitutes a discrete production process. The general definition would read as follows: Process unit means any collection of structures and/ or equipment that processes, assembles, applies, blends, or otherwise uses material inputs to produce or store a completed product. A single facility may contain more than one process unit. Our primary goal in defining this term is to encompass integrated manufacturing operations that produce a completed product rather than smaller pieces of such operations. To help illustrate these concepts, we developed and have included in the proposed rules some industry­ specific examples of how this definition might be applied. The examples are drawn from a few selected industry categories electric utilities, refineries, cement manufacturers, pulp and paper producers, and incinerators. Because of the centrality of the `` process unit'' concept to the usefulness of the equipment replacement provision, it is our desire to include a version of these examples in the final rule to make sure sources have a benchmark against which they can evaluate with greater confidence whether a particular replacement comes within the equipment replacement provision of the RMRR exclusion. We also request comment on whether associated pollution control equipment should typically not be considered part of the process unit. We are proposing to exclude such equipment from the definition. For a steam electric generating facility, the process unit would consist of those portions of the plant that contribute directly to the production of electricity. For example, at a pulverized coal­ fired facility, the process unit would generally be the combination of those systems from the coal receiving equipment through the emission stack, including the coal handling equipment, pulverizers or coal crushers, feedwater heaters, boiler, burners, turbinegenerator set, air preheaters, and operating control systems. Each separate generating unit would be considered a separate process unit. Components shared between two or more process units would be proportionately allocated based on capacity. For a petroleum refinery, there are several categories of process units: those that separate and distill petroleum feedstocks; those that change molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary facilities, such as boilers and hydrogen production; and those that load, unload, blend or store products. VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80303 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules For a cement plant, the process unit would generally consist of the kiln and equipment that supports it, including all components that process or store raw materials, preheaters, and components that process or store products from the kilns, and associated emission stacks. For a pulp and paper mill, there are several types of process units. One is the system that processes wood products, another is the digester and its associated heat exchanger, blow tank, pulp filter, accumulator, oxidation tower, and evaporators. A third is the chemical recovery system, which includes the recovery furnace, lime kiln, storage vessels, and associated oxidation processes feeding regenerated chemicals to the digester. For an incinerator, the process unit would consist of components from the feed pit or refuse pit to the stack, including conveyors, combustion devices, heat exchangers and steam generators, quench tanks, and fans. We solicit comment on the proposed definition of `` process unit'' and whether another approach might be more effective. We also solicit comment on the particular process units identified in specific industries, whether there are better ways of identifying those process units in those industries, and whether other process units should be specifically identified as part of the rule. Finally, today's proposed approaches for replacement of existing equipment with identical or functionally equivalent equipment rely on the concept of a process unit, but it is possible that it is not appropriate for replacement of nonemitting components because such replacements may not have emissions consequences in the first place and hence would not warrant scrutiny under NSR. Similarly, it is possible that maintenance, repair and replacement activities performed on non­ emitting units should not be included in the activities that would have to be accounted for under the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance provision of the RMRR exclusion. We solicit comment on how these various activities should be handled in the context of today's proposal, bearing in mind that forthcoming proposed NSR rules for future activities involving debottlenecking will specifically address changes made at non­ emitting units that affect emissions at other process units at a stationary source among other issues. However, we request comment on limiting today's proposed approaches to changes made at emitting units or modifying them so as to differentiate between changes made at emitting versus non­ emitting units. C. Miscellaneous Issues In addition to the issues noted above, we also request comment on the following matters. First, we solicit comments on the topic of basic design parameters. Our proposal states that maximum heat input and fuel consumption specifications ( for electric utility steam generating units) and maximum material/ fuel input specifications ( for other types of units) are basic design parameters. We solicit comment on whether that provides sufficient definition of this term, whether further definition is appropriate, or whether there are industry­ specific considerations that should be taken into account. Second, in calculating costs, we propose that owners or operators should use the same principles and guidelines as discussed above with respect to calculating costs for the maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. We request comment on whether these same principles and requirements are applicable and workable for the equipment replacement provision. Third, in addition to soliciting comment on the approaches described above, we are also soliciting comment on whether the maintenance, repair and replacement allowance and this equipment replacement provision should both be adopted or whether just the equipment replacement provision is sufficient? In addition, if we assume that both approaches are adopted, how should they work together? Should an RMRR activity that is excluded under the equipment replacement provision also count against your annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance? We are soliciting comment on whether to adopt any or all of these approaches and how they might fit together. Lastly, EPA strongly supports efforts to improve energy efficiency at existing power plants. These activities reduce the amount of criteria pollutants ( SO2 and NOX) emitted per unit of electricity generated and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. During our study of the impact of NSR on the energy sector, we received information concerning a number of instances where activities that would have improved energy efficiency were not implemented because they would have resulted in significant annual emission increases that would have triggered NSR. Some have commented that any activity that produces any improvement in energy efficiency should be exempt from NSR. However, given the continuing improvement in materials and design, almost any component replacement can be expected to have some beneficial impact on the energy efficiency of the unit and, left unbounded, this approach could result in the replacement of an entire boiler with a new, more efficient boiler without state­ of­ the­ art pollution controls. As mentioned above, however, we do not think replacement of an entire boiler is properly viewed as routine. We also do not believe that the need to install state­ of­ the­ art controls on new boilers will deter sources from installing new boilers if they are otherwise prepared to do so. These issues prompt EPA to solicit comment in several areas. To the extent that an activity is the replacement of existing equipment that serves the same function as the equipment replaced, does not alter the basic design parameters of the process unit, and otherwise meets the provisions of our proposed equipment replacement approach, described above, it would be excluded from NSR under the proposal. There may, however, be rare instances where activities do not involve replacing existing equipment, are not otherwise excluded from NSR, and nevertheless promote efficiency. Is there a need for a separate `` stand­ alone'' exclusion for such activities? If so, should there be other limitations on the scope of such activities? Are there activities that result in a minor improvement in efficiency but a very large increase in annual emissions? If so, what are the characteristics of such activities and how should EPA treat them? Today, we solicit comment broadly on the impact of the NSR program on decisions to proceed with activities that produce net benefits to human health and the environment, including, but not limited, to energy efficiency activities. We also solicit comments on the extent to which our proposals can promote energy efficiency while preserving the benefits of the NSR program. D. Quantitative Analysis We have attempted to analyze quantitatively the possible emissions consequences of the range of different approaches to the RMRR exclusion described above to evaluate if our policy conclusions are correct. Our analysis was conducted using the Integrated Planning Model ( IPM). This analysis was done for electric utilities because we have a powerful model to perform such an analysis that we do not have for other industries. We think the results for the electric utilities accurately reflects the trends we would see in other industries. This model and technical VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80304 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules information describing it can be found in the docket. The analysis included several relevant scenarios. In the first scenario, we assumed that efficiency and capacity of relevant units modestly decrease over time. This scenario was intended to reflect the consequences of a new rule with a relatively `` narrow'' RMRR exclusion, under which we would assume that there would be slow and steady deterioration of relevant generating assets. As explained above, we do not actually believe that such a trend would occur under such a new RMRR exclusion, because plants would take steps to limit emissions and perhaps implement incremental controls to recapture lost capacity. Nevertheless, we believe that this scenario offers a bounding analysis for seeing whether a narrow RMRR exclusion can have significant emissions benefits because our model assumes well controlled and highly efficient new generating assets rather than recaptured capacity from incrementally better controlled existing units. In the other scenarios, we assumed that utilization, efficiency, or capacity of relevant units modestly increases over time. These scenarios were intended to reflect the consequences of a new rule with a `` broader'' RMRR exclusion, which would allow facility availability and/ or output over time without triggering major NSR. These scenarios present various combinations of assumptions on possible incremental changes to relevant operational parameters and are intended to encompass the range of possible operational outcomes that might be associated with the proposed RMRR exclusion. The IPM analyses of these scenarios proves the point made above, that the breadth of the RMRR exclusion would have no practical impact on, let alone being the controlling factor in determining, the emissions reductions that will be achieved in the future under the major NSR program. The analyses show that emissions of SO2 are essentially the same under all scenarios. This stands to reason because nationwide emissions of SO2 from the power sector are capped by the title IV Acid Rain Program. For NOX, these analyses show modest relative decreases in some cases and modest relative increases in other cases. These predicted changes represent only a modest fraction of nationwide NOX emissions from the power sector, which hover around 4.3 million tons per year ( tpy). At this time, we do not have adequate information to predict with confidence which modeled scenario is most likely to occur if the options under consideration are adopted. What these analyses indicate, however, is that regardless of which scenario is closest to what comes to pass, none of the proposed provisions related to the RMRR exclusion will have a significant impact on emissions from the power sector. The DOE also attempted to analyze quantitatively the possible emissions consequences of the range of different approaches to the RMRR exclusion described above. Using the National Energy Modeling System ( NEMS), a variety of changes in energy efficiency and availability were evaluated, as well as the effect on emissions resulting from these changes. This analysis concluded that efficiency improvements resulting from increased maintenance are expected to decrease emissions, whereas availability improvements are expected to increase emissions. In the cases represented in this analysis, the impacts of the assumed reductions in heat rates tend to dominate the corresponding effects of the assumed availability increases. Data regarding the emissions reductions that are achieved under other CAA programs further illustrate the relative limits of the major NSR program as a tool for achieving significant emissions reductions. For example, the title IV Acid Rain Program has reduced SO2 emissions from the electric utility industry by more than 7 million tpy and will ultimately result in reductions of approximately 10 million tpy. The Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements will ultimately achieve NOX reductions of 2.8 million tpy. Standards for highway heavy­ duty vehicles and engines will reduce NOX emissions by 2.6 million tpy. Standards for non­ road diesel engines are anticipated to reduce NOX emissions by about 1.5 million tpy. The NOX `` SIP call'' will reduce NOX emissions by over 1 million tpy. Altogether, these and other similar programs achieve emissions reductions that far exceed those attributable to the major NSR program and dwarf any possible emissions consequences attributable to future promulgation of a rule based on today's proposal. A copy of our IPM analysis and the DOE NEMS analysis are included in the docket for this rulemaking. We ask for comment on all aspects of these analyses and on the policy discussion provided above. VIII. Other Options Considered In addition to the cost­ based approaches discussed above, we are considering two additional options for addressing RMRR. These options are discussed below, and we are requesting comment on these options. We are also interested in other possible alternatives. A. Capacity­ Based Option We are considering the alternative option of developing an RMRR provision based on the capacity of a process unit. Under such an approach, an owner or operator could undertake any activity that did not increase the capacity of the process unit. Such an approach would require safeguards similar to those in the proposed costbased approaches in order to ensure that activities that should be subject to the NSR program are not inappropriately excluded. These safeguards would exclude the construction of a new process unit, the replacement of an entire process unit, and activities that result in an increase in maximum achievable hourly emissions rate of a regulated NSR pollutant from use of the exclusion or the emission of any regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted by the stationary source. Basing RMRR on capacity is appealing for several reasons. The primary objective of RMRR is to keep a unit operating at capacity and/ or availability. In addition, the linkage between capacity and environmental impact is more apparent than cost and environmental impact. Finally, this type of approach might, in principle, be easier to use before beginning actual construction than the cost­ based approaches. The difficulty with using a capacitybased approach is defining the capacity of a process unit. Capacity may be defined based on input or output. Nameplate capacity of a process unit may vary greatly from the capacity at which the process unit may be able to operate. It may be more appropriate in some industries to measure capacity based on input while in others on output. As an example, in a review of promulgated and proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, six of eleven standards measured capacity based on unit output while five based capacity on input. In fact, the NSPS exclusion for increases in production rate at 40 CFR 60.14( e) originally was dependent upon the `` operating design capacity'' of an affected unit. In proposed revisions to the NSPS program published on October 15, 1974, we state ( 39 FR 36948): The exemption of increases in production rate is no longer dependent upon the `` operating design capacity.'' This term is not easily defined, and for certain industries the `` design capacity'' bears little relationship to the actual operating capacity of the facility. VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80305 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules We are requesting comment on this capacity­ based option, as well as comments on possible methods to address any of the issues relating to implementation of such an option. B. Age­ Based Option Under an age­ based approach, any process unit under a specified age could undergo any activity that does not increase the capacity of a process unit on a maximum hourly basis without triggering the requirements of the major NSR program. However, the activities could not constitute reconstruction of the process unit; that is, their cost could not exceed 50 percent of the cost of a replacement process unit. The age of the process unit would likely be in the range of 25 50 years. An owner or operator would have to become a Clean Unit as defined at 40 CFR 51.165( c)( 3), 51.166( t)( 3), and 52.21( x)( 3), once the age of a process unit exceeds the age threshold. Such an approach would provide an owner or operator a clear understanding of RMRR for an extended period of time. It also may provide the owner or operator greater flexibility than under the current system for a limited period of time. Like the capacity­ based approach, this approach would, in principle, allow for a fairly simple preconstruction determination of applicability. We see several difficulties in developing this type of approach. The first is defining capacity. The second is establishing the age cut­ off for the exclusion. The useful life of equipment is difficult to establish and may vary greatly. The third is that some of the activities that would be allowed at newer sources do not fit within any ordinary meaning of RMRR and some of the activities that would be forbidden at older facilities would come within that meaning. Fourth, some sources may consciously, and appropriately, engage in aggressive RMRR as a method of maximizing the life span of its process units, and an age­ based approach would discriminate against them. We are requesting comment on this age­ based option, as well as comments on possible methods to address the issues raised above with respect to this option. IX. Administrative Requirements for This Proposed Rulemaking A. Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 [ 58 FR 51,735 ( October 4, 1993)], we must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified us that it considers this an `` economically significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. We have submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. All written comments from OMB to EPA and any written EPA response to any of those comments are included in the docket listed at the beginning of this notice under ADDRESSES. In addition, consistent with Executive Order 12866, EPA consulted extensively with the State, local and tribal agencies that will be affected by this rule. We have also sought involvement from industry and public interest groups. B. Executive Order 13132 Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' are 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. Nevertheless, in developing this rule, we consulted with affected parties and interested stakeholders, including State and local authorities, to enable them to provide timely input in the development of this rule. A summary of stakeholder involvement appears above in section III. C. of today's proposed rule. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the State and local programs, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. While this proposed rule will result in some expenditures by the States, we expect those expenditures to be limited to $ 580,160 for the estimated 112 affected reviewing authorities. This figure includes the small increase in burden imposed upon reviewing authorities in order for them to revise the State's State Implementation Plan ( SIP). However, this revision provides sources permitted by the States greater certainty in application of the program, which should in turn reduce the overall burden of the program on State and local authorities. Thus, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this rule. 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.'' EPA believes that this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. The purpose of today's proposed rule is to add greater flexibility to the existing major NSR regulations. These changes will benefit reviewing authorities and the regulated community, including any major source owned by a tribal government or located in or near tribal land, by providing increased certainty as to when the requirements of the NSR program apply. Taken as a whole, today's proposed rule should result in no added burden or compliance costs and should not substantially change the level of environmental performance achieved under the previous rules. The EPA anticipates that initially these changes will result in a small increase in the burden imposed upon reviewing authorities in order for them to be included in the State's SIP. Nevertheless, these options and revisions will ultimately provide greater operational flexibility to sources VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80306 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules permitted by the States, which will in turn reduce the overall burden on the program on State and local authorities by reducing the number of required permit modifications. In comparison, no tribal government currently has an approved Tribal Implementation Plan ( TIP) under the CAA to implement the NSR program. The Federal government is currently the NSR reviewing authority in Indian country. Thus, tribal governments should not experience added burden, nor should their laws be affected with respect to implementation of this rule. Additionally, although major stationary sources affected by today's proposed rule could be located in or near Indian country and/ or be owned or operated by tribal governments, such affected sources would not incur additional costs or compliance burdens as a result of this rule. Instead, the only effect on such sources should be the benefit of the added certainty and flexibility provided by the rule. The EPA recognizes the importance of including tribal consultation as part of the rulemaking process. Nonetheless, to this point we have not specifically consulted with tribal officials on this proposed rule. We are committed to work with any tribal government to resolve any issues that we may have overlooked in today's proposed rules and that may have an adverse impact in Indian country. As a result, today we are announcing our intention to develop and implement a consultation process with tribal governments to ensure that the concerns of tribal officials are considered before finalizing this proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. D. Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 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 EPA has 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 reasonable alternatives that we considered. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because we do not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. We believe that this package as a whole will result in equal or better environmental protection than currently provided by the existing regulations, and do so in a more streamlined and effective manner. E. Paperwork Reduction Act The EPA prepared an Information Collection Request ( ICR) document ( ICR No. 1713.04). You may obtain a copy from Sandy Farmer by mail at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 0001, by e­ mail at farmer. sandy@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 260 2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information that ICR No. 1713.04 covers is required for EPA to carry out its required oversight function of reviewing preconstruction permits and assuring adequate implementation of the program. In order to carry out its oversight function, EPA must have available to it information on proposed construction and modifications. This information collection is necessary for the proper performance of EPA's functions, has practical utility, and is not unnecessarily duplicative of information we otherwise can reasonably access. We have reduced, to the extent practicable and appropriate, the burden on persons providing the information to or for EPA. The collection of information is authorized under 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. According to ICR No. 1713.04, the first 3 years of this proposed rulemaking will potentially incur a burden of 17,400 hours and 1,305,000 dollars to affected sources, and 2,906 hours and 107,522 dollars for the Federal government, and 15,680 hours and 580,160 hours for reviewing authorities. These costs are based upon an estimated number of 1,450 affected sources. 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 purpose of responding to the information collection; adjust existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search existing 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 EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. We will continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated table format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency's regulations, and in each CFR volume containing EPA regulations. The table lists the section numbers with reporting and record keeping requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfy the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. F. 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 Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) Any small business employing fewer than 500 employees; ( 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. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives `` which minimize any significant economic impact of the VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80307 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U. S. C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. Today's proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will decrease the regulatory burden of the existing regulations and have a positive effect on all small entities subject to the rule. This rule improves operational flexibility for owners and operators of major stationary sources and clarifies applicable requirements for determining if a change qualifies as a major modification. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities. 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. G. 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 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 one year. Before promulgating an EPA 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 costeffective 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 significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 our regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. We believe the proposed rule changes will actually reduce the regulatory burden associated with the major NSR program by improving the operational flexibility of owners and operators and clarifying the requirements. Because the program changes provided in the proposed rule are not expected to result in any increases in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector, we have not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least costly, most cost­ effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this rule, we are not required to develop a plan with regard to small governments. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law No. 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS) in our regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards ( for example, materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. Although this rule does involve the use of technical standards, it does not preclude the State, local, and tribal reviewing agencies from using VCS. Today's proposed rulemaking is an improvement of the existing NSR permitting program. As such, it only ensures that promulgated technical standards are considered and appropriate controls are installed, prior to the construction of major sources of air emissions. Therefore, we are not considering the use of any VCS in today's rulemaking. I. Executive Order 13211 Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. Today's proposed rule improves the ability of sources to maintain the reliability of production facilities, and effectively utilize and improve existing capacity. X. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 101, 111, 114, 116, and 301 of the CAA as amended ( 42 U. S. C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, and 7601). This rulemaking is also subject to section 307( d) of the CAA ( 42 U. S. C. 7407( d)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 22, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 51 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority: 23 U. S. C. 101; 42 U. S. C. 7401 7671q. Subpart I [ Amended] 2. Section 51.165 is amended: a. By revising paragraph ( a)( 1)( v)( C)( 1). b. By adding paragraphs ( a)( 1)( xliii) through ( xlvii). The revision and additions read as follows: § 51.165 Permit requirements. ( a) * * * ( 1) * * * ( v) * * * ( C) * * * ( 1) Routine maintenance, repair and replacement, which shall include but not be limited to the activities set out in paragraphs ( a)( 1)( v)( C)( 1)( i) and ( ii) of VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80308 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 EPA has not determined this value. this section. Without regard to other considerations, the activities specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1)( v)( C)( 1)( i) and ( ii) shall constitute routine maintenance, repair and replacement: ( i) Activities performed at a stationary source in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source, whose total cost, when added together with the total costs of all previous activities performed at the same stationary source in the same year in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source, does not exceed that stationary source's annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. `` Annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance'' is defined in paragraph ( a)( 1)( xliii) of this section. Rules for calculation and summation of costs are provided in paragraph ( a)( 1)( xliii)( A) of this section. A stationary source may elect to calculate an annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance for either all or none, but not some, of the maintenance, repair, and replacement activities performed at the stationary source. ( ii) The replacement of components of a process unit with identical or functionally equivalent components, provided that: The fixed capital cost of the components does not exceed [ x] 1 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct an entirely new process unit; and the replacement does not change the basic design parameters of the process unit. The basic design parameters for electric utility steam generating units are maximum heat input and fuel consumption specifications. For nonutilities basic design parameters are the maximum fuel or material input specifications to the process unit. An improvement in efficiency does not change a process unit's basic design parameters. `` Functionally equivalent components'' and `` fixed capital cost'' are defined in paragraphs ( a)( 1)( xlv) and ( a)( 1)( xlvi) of this section, respectively. * * * * * ( xliii) Annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance means a dollar amount calculated according to the following equation: ( Industry sector percentage) × ( replacement cost of the stationary source) where `` industry sector percentage'' is drawn from Table 1 of this section. TABLE 1 OF § 51.165( A)( 1)( XLIII). INDUSTRY SECTOR PERCENTAGES Industry sector Industry sector percentage Electric Services Petroleum Refining Chemical Processes Natural Gas Transport Pulp and Paper Mills Paper Mills Automobile Manufacturing Pharmaceuticals Other ( A) A stationary source's annual maintenance costs shall be calculated and summed according to the following rules: ( 1) The owner or operator may choose to sum costs over either a calendar year or initially specified fiscal year. The initially specified fiscal year must remain in use unless other accounting procedures at the stationary source subsequently change to a different fiscal year. ( 2) Costs incurred for all activities performed at the stationary source in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source that are not excluded under paragraph ( a)( 1)( xliii)( B) of this section, or that have not been issued a preconstruction permit, shall be tracked chronologically and summed at the end of the year. ( i) At the end of the year, these costs shall be listed and summed in order from least cost to highest cost. ( ii) All activities prior to the point on the cost­ ordered list at which the sum of activity costs exceeds the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance shall automatically qualify as routine maintenance, repair, or replacement. ( 3) Costs associated with maintaining or installing pollution control equipment shall not be included in the calculation and summation of costs for routine maintenance, repair, and replacement. Costs shall remain included if they are associated with maintaining or installing equipment that serves a dual function as both process and control equipment. ( 4) The owner or operator shall provide an annual report to the reviewing authority containing complete information on all maintenance, repair and replacement costs and process unit replacement cost estimates at the stationary source. The report shall be provided within 60 days after the end of the year over which activity costs have been summed. ( B) An activity otherwise eligible for inclusion in the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance shall not be eligible to be included in the allowance if it: ( 1) Results in an increase in the maximum achievable hourly emissions rate of the stationary source of a regulated NSR pollutant, or results in emissions of a regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted; ( 2) Constitutes construction of a new process unit; or ( 3) Removes an entire existing process unit and installs a different process unit in its place. ( xliv)( A) In general, process unit means any collection of structures and/ or equipment that processes, assembles, applies, blends, or otherwise uses material inputs to produce or store a completed product. A single stationary source may contain more than one process unit. ( B) The following list identifies the process units at specific kinds of stationary sources. ( 1) For a steam electric generating facility, the process unit would consist of those portions of the plant which contribute directly to the production of electricity. For example, at a pulverized coal­ fired facility, the process unit would generally be the combination of those systems from the coal receiving equipment through the emission stack, including the coal handling equipment, pulverizers or coal crushers, feedwater heaters, boiler, burners, turbinegenerator set, air preheaters, and operating control systems. Each separate generating unit would be considered a separate process unit. Components shared between two or more process units would be proportionately allocated based on capacity. ( 2) For a petroleum refinery, there are several categories of process units: those that separate and distill petroleum feedstocks; those that change molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary facilities, such as boilers and hydrogen production; and those that load, unload, blend or store products. ( 3) For a cement plant, the process unit would generally consist of the kiln and equipment that supports it, including all components that process or store raw materials, preheaters, and components that process or store products from the kilns, and associated emission stacks. ( 4) For a pulp and paper mill, there are several types of process units. One is the system that processes wood products, another is the digester and its associated heat exchanger, blow tank, pulp filter, accumulator, oxidation tower, and evaporators. A third is the VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80309 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 EPA has not determined this value. chemical recovery system, which includes the recovery furnace, lime kiln, storage vessels, and associated oxidation processes feeding regenerated chemicals to the digester. ( 5) For an incinerator, the process unit would consist of components from the feed pit or refuse pit to the stack, including conveyors, combustion devices, heat exchangers and steam generators, quench tanks, and fans. ( xlv) Functionally equivalent component means a component that serves the same purpose as the replaced component. ( xlvi) Fixed capital cost means the capital needed to provide all the depreciable components. `` Depreciable components'' refers to all components of fixed capital cost and is calculated by subtracting land and working capital from the total capital investment, as defined in paragraph ( a)( 1)( xlvii) of this section. ( xlvii) Total capital investment means the sum of the following: all costs required to purchase needed process equipment ( purchased equipment costs); the costs of labor and materials for installing that equipment ( direct installation costs); the costs of site preparation and buildings; other costs such as engineering, construction and field expenses, fees to contractors, startup and performance tests, and contingencies ( indirect installation costs); land for the process equipment; and working capital for the process equipment. * * * * * 3. Section 51.166 is amended: a. By revising paragraph ( b)( 2)( iii)( a). b. By adding paragraphs ( b)( 53) through ( 57). The revision and additions read as follows: § 51.166 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 2) * * * ( iii) * * * ( a) Routine maintenance, repair and replacement, which shall include but not be limited to the activities set out in paragraphs ( b)( 2)( iii)( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. Without regard to other considerations, the activities specified in paragraphs ( b)( 2)( iii)( a)( 1) and ( 2) shall constitute routine maintenance, repair and replacement: ( 1) Activities performed at a stationary source in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source, whose total cost, when added together with the total costs of all previous activities performed at the same stationary source in the same year in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source, does not exceed that stationary source's annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. `` Annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance'' is defined in paragraph ( b)( 53) of this section. Rules for calculation and summation of costs are provided in paragraph ( b)( 53)( i) of this section. A stationary source may elect to calculate an annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance for either all or none, but not some, of the maintenance, repair, and replacement activities performed at the stationary source. ( 2) The replacement of components of a process unit with identical or functionally equivalent components, provided that: ( i) The fixed capital cost of the components does not exceed [ x] 1 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct an entirely new process unit; and ( ii) The replacement does not change the basic design parameters of the process unit. The basic design parameters for electric utility steam generating units are maximum heat input and fuel consumption specifications. For non­ utilities, basic design parameters are the maximum fuel or material input specifications to the process unit. An improvement in efficiency does not change a process unit's basic design parameters. `` Functionally equivalent components'' and `` fixed capital cost'' are defined in paragraphs ( b)( 55) and ( b)( 56) of this section. * * * * * ( 53) Annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance means a dollar amount calculated according to the following equation: ( Industry sector percentage) × ( replacement cost of the stationary source) where `` industry sector percentage'' is drawn from Table 1 of this section. TABLE 1 OF § 51.166( B)( 53). INDUSTRY SECTOR PERCENTAGES Industry sector Industry sector percentage Electric Services Petroleum Refining Chemical Processes Natural Gas Transport Pulp and Paper Mills Paper Mills Automobile Manufacturing Pharmaceuticals Other ( i) A stationary source's annual maintenance costs shall be calculated and summed according to the following rules: ( a) The owner or operator may choose to sum costs over either a calendar year or initially specified fiscal year. The initially specified fiscal year must remain in use unless other accounting procedures at the stationary source subsequently change to a different fiscal year. ( b) Costs incurred for all activities performed at the stationary source in order to maintain, facilitate, restore, or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability, or safety of that stationary source that are not excluded under paragraph ( b)( 53)( ii) of this section, or that have not been issued a preconstruction permit, shall be tracked chronologically and summed at the end of the year. ( 1) At the end of the year, these costs shall be listed and summed in order from least cost to highest cost. ( 2) All activities prior to the point on the cost­ ordered list at which the sum of activity costs exceeds the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance shall automatically qualify as routine maintenance, repair, or replacement. ( c) Costs associated with maintaining or installing pollution control equipment shall not be included in the calculation and summation of costs for routine maintenance, repair, and replacement. Costs shall remain included if they are associated with maintaining or installing equipment that serves a dual function as both process and control equipment. ( d) The owner or operator shall provide an annual report to the reviewing authority containing complete information on all maintenance, repair and replacement costs and process unit replacement cost estimates at the stationary source. The report shall be provided within 60 days after the end of the year over which activity costs have been summed. ( ii) An activity otherwise eligible for inclusion in the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance shall not be eligible to be included in the allowance if it: ( a) Results in an increase in the maximum achievable hourly emissions VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 12 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80310 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 EPA has not determined this value. rate of the stationary source of a regulated NSR pollutant, or results in emissions of a regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted; ( b) Constitutes construction of a new process unit; or ( c) Removes an entire existing process unit and installs a different process unit in its place. ( 54)( i) In general, process unit means any collection of structures and/ or equipment that processes, assembles, applies, blends, or otherwise uses material inputs to produce or store a completed product. A single stationary source may contain more than one process unit. ( ii) The following list identifies the process units at specific kinds of stationary sources. ( a) For a steam electric generating facility, the process unit would consist of those portions of the plant which contribute directly to the production of electricity. For example, at a pulverized coal­ fired facility, the process unit would generally be the combination of those systems from the coal receiving equipment through the emission stack, including the coal handling equipment, pulverizers or coal crushers, feedwater heaters, boiler, burners, turbinegenerator set, air preheaters, and operating control systems. Each separate generating unit would be considered a separate process unit. Components shared between two or more process units would be proportionately allocated based on capacity. ( b) For a petroleum refinery, there are several categories of process units: those that separate and distill petroleum feedstocks; those that change molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary facilities, such as boilers and hydrogen production; and those that load, unload, blend or store products. ( c) For a cement plant, the process unit would generally consist of the kiln and equipment that supports it, including all components that process or store raw materials, preheaters, and components that process or store products from the kilns, and associated emission stacks. ( d) For a pulp and paper mill, there are several types of process units. One is the system that processes wood products, another is the digester and its associated heat exchanger, blow tank, pulp filter, accumulator, oxidation tower, and evaporators. A third is the chemical recovery system, which includes the recovery furnace, lime kiln, storage vessels, and associated oxidation processes feeding regenerated chemicals to the digester. ( e) For an incinerator, the process unit would consist of components from the feed pit or refuse pit to the stack, including conveyors, combustion devices, heat exchangers and steam generators, quench tanks, and fans. ( 55) Functionally equivalent component means a component that serves the same purpose as the replaced component. ( 56) Fixed capital cost means the capital needed to provide all the depreciable components. `` Depreciable components'' refers to all components of fixed capital cost and is calculated by subtracting land and working capital from the total capital investment, as defined in paragraph ( b)( 57) of this section. ( 57) Total capital investment means the sum of the following: all costs required to purchase needed process equipment ( purchased equipment costs); the costs of labor and materials for installing that equipment ( direct installation costs); the costs of site preparation and buildings; other costs such as engineering, construction and field expenses, fees to contractors, startup and performance tests, and contingencies ( indirect installation costs); land for the process equipment; and working capital for the process equipment. * * * * * Appendix S [ Amended] 4. In Appendix S to Part 51 Section II is amended: a. By revising paragraph A. 5( iii) ( a). b. By adding paragraphs A. 21 through 25. The revision and additions read as follows: Appendix S to part 51 Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling * * * * * II. Initial Screening Analyses and Determination of Applicable Requirements A. * * * 5. * * * ( iii) * * * ( a) Routine maintenance, repair and replacement, which shall include but not be limited to the activities set out in paragraphs A. 5 ( iii)( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. Without regard to other considerations, the activities specified in paragraphs A. 5 ( iii)( a)( 1) and ( 2) shall constitute routine maintenance, repair and replacement: ( 1) Activities performed at a stationary source in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source, whose total cost, when added together with the total costs of all previous activities performed at the same stationary source in the same year in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source, does not exceed that stationary source's annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. `` Annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance'' is defined in paragraph A. 21 of this section. Rules for calculation and summation of costs are provided in paragraph A. 21 ( i) of this section. A stationary source may elect to calculate an annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance for either all or none, but not some, of the maintenance, repair, and replacement activities performed at the stationary source. ( 2) The replacement of components of a process unit with identical or functionally equivalent components, provided that: ( i) The fixed capital cost of the components does not exceed [ x] 1 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct an entirely new process unit; and ( ii) The replacement does not change the basic design parameters of the process unit. The basic design parameters for electric utility steam generating units are maximum heat input and fuel consumption specifications. For non­ utilities, basic design parameters are the maximum fuel or material input specifications to the process unit. An improvement in efficiency does not change a process unit's basic design parameters. `` Functionally equivalent components'' and `` fixed capital cost'' are defined in paragraphs A. 23 and A. 24 of this section, respectively. * * * * * 21. Annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance means a dollar amount calculated according to the following equation: ( Industry sector percentage) × ( replacement cost of the stationary source) where `` industry sector percentage'' is drawn from Table 1 of this section. TABLE 1. OF SECTION II. A. 21. INDUSTRY SECTOR PERCENTAGES Industry sector Industry sector percentage Electric Services Petroleum Refining Chemical Processes Natural Gas Transport Pulp and Paper Mills Paper Mills Automobile Manufacturing Pharmaceuticals VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 12 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80311 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1. OF SECTION II. A. 21. INDUSTRY SECTOR PERCENTAGES Continued Industry sector Industry sector percentage Other ( i) A stationary source's annual maintenance costs shall be calculated and summed according to the following rules: ( a) The owner or operator may choose to sum costs over either a calendar year or initially specified fiscal year. The initially specified fiscal year must remain in use unless other accounting procedures at the stationary source subsequently change to a different fiscal year. ( b) Costs incurred for all activities not performed at the stationary source in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source that are not excluded under A. 21 ( ii) of this section, or that have not been issued a preconstruction permit, shall be tracked chronologically and summed at the end of the year. ( 1) At the end of the year, these costs shall be listed and summed in order from least cost to highest cost. ( 2) All activities prior to the point on the cost­ ordered list at which the sum of activity costs exceeds the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance shall automatically qualify as routine maintenance, repair, or replacement. ( c) Costs associated with maintaining or installing pollution control equipment shall not be included in the calculation and summation of costs for routine maintenance, repair, and replacement. Costs shall remain included if they are associated with maintaining or installing equipment that serves a dual function as both process and control equipment. ( d) The owner or operator shall provide an annual report to the reviewing authority containing complete information on all maintenance, repair and replacement costs and process unit replacement cost estimates at the stationary source. The report shall be provided within 60 days after the end of the year over which activity costs have been summed. ( ii) An activity otherwise eligible for inclusion in the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance shall not be eligible to be included in the allowance if it: ( a) Results in an increase in the maximum achievable hourly emissions rate of the stationary source of a regulated NSR pollutant, or results in emissions of a regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted; ( b) Constitutes construction of a new process unit; or ( c) Removes an entire existing process unit and installs a different process unit in its place. 22. ( i) In general, process unit means any collection of structures and/ or equipment that processes, assembles, applies, blends, or otherwise uses material inputs to produce or store a completed product. A single stationary source may contain more than one process unit. ( ii) The following list identifies the process units at specific kinds of stationary sources. ( a) For a steam electric generating facility, the process unit would consist of those portions of the plant which contribute directly to the production of electricity. For example, at a pulverized coal­ fired facility, the process unit would generally be the combination of those systems from the coal receiving equipment through the emission stack, including the coal handling equipment, pulverizers or coal crushers, feedwater heaters, boilers, burners, turbinegenerator set, air preheaters, and operating control systems. Each separate generating unit would be considered a separate process unit. Components shared between two or more process units would be proportionately allocated based on capacity. ( b) For a petroleum refinery, there are several categories of process units: those that separate and distill petroleum feedstocks; those that change molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary facilities, such as boilers and hydrogen production; and those that load, unload, blend or store products. ( c) For a cement plant, the process unit would generally consist of the kiln and equipment that supports it, including all components that process or store raw materials, preheaters, and components that process or store products from the kilns, and associated emission stacks. ( d) For a pulp and paper mill, there are several types of process units. One is the system that processes wood products, another is the digester and its associated heat exchanger, blow tank, pulp filter, accumulator, oxidation tower, and evaporators. A third is the chemical recovery system, which includes the recovery furnace, lime kiln, storage vessels, and associated oxidation processes feeding regenerated chemicals to the digester. ( e) For an incinerator, the process unit would consist of components from the feed pit or refuse pit to the stack, including conveyors, combustion devices, heat exchangers and steam generators, quench tanks, and fans. 23. Functionally equivalent component means a component that serves the same purpose as the replaced component. 24. Fixed capital cost means the capital needed to provide all the depreciable components. `` Depreciable components'' refers to all components of fixed capital cost and is calculated by subtracting land and working capital from the total capital investment, as defined in paragraph A. 25 of this section. 25. Total capital investment means the sum of the following: all costs required to purchase needed process equipment ( purchased equipment costs); the costs of labor and materials for installing that equipment ( direct installation costs); the costs of site preparation and buildings; other costs such as engineering, construction and field expenses, fees to contractors, startup and performance tests, and contingencies ( indirect installation costs); land for the process equipment; and working capital for the process equipment. * * * * * PART 52 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401, et seq. Subpart A [ Amended] 2. Section 52.21 is amended: a. By revising paragraph ( b)( 2)( iii)( a). b. By adding paragraphs ( b)( 55) through ( 59). The revision and additions are revised to read as follows: § 52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 2) * * * ( iii) * * * ( a) Routine maintenance, repair and replacement, which shall include but not be limited to the activities set out in paragraphs ( b)( 2)( iii)( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. Without regard to other considerations, the activities specified in paragraphs ( b)( 2)( iii)( a)( 1) and ( 2) shall constitute routine maintenance, repair and replacement: ( 1) Activities performed at a stationary source in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source, whose total cost, when added together with the total costs of all previous activities performed at the same stationary source in the same year in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source, does not exceed that stationary source's annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. `` Annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance'' is defined in paragraph ( b)( 55) of this section. Rules for calculation and summation of costs are provided in paragraph ( b)( 55)( i) of this section. A stationary source may elect to calculate an annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance for either all or none, but not some, of the maintenance, repair, and replacement activities performed at the stationary source. ( 2) The replacement of components of a process unit with identical or VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 12 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80312 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 EPA has not determined this value. functionally equivalent components, provided that: ( i) The fixed capital cost of the components does not exceed [ x] 1 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct an entirely new process unit; and ( ii) The replacement does not change the basic design parameters of the process unit. The basic design parameters for electric utility steam generating units are maximum heat input and fuel consumption specifications. For non­ utilities, basic design parameters are the maximum fuel or material input specifications to the process unit. An improvement in efficiency does not change a process unit's basic design parameters. `` Functionally equivalent components'' and `` fixed capital cost'' are defined in paragraphs ( b)( 57) and ( b)( 58) of this section. * * * * * ( 55) Annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance means a dollar amount calculated according to the following equation: ( Industry sector percentage) x ( replacement cost of the stationary source) where `` industry sector percentage'' is drawn from Table 1 of this section. TABLE 1 OF § 52.21( B)( 55). INDUSTRY SECTOR PERCENTAGES Industry sector Industry sector percentage Electric Services Petroleum Refining Chemical Processes Natural Gas Transport Pulp and Paper Mills Paper Mills Automobile Manufacturing Pharmaceuticals Other ( i) A stationary source's annual maintenance costs shall be calculated and summed according to the following rules: ( a) The owner or operator may choose to sum costs over either a calendar year or initially specified fiscal year. The initially specified fiscal year must remain in use unless other accounting procedures at the stationary source subsequently change to a different fiscal year. ( b) Costs incurred for all activities not performed at the stationary source in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source that are not excluded under paragraph ( b)( 55)( ii) of this section, or that have not been issued a preconstruction permit, shall be tracked chronologically and summed at the end of the year. ( 1) At the end of the year, these costs shall be listed and summed in order from least cost to highest cost. ( 2) All activities prior to the point on the cost­ ordered list at which the sum of activity costs exceeds the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance shall automatically qualify as routine maintenance, repair, or replacement. ( c) Costs associated with maintaining or installing pollution control equipment shall not be included in the calculation and summation of costs for routine maintenance, repair, and replacement. Costs shall remain included if they are associated with maintaining or installing equipment that serves a dual function as both process and control equipment. ( d) The owner or operator shall provide an annual report to the reviewing authority containing complete information on all maintenance, repair and replacement costs and process unit replacement cost estimates at the stationary source. The report shall be provided within 60 days after the end of the year over which activity costs have been summed. ( ii) An activity otherwise eligible for inclusion in the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance shall not be eligible to be included in the allowance if it: ( a) Results in an increase in the maximum achievable hourly emissions rate of the stationary source of a regulated NSR pollutant, or results in emissions of a regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted; ( b) Constitutes construction of a new process unit; or ( c) Removes an entire existing process unit and installs a different process unit in its place. ( 56) ( i) In general, process unit means any collection of structures and/ or equipment that processes, assembles, applies, blends, or otherwise uses material inputs to produce or store a completed product. A single stationary source may contain more than one process unit. ( ii) The following list identifies the process units at specific kinds of stationary sources. ( a) For a steam electric generating facility, the process unit would consist of those portions of the plant which contribute directly to the production of electricity. For example, at a pulverized coal­ fired facility, the process unit would generally be the combination of those systems from the coal receiving equipment through the emission stack, including the coal handling equipment, pulverizers or coal crushers, feedwater heaters, boiler, burners, turbinegenerator set, air preheaters, and operating control systems. Each separate generating unit would be considered a separate process unit. Components shared between two or more process units would be proportionately allocated based on capacity. ( b) For a petroleum refinery, there are several categories of process units: those that separate and distill petroleum feedstocks; those that change molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary facilities, such as boilers and hydrogen production; and those that load, unload, blend or store products. ( c) For a cement plant, the process unit would generally consist of the kiln and equipment that supports it, including all components that process or store raw materials, preheaters, and components that process or store products from the kilns, and associated emission stacks. ( d) For a pulp and paper mill, there are several types of process units. One is the system that processes wood products, another is the digester and its associated heat exchanger, blow tank, pulp filter, accumulator, oxidation tower, and evaporators. A third is the chemical recovery system, which includes the recovery furnace, lime kiln, storage vessels, and associated oxidation processes feeding regenerated chemicals to the digester. ( e) For an incinerator, the process unit would consist of components from the feed pit or refuse pit to the stack, including conveyors, combustion devices, heat exchangers and steam generators, quench tanks, and fans. ( 57) Functionally equivalent component means a component that serves the same purpose as the replaced component. ( 58) Fixed capital cost means the capital needed to provide all the depreciable components. `` Depreciable components'' refers to all components of fixed capital cost and is calculated by subtracting land and working capital from the total capital investment, as defined in paragraph ( b)( 59) of this section. ( 59) Total capital investment means the sum of the following: all costs required to purchase needed process equipment ( purchased equipment costs); the costs of labor and materials for installing that equipment ( direct installation costs); the costs of site preparation and buildings; other costs such as engineering, construction and field expenses, fees to contractors, startup and performance tests, and VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80313 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 EPA has not determined this value. contingencies ( indirect installation costs); land for the process equipment; and working capital for the process equipment. * * * * * 3. Section 52.24 is amended: a. By revising paragraph ( f)( 5)( iii)( a). b. By adding paragraphs ( f)( 25) through ( 29). The revision and additions read as follows: § 52.24 Statutory restriction on new sources. * * * * * ( f) * * * ( 5) * * * ( iii) * * * ( a) Routine maintenance, repair and replacement, which shall include but not be limited to the activities set out in paragraphs ( f)( 5)( iii)( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. Without regard to other considerations, the activities specified in paragraphs ( f)( 5)( iii)( a)( 1) and ( 2) shall constitute routine maintenance, repair and replacement: ( 1) Activities performed at a stationary source in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source, whose total cost, when added together with the total costs of all previous activities performed at the same stationary source in the same year in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source, does not exceed that stationary source's annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance. `` Annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance'' is defined in paragraph ( f)( 25) of this section. Rules for calculation and summation of costs are provided in paragraph ( f)( 25)( i) of this section. A stationary source may elect to calculate an annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance for either all or none, but not some, of the maintenance, repair, and replacement activities performed at the stationary source. ( 2) The replacement of components of a process unit with identical or functionally equivalent components, provided that: ( i) The fixed capital cost of the components does not exceed [ x] 1 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct an entirely new process unit; and ( ii) The replacement does not change the basic design parameters of the process unit. The basic design parameters for electric utility steam generating units are maximum heat input and fuel consumption specifications. For non­ utilities, basic design parameters are the maximum fuel or material input specifications to the process unit. An improvement in efficiency does not change a process unit's basic design parameters. `` Functionally equivalent components'' and `` fixed capital cost'' are defined in paragraphs ( f)( 27) and ( f)( 28) of this section, respectively. * * * * * ( 25) Annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance means a dollar amount calculated according to the following equation: ( Industry sector percentage) x ( replacement cost of the stationary source) where `` industry sector percentage'' is drawn from Table 1 of this section. TABLE 1 OF § 52.24( F)( 25). INDUSTRY SECTOR PERCENTAGES Industry sector Industry sector percentage Electric Services Petroleum Refining Chemical Processes Natural Gas Transport Pulp and Paper Mills Paper Mills Automobile Manufacturing Pharmaceuticals Other ( i) A stationary source's annual maintenance costs shall be calculated and summed according to the following rules: ( a) The owner or operator may choose to sum costs over either a calendar year or initially specified fiscal year. The initially specified fiscal year must remain in use unless other accounting procedures at the stationary source subsequently change to a different fiscal year. ( b) Costs incurred for all activities not performed at the stationary source in order to maintain, facilitate, restore or improve the efficiency, reliability, availability or safety of that stationary source that are not excluded under paragraph ( f)( 25)( ii) of this section, or that have not been issued a preconstruction permit, shall be tracked chronologically and summed at the end of the year. ( 1) At the end of the year, these costs shall be listed and summed in order from least cost to highest cost. ( 2) All activities prior to the point on the cost­ ordered list at which the sum of activity costs exceeds the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance shall automatically qualify as routine maintenance, repair, or replacement. ( c) Costs associated with maintaining or installing pollution control equipment shall not be included in the calculation and summation of costs for routine maintenance, repair, and replacement. Costs shall remain included if they are associated with maintaining or installing equipment that serves a dual function as both process and control equipment. ( d) The owner or operator shall provide an annual report to the reviewing authority containing complete information on all maintenance, repair and replacement costs and process unit replacement cost estimates at the stationary source. The report shall be provided within 60 days after the end of the year over which activity costs have been summed. ( ii) An activity otherwise eligible for inclusion in the annual maintenance, repair and replacement allowance shall not be eligible to be included in the allowance if it: ( a) Results in an increase in the maximum achievable hourly emissions rate of the stationary source of a regulated NSR pollutant, or results in emissions of a regulated NSR pollutant not previously emitted; ( b) Constitutes construction of a new process unit; or ( c) Removes an entire existing process unit and installs a different process unit in its place. ( 26) ( i) In general, process unit means any collection of structures and/ or equipment that processes, assembles, applies, blends, or otherwise uses material inputs to produce or store a completed product. A single stationary source may contain more than one process unit. ( ii) The following list identifies the process units at specific kinds of stationary sources. ( a) For a steam electric generating facility, the process unit would consist of those portions of the plant which contribute directly to the production of electricity. For example, at a pulverized coal­ fired facility, the process unit would generally be the combination of those systems from the coal receiving equipment through the emission stack, including the coal handling equipment, pulverizers or coal crushers, feedwater heaters, boiler, burners, turbinegenerator set, air preheaters, and operating control systems. Each separate generating unit would be considered a separate process unit. Components shared between two or more process units would be proportionately allocated based on capacity. ( b) For a petroleum refinery, there are several categories of process units: those that separate and distill petroleum VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2 80314 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules feedstocks; those that change molecular structures; petroleum treating processes; auxiliary facilities, such as boilers and hydrogen production; and those that load, unload, blend or store products. ( c) For a cement plant, the process unit would generally consist of the kiln and equipment that supports it, including all components that process or store raw materials, preheaters, and components that process or store products from the kilns, and associated emission stacks. ( d) For a pulp and paper mill, there are several types of process units. One is the system that processes wood products, another is the digester and its associated heat exchanger, blow tank, pulp filter, accumulator, oxidation tower, and evaporators. A third is the chemical recovery system, which includes the recovery furnace, lime kiln, storage vessels, and associated oxidation processes feeding regenerated chemicals to the digester. ( e) For an incinerator, the process unit would consist of components from the feed pit or refuse pit to the stack, including conveyors, combustion devices, heat exchangers and steam generators, quench tanks, and fans. ( 27) Functionally equivalent component means a component that serves the same purpose as the replaced component. ( 28) Fixed capital cost means the capital needed to provide all the depreciable components. `` Depreciable components'' refers to all components of fixed capital cost and is calculated by subtracting land and working capital from the total capital investment, as defined in paragraph ( f)( 29) of this section. ( 29) Total capital investment means the sum of the following: all costs required to purchase needed process equipment ( purchased equipment costs); the costs of labor and materials for installing that equipment ( direct installation costs); the costs of site preparation and buildings; other costs such as engineering, construction and field expenses, fees to contractors, startup and performance tests, and contingencies ( indirect installation costs); land for the process equipment; and working capital for the process equipment. * * * * * [ FR Doc. 02 31900 Filed 12 30 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 37 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP2. SGM 31DEP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.537586

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0069-0001

Proposed Rule

Federal Plan Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators Constructed on or Before November 30, 1999; Proposed Rule

Monday, November 25, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 62 Federal Plan Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators Constructed on or Before November 30, 1999; Proposed Rule VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70640 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [ AD FRL 7408 1] RIN 2060 AJ28 Federal Plan Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators Constructed on or Before November 30, 1999 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: On December 1, 2000, EPA adopted emission guidelines for existing commercial and industrial solid waste incineration ( CISWI) units. Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) require States with existing CISWI units subject to the emission guidelines to submit plans to EPA that implement and enforce the emission guidelines. Indian Tribes may submit, but are not required to submit, Tribal plans to implement and enforce the emission guidelines in Indian country. State plans are due from States with CISWI units subject to the emission guidelines on December 1, 2001. If a State or Tribe with existing CISWI units does not submit an approvable plan, sections 111( d) and 129 of the CAA require EPA to develop, implement, and enforce a Federal plan for CISWI units located in that State or Tribal area within 2 years after promulgation of the emission guidelines ( December 1, 2002). This action proposes a Federal plan to implement emission guidelines for CISWI units located in States and Indian country without effective State or Tribal plans. On the effective date of an approved State or Tribal plan, the Federal plan would no longer apply to CISWI units covered by the State or Tribal plan. DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed CISWI Federal plan must be received on or before January 24, 2003. Public hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing if requests to speak are received by December 10, 2002. For additional information on the public hearing and requesting to speak, see the Supplementary Information section of this preamble. If requested, the hearing would take place on December 30, 2002 and would begin at 10 a. m. ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit written comments ( in duplicate, if possible) to the following address: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( MC 6102T) , U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460, Attention Docket No. A 2000 52. The EPA requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below. For additional information on the docket and electronic availability, see Supplementary Information. Public hearing. If timely requests to speak at a public hearing are received, a public hearing will be held at EPA's New RTP Campus located at 109 T. W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle Park, NC. Were one to be held, a hearing would be held in the auditorium of the main facility. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning specific aspects of this proposal, contact Mr. David Painter at ( 919) 541 5515, Program Implementation and Review Group, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division ( E143 02), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, email: painter. david@ epa. gov. For technical information, contact Mr. Fred Porter at ( 919) 541 5251, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division ( C439 01), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711, email: porter. fred@ epa. gov. For information regarding implementation of this proposed rule, contact the appropriate Regional Office ( table 1) as shown in Supplementary Information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comment Information. Comments may be submitted electronically via electronic mail ( e­ mail) or on disk. Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed via e­ mail at most Federal Depository Libraries. E­ mail submittals should be sent to: `` A­ and­ RDocket epa. gov''. Electronic comments must be submitted as an American Standard Code for Information Interchange ( ASCII) file avoiding the use of special characters or encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks or as an e­ mail attachment in WordPerfect or Corel `` wpd'' file format, Microsoft Word format, or ASCII file format. All comments and data for this proposed rule, whether in paper form or electronic forms such as through e­ mail or on diskette, must be identified by docket number A 2000 52. Persons wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments by clearly labeling it `` Confidential Business Information'' ( CBI). To ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket, submit CBI directly to the following address, and not the public docket: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Room 740B, Durham, North Carolina 27701. Information covered by such a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by the EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality is made with the submission, the submission may be made available to the public without further notice. No confidential business information should be submitted through e­ mail. Public hearing information. Persons wishing to speak at a public hearing should notify Ms. Christine Adams at ( 919) 541 5590. If a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments. Written statements and supporting information will be considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held. Related information. Electronic versions of this notice, the proposed regulatory text, and other background information are available at the World Wide Web site that EPA has established for CISWI units. The address is http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ 129/ ciwi/ ciwipg. html. The CISWI website references other websites for closely related rules, such as large and small municipal waste combustors ( MWC), hazardous waste, and hospital/ medical/ infectious waste incinerators ( HMIWI). The large MWC and HMIWI sites contain the respective State plan guidance documents. Docket. Docket numbers A 2000 52 and A 94 63 contain the supporting information for this proposed rule and the supporting information for EPA's promulgation of emission guidelines for existing CISWI units, respectively. Docket A 2000 52 incorporates all of the information in Docket A 94 63. The dockets are organized and complete files of all the information submitted to or otherwise considered by EPA in the development of this proposed rulemaking. The dockets are available for public inspection and copying between 8: 30 a. m. and 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, at the OAR Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling ( 202) 566 1744. The docket is located in Room B102, ( basement of EPA West Building). The fax number for the Center is ( 202) 566 1749 and the E­ mail address is http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70641 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules Regulated entities. The proposed Federal plan would affect the following North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes: Category NAICS Code SIC Code Examples of potentially regulated entities Any industry using a solid waste incinerator as defined in the regulations. 325 28 Manufacturers of chemicals and allied products. 325 34 Manufacturers of electronic equipment. 421 36 Manufacturers of wholesale trade, durable goods. 321, 337 24, 25 Manufacturers of lumber and wood furniture. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities EPA expects to be regulated by this proposed rule. This table lists examples of the types of entities that could be affected by this proposed rule. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected. To determine whether your facility, company, business organization, etc., is regulated by this action, carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 62.14510 through 62.14530 of subpart III. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to your solid waste incineration unit, refer to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. EPA Regional Office Contacts. Table 1 lists EPA Regional Offices that can answer questions regarding implementation of this proposed rule. TABLE 1. EPA REGIONAL CONTACTS FOR CISWI Region Contact Phone/ Fax States and Protectorates I ........... EPA New England Director, Air Compliance Program, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 ( SEA), Boston, MA 02114 2023. 617 918 1650, 617 918 1505 ( fax). CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT II .......... U. S. EPA Region 2, Air Compliance Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007. 212 637 4080, 212 637 3998 ( fax). NJ, NY, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands III ......... U. S. EPA Region 3, Chief, Air Enforcement Branch ( 3AP12), 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 2029. 215 814 3438, 215 814 2134 ( fax). DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV IV ......... U. S. EPA Region 4, Air and Radiation, Technology Branch, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 3104. 404 562 9105, 404 562 9095 ( fax). AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN V .......... U. S. EPA Region 5, Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch, ( AR 18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago IL 60604 3590. 312 353 2211, 312 886 8289 ( fax). IL, IN, MN, OH, WI VI ......... U. S. EPA Region 6, Chief, Toxics Enforcement, Section ( 6EN AT), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202 2733. 214 665 7224, 214 665 7446 ( fax). AR, LA, NM, OK, TX VII ........ U. S. EPA Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101 913 551 7020, 913 551 7844 ( fax). IA, KS, MO, NE VIII ....... U. S. EPA Region 8, Air Program Technical Unit, ( Mail Code 8P AR), 999 18th Street Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202. 303 312 6007, 303 312 6064 ( fax). CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY IX ......... U. S. EPA Region 9, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 415 744 1219, 415 744 1076 ( fax). AZ, CA, HI, NV, American Samoa, Guam X .......... U. S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. ( 206) 553 4273, ( 206) 553 0110 ( fax). Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. I. Background Information A. What is the Regulatory Development Background for this Proposed Rule? B. What Impact Does the U. S. Appeals Court Remand and EPA's Granting of a Request for Reconsideration Have on this Federal Plan? II. Affected Facilities A. What Is a CISWI Unit? B. Does The Federal Plan Apply to Me? C. How Do I Determine If My CISWI Unit Is Covered by an Approved and Effective State or Tribal Plan? III. Elements of the CISWI Federal Plan A. Legal Authority and Enforcement Mechanism B. Inventory of Affected CISWI Units C. Inventory of Emissions D. Emission Limitations E. Compliance Schedules F. Waste Management Plan Requirements G. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting H. Operator Training and Qualification Requirements I. Record of Public Hearings J. Progress Reports IV. Summary of CISWI Federal Plan A. What Emission Limitations Must I Meet? B. What Operating Limits Must I Meet? C. What are the Requirements for Air Curtain Incinerators? D. What are the Testing, Monitoring, Inspection, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? E. What is the Compliance Schedule? F. How Did EPA Determine the Compliance Schedule? V. CISWI That Have or Will Shut Down A. Units That Plan to Close Rather Than Comply B. Inoperable Units C. CISWI Units That Have Shut Down VI. Implementation of the Federal Plan and Delegation A. Background of Authority B. Delegation of the Federal Plan and Retained Authorities C. Mechanisms for Transferring Authority D. Implementing Authority E. CISWI Federal Plan and Indian County VII. Title V Operating Permits VIII. Administrative Requirements A. Docket B. Public Hearing C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks G. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70642 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Similarly, the obligations of States and sources are unaffected by the reconsideration petition and the remand. I. Regulatory Flexibility Act/ Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) J. Paperwork Reduction Act K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background Information A. What Is the Regulatory Development Background for This Proposed Rule? Section 129 of the CAA requires EPA to develop emission guidelines for existing `` solid waste incineration units combusting commercial or industrial waste.'' The EPA refers to these units as `` commercial and industrial solid waste incineration'' ( CISWI) units. The EPA proposed emission guidelines for CISWI units on November 30, 1999 and promulgated them on December 1, 2000 ( 65 FR 75338) ( to be codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD). In writing Section 129 of the Clean Air Act, Congress looked first to the States as the preferred implementers of emission guidelines for existing CISWI units. To make these emission guidelines enforceable, States with existing CISWI units must have submitted to EPA within one year following promulgation of the emission guidelines ( by December 1, 2001) State plans that implement and enforce the emission guidelines. For States or Tribes that do not have an EPA­ approved and effective plan, EPA must develop and implement a Federal plan within two years following promulgation of the emission guidelines ( by December 1, 2002). The EPA sees the Federal plan as an interim measure to ensure that Congressionally mandated emission standards are implemented until States assume their role as the preferred implementers of the emissions guidelines. Thus, the EPA encourages States to either use the Federal plan as a template to reduce the effort needed to develop their own plans or to simply take delegation to directly implement and enforce the guidelines. States without any existing CISWI units are required to submit to the Administrator a letter of negative declaration certifying that there are no CISWI units in the State. No plan is required for States that do not have any CISWI units. As discussed in section VI. E of this preamble, Indian Tribes may, but are not required to, submit Tribal plans to cover CISWI units in Indian country. A Tribe may submit to the Administrator a letter of negative declaration certifying that no CISWI units are located in the Tribal area. No plan is required for Tribes that do not have any CISWI units. CISWI units located in States or Tribal areas that mistakenly submit a letter of negative declaration would be subject to the Federal plan until a State or Tribal plan has been approved and becomes effective covering those CISWI units. Today's action proposes a Federal plan for CISWI units that are not covered by an approved State or Tribal plan as of December 1, 2002. Sections 111 and 129 of the CAA and 40 CFR 60.27( c) and ( d) require EPA to develop, implement, and enforce a Federal plan to cover existing CISWI units located in States that do not have an approved plan within two years after promulgation of the emission guidelines ( by December 1, 2002 for CISWI units). The EPA is proposing this Federal plan now so that a promulgated Federal plan will be in place at the earliest possible date, thus ensuring timely implementation and enforcement of the CISWI emission guidelines. In addition, EPA's timing allows a State or Tribe the opportunity to take delegation of the Federal plan in lieu of writing a State plan. B. What Impact Does the U. S. Appeals Court Remand and EPA's Granting of a Request for Reconsideration Have on This Federal Plan? Subsequent to EPA's promulgation of the final rule establishing the NSPS and EG for CISWI units, two events occurred that potentially could result in substantive changes to these standards. First, in August 2001 EPA granted a request for reconsideration, pursuant to section 307( d)( 7)( B) of the CAA, submitted on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, related to the definition of `` commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit'' in EPA's CISWI rulemaking. In granting this petition for reconsideration, EPA agreed to undertake further notice and comment proceedings related to this definition. Second, on January 30, 2001, the Sierra Club filed a petition for review in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit challenging EPA's final CISWI rule. On Sept. 6, 2001, the Court entered an order granting EPA's motion for a voluntary remand of the CISWI rule without vacature. EPA's request for a voluntary remand of the final CISWI rule was intended to allow the Agency to address concerns related to the Agency's procedures for establishing MACT floors for CISWI units in light of the D. C. Circuit Court's decision in Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 855 ( D. C. Cir. 2001). Neither EPA's granting of the petition for reconsideration, nor the Court's order granting a voluntary remand, stay, vacate or otherwise influence the effectiveness of the currently existing CISWI regulations. Specifically, section 307( d)( 7)( B) of the Act provides that `` reconsideration shall not postpone the effectiveness of the rule,'' except that ``[ t] he effectiveness of the rule may be stayed during such reconsideration * * * by the Administrator or the court for a period not to exceed three months.'' In this case, neither EPA nor the court stayed the effectiveness of the final CISWI regulations in connection with the reconsideration petition. Likewise, the D. C. Circuit granted EPA's motion for a remand without vacature, therefore, the Court's remand order had no impact on the effectiveness of the current CISWI regulations. Because the existing CISWI regulations remain in full effect, EPA's obligation under section 129( b)( 3) of the Act to promulgate a Federal Plan ( to implement those regulations for existing units that are not covered by an approved and effective State plan) remains unchanged. 1 Therefore, EPA is complying with its statutory obligations by issuing today's proposed Federal Plan for CISWI units. To the extent that EPA might take action in the future that results in changes in the underlying CISWI rule in response to the petition for reconsideration or in response to the voluntary remand EPA will simultaneously amend this Federal Plan to reflect any such changes. If such changes become necessary, interested parties, including States and sources, will have the opportunity to provide comments, and EPA will reasonably accommodate the concerns of commenters as appropriate. II. Affected Facilities A. What Is a CISWI Unit? A CISWI unit means any combustion device that combusts commercial and industrial waste, as defined in proposed 40 CFR part 62, subpart III. Commercial and industrial waste, as defined in proposed subpart III, is solid waste combusted in an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion without energy recovery that is a distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility ( including fielderected modular, and custom built incineration units operating with starved or excess air), or solid waste combusted in an air curtain incinerator without energy recovery that is a distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility. Fifteen types of combustion units, which are listed in § 62.14525 of subpart III are VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70643 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules conditionally exempt from the Federal plan. B. Does the Federal Plan Apply to Me? The proposed Federal plan will apply to you if you are the owner or operator of a combustion device that combusts commercial and industrial waste ( as defined in subpart III) and the device is not covered by an approved and effective State or Tribal plan as of December 1, 2002. The proposed Federal plan covers your CISWI unit until EPA approves a State or Tribal plan that covers your CISWI unit and that plan becomes effective. If you began the construction of your CISWI unit on or before November 30, 1999, it is considered an existing CISWI unit and could be subject to the Federal plan. If you began the construction of your CISWI unit after November 30, 1999, it is considered a new CISWI unit and is subject to the NSPS. If you began reconstruction or modification of your CISWI unit prior to June 1, 2001, it is considered an existing CISWI unit and could be subject to the Federal plan. Likewise, if you began reconstruction or modification of your CISWI unit on or after June 1, 2001, it is considered a new CISWI unit and is subject to the NSPS. Your CISWI unit would be subject to this Federal plan if on the effective date of the Federal plan, EPA has not approved a State or Tribal Plan that covers your unit, or the EPA­ approved State or Tribal plan has not become effective. The specific applicability of this plan is described in § § 62.14510 through 62.14530 of subpart III. Once an approved State or Tribal plan is in effect, the Federal plan will no longer apply to a CISWI unit covered by such plan. An approved State or Tribal plan is a plan developed by a State or Tribe that EPA has reviewed and approved based on the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B to implement and enforce 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. The State or Tribal plan is effective on the date specified in the notice published in the Federal Register announcing EPA's approval of the plan. The EPA's promulgation of a CISWI Federal plan will not preclude States or Tribes from submitting a plan. If a State or Tribe submits a plan after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan final rule, EPA will review and approve or disapprove the State or Tribal plan. If EPA approves a plan, then the Federal plan would no longer apply to CISWI units covered by the State or Tribal plan as of the effective date of the State or Tribal plan. ( See the discussion in `` State or Tribe Submits A Plan After CISWI Units Located in the Area Are Subject to the Federal Plan'' in section VI. C of this preamble.) If a CISWI unit were overlooked by a State or Tribe and the State or Tribe submitted a negative declaration letter, or if an individual CISWI unit were not covered by an approved and effective State or Tribal plan, the CISWI unit would be subject to this Federal plan. C. How Do I Determine If My CISWI Unit Is Covered by an Approved and Effective State or Tribal Plan? Part 62 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations identifies the approval and promulgation of section 111( d) and section 129 State or Tribal plans for designated facilities in each State or area of Indian Country. However, part 62 is updated only once per year. Thus, if part 62 does not indicate that your State or Tribal area has an approved and effective plan, you should contact your State environmental agency's air director or your EPA Regional Office ( Table 1) to determine if approval occurred since publication of the most recent version of part 62. III. Elements of the CISWI Federal Plan Because EPA is proposing a Federal plan to cover CISWI units located in States and areas of Indian Country where plans are not in effect, EPA has elected to include in this proposal the same elements as are required for State plans: ( 1) Identification of legal authority and mechanisms for implementation, ( 2) inventory of CISWI units, ( 3) emissions inventory, ( 4) emission limitations, ( 5) compliance schedules, ( 6) waste management plan, ( 7) testing, monitoring, inspection, reporting, and recordkeeping, ( 8) operator training and qualification, ( 9) public hearing, and ( 10) progress reporting. See 40 CFR part 60 subparts B and C and sections 111 and 129 of the CAA. Each plan element is described below as it relates to this proposed CISWI Federal plan. Table 2 lists each element and identifies where it is located or codified. TABLE 2. ELEMENTS OF THE CISWI FEDERAL PLAN Element of the CISWI Federal plan Location Legal authority and enforcement mechanism Sections 129( b)( 3) 111( d), 301( a), and 301( d)( 4) of the CAA Inventory of Affected MWC Units. Docket A 2000 52 Inventory of Emissions. Docket A 2000 52 TABLE 2. ELEMENTS OF THE CISWI FEDERAL PLAN Continued Element of the CISWI Federal plan Location Emission Limits 40 CFR 62.14630 62.14645 Compliance Schedules. 40 CFR 62.14535 62.14575 Operator Training and Qualification. 40 CFR 62.14595 62.14625 Waste Management Plan. 40 CFR 62.14580 62.14590 Record of Public Hearings. Docket A 2000 52 Testing, Monitoring Recordkeeping and Reporting 40 CFR 62.14670 62.14760 Progress Reports Section III. J of this preamble A. Legal Authority and Enforcement Mechanism 1. EPA's Legal Authority in States Section 301( a) of the CAA provides EPA with broad authority to write regulations that carry out the functions of the CAA. Sections 111( d) and 129( b)( 3) of the CAA direct EPA to develop a Federal plan for States that do not submit approvable State plans. Sections 111 and 129 of the CAA provide EPA with the authority to implement and enforce the Federal plan in cases where the State fails to submit a satisfactory State plan. Section 129( b)( 3) requires EPA to develop, implement, and enforce a Federal plan within 2 years after the date the relevant emission guidelines are promulgated ( by December 1, 2002 for CISWI units). Compliance with the emission guidelines cannot be later than 5 years after the relevant emission guidelines are promulgated ( by December 1, 2005 for CISWI units). 2. EPA's Legal Authority in Indian Country Section 301 provides EPA with the authority to administer Federal programs in Indian country. See sections 301 ( a) and ( d). Section 301( d)( 4) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator to directly administer provisions of the CAA where Tribal implementation of those provisions is not appropriate or administratively not feasible. See section VI. E of this preamble for a more detailed discussion of EPA's authority to administer the CISWI Federal plan in Indian country. The EPA is proposing this Federal regulation under the legal authority of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70644 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules the CAA to implement the emission guidelines in those States and areas of Indian country not covered by an approved plan. As discussed in section VI of this document, implementation and enforcement of the Federal plan may be delegated to eligible Tribal, State, or local agencies when requested by a State, eligible Tribal, or local agency, and when EPA determines that such delegation is appropriate. B. Inventory of Affected CISWI Units The proposed Federal plan includes an inventory of CISWI units affected by the emission guidelines. ( See 40 CFR 60.25( a).) Docket number A 2000 52 contains an inventory of the CISWI units that may potentially be covered by this proposed Federal plan in the absence of State or Tribal plans. This inventory contains 99 CISWI units in 30 States and one protectorate. It is based on information collected from State and Federal databases, information collection request survey responses, and stakeholder meetings during the development of the CISWI emission guidelines. The EPA recognizes that this list may not be complete. Therefore, sources potentially subject to this Federal plan may include, but are not limited to, the CISWI units listed in the inventory memorandum in docket number A 2000 52. Any CISWI unit that meets the applicability criteria in the Federal plan rule is subject to the Federal plan, regardless of whether it is listed in the inventory. States, Tribes, or individuals are invited to identify additional sources for inclusion to the list during the comment period for this proposal. C. Inventory of Emissions The proposed Federal plan includes an emissions estimate for CISWI units subject to the emission guidelines. ( See 40 CFR 60.25( a).) The pollutants to be inventoried are dioxins/ furans, cadmium ( Cd), lead ( Pb), mercury ( Hg), particulate matter ( PM), hydrogen chloride ( HCl), oxides of nitrogen ( NOX), carbon monoxide ( CO), and sulfur dioxide ( SO2). For this proposal, EPA has estimated the emissions from each known CISWI unit that potentially may be covered by the Federal plan for the nine pollutants regulated by the Federal plan. The emissions inventory is based on available information about the CISWI units, emission factors, and typical emission rates developed for calculating nationwide air impacts of the CISWI emission guidelines and the Federal plan. Refer to the inventory memorandum in docket number A 2000 52 for the complete emissions inventory and details on the emissions calculations. D. Emission Limitations The proposed Federal plan includes emission limitations. ( See 40 CFR 60.24( a).) Section 129( b)( 2) of the CAA requires these emission limitations to be `` at least as protective as'' those in the emission guidelines. The emission limitations in this proposed CISWI Federal plan are the same as those contained in the emission guidelines. ( See table 2 of subpart III.) Section IV of this preamble discusses the emission limitations and operating limits. Table 3 of subpart III contains operating limits for wet scrubbers. E. Compliance Schedules Increments of progress are required for CISWI units that need more than 1 year from State plan approval to comply, or in the case of the Federal plan, more than 1 year after promulgation of the final Federal plan. ( See 40 CFR 60.24( e)( 1).) Increments of progress are included to ensure that each CISWI unit needing more time to comply is making progress toward meeting the emission limits. For CISWI units that need more than 1 year to comply, the proposed CISWI Federal plan includes in its compliance schedule two increments of progress from 40 CFR 60.21( h), as allowed by 40 CFR 60.24( e)( 1) and required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD ( § 60.2575). The Federal plan includes defined and enforceable dates for completion of each increment. These increments of progress are ( 1) submit final control plan, and ( 2) achieve final compliance. The proposed increments of progress are described in section IV. E of this preamble. F. Waste Management Plan Requirements A waste management plan is a written plan that identifies both the feasibility and the methods used to reduce or separate certain components of solid waste from the waste stream to reduce or eliminate toxic emissions from incinerated waste. The waste management plan must be submitted no later than the date six months after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. Sections 62.14580 through 62.14590 of subpart III contain the waste management plan requirements. G. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting The proposed Federal plan includes testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. ( See 40 CFR 60.25.) Testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are consistent with subpart DDDD, and assure initial and ongoing compliance. H. Operator Training and Qualification Requirements The owner or operator must qualify operators or their supervisors ( at least one per facility) by ensuring that they complete an operator training course and annual review or refresher course. Sections 62.14595 through 62.14625 of the proposed subpart III contain the operator training and qualification requirements. I. Record of Public Hearings The proposed Federal plan provides opportunity for public participation in adopting the plan. ( See 40 CFR 60.23( c).) If requested to do so, EPA will hold a public hearing in Research Triangle Park, NC. A record of the public hearing, if any, will appear in Docket A 2000 52. If a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the public comment period will be considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held. J. Progress Reports Under the Federal plan, the EPA Regional Offices will prepare annual progress reports to show progress of CISWI units in the Region toward implementation of the emission guidelines. ( See 40 CFR 60.25( e).) States or Tribes that have been delegated the authority to implement and enforce this Federal plan would also be required to submit annual progress reports to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Appendix D of 40 CFR part 60 requires reporting of emissions data to the Aerometric Emissions Information Retrieval System ( AIRS)/ AIRS Facility Subsystem( AFS). These reports can be combined with the State implementation plan report required by 40 CFR 51.321 in order to avoid double reporting. Under the proposed Federal plan, EPA Regional Offices would report AIRS emissions data. If a State or Tribe has been delegated the authority to implement and enforce the Federal plan, the State or Tribe would report emissions data to AIRS. Each progress report must include the following items: ( 1) Status of enforcement actions; ( 2) status of increments of progress; ( 3) identification VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70645 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules of sources that have shut down or started operation; ( 4) emission inventory data for sources that were not in operation at the time of plan development, but that began operation during the reporting period; ( 5) additional data as necessary to update previously submitted source and emission information; and ( 6) copies of technical reports on any performance testing and monitoring. IV. Summary of CISWI Federal Plan A. What Emission Limitations Must I Meet? As the owner or operator of an existing CISWI unit, you will be required to meet the emission limitations specified in Table 1. See section IV. E of this preamble for a discussion of the compliance schedule. TABLE 1. EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR EXISTING CISWI UNITS For these pollutants You must meet these emission limitations a And determine compliance using these methods b Cadmium .............................. 0.004 mg/ dscm ................................................................ EPA Method 29 Carbon Monoxide ................. 157 ppm .......................................................................... EPA Methods 10, 10A, or 10B Dioxins/ Furans, toxic equivalent ( TEQ) basis. 0.41 ng/ dscm ................................................................... EPA Method 23 Hydrogen Chloride ............... 62 ppm by dry volume .................................................... EPA Method 26A Lead ..................................... 0.04 mg/ dscm .................................................................. EPA Method 29 Mercury ................................ 0.47 mg/ dscm .................................................................. EPA Method 29 Opacity ................................. 10 percent ....................................................................... EPA Method 9 Oxides of Nitrogen ............... 388 ppm by dry volume .................................................. EPA Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E Particulate Matter ................. 70 mg/ dscm ..................................................................... EPA Method 5 or 29 Sulfur Dioxide ....................... 20 ppm by dry volume .................................................... EPA Method 6 or 6c a All emission limitations ( except opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. b These methods are in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. B. What Operating Limits Must I Meet? If you are using a wet scrubber to comply with the emission limitations, you will be required to establish the maximum and minimum site­ specific operating limits indicated in Table 2. You will be required to operate the CISWI unit and wet scrubber so that the operating parameters do not deviate from the established operating limits. TABLE 2. OPERATING LIMITS FOR EXISTING CISWI UNITS USING WET SCRUBBERS For these operating parameters You must establish these operating limits And monitor continuously using these recording times Charge rate .......................... Maximum charge rate ..................................................... Every hour Pressure drop across the wet scrubber, or amperage to the wet scrubber. Minimum pressure drop or amperage ............................ Every 15 minutes Scrubber liquor flow rate ...... Minimum flow rate ........................................................... Every 15 minutes For these operating parameters You must establish these operating limits. ..................... And monitor continuously using these recording times Scrubber liquor pH ............... Minimum pH .................................................................... Every 15 minutes NOTE: Compliance is determined on a 3­ hour rolling average basis, except charge rate for batch incinerators, which is determined on a daily basis. If you are using an air pollution control device other than a wet scrubber to comply with the emission limitations, you will be required to petition the Administrator for other site­ specific operating limits to be established during the initial performance test and continuously monitored thereafter. The required components of the petition are described in § 62.14640 of subpart III. If you are using a fabric filter to comply with the emission limitations, in addition to other operating limits as approved by the Administrator, you must operate the fabric filter system such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during any 6­ month period. C. What Are the Requirements for Air Curtain Incinerators? The Federal plan will establish opacity limitations for air curtain CISWI units burning 100 percent wood wastes and/ or clean lumber. This opacity limitation will be 10 percent, except 35 percent opacity will be allowed during start­ up periods that are within the first 30 minutes of operation. D. What Are the Testing, Monitoring, Inspection, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? The owner or operator of a CISWI unit subject to the CISWI Federal plan will be required to conduct initial performance tests for cadmium, dioxins/ furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, opacity, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide and establish operating limits ( i. e., maximum or minimum values for operating parameters). The initial performance test must be conducted within 180 days after the date the facility is required to achieve final compliance. The owner or operator will be required to conduct annual performance tests for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, and opacity. ( An owner or operator may conduct less frequent testing if the facility demonstrates that it is in compliance with the emission limitations for 3 consecutive years.) To assure ongoing achievement of the Federal plan's provisions, an owner or operator using a wet scrubber to comply with the emission limitations will continuously monitor the following VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70646 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules operating parameters: charge rate, pressure drop across the wet scrubber ( or amperage), and scrubber liquid flow rate and pH. If something other than a wet scrubber is used to comply with the emission limitations, the owner or operator will be required to monitor other operating parameters, as approved by the Administrator. If the owner or operator is using a fabric filter to comply with the emission limitations, in addition to other operating limits as approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator must install and continuously operate a bag leak detection system. The owner or operator must keep records of periods when the alarm sounds and calculate whether these periods are more than 5 percent of the operating time for each 6­ month period. The owner or operator will be required to submit information documenting compliance with these requirements as part of an annual report; and report deviations semiannually In addition, the Federal plan will require CISWI unit owners and operators to maintain for 5 years records of the initial performance tests and all subsequent performance tests, operating parameters, any maintenance, and operator training and qualification. The owner or operator will submit the results of the initial performance tests and all subsequent performance tests and values for the operating parameters in annual reports. E. What Is the Compliance Schedule? Each CISWI unit will be required to either: ( 1) Reach final compliance by the date 1 year after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, or ( 2) meet increments of progress and reach final compliance by the date 2 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. In addition, the owner or operator must comply with the operator training and qualification requirements and inspection requirements by the date 1 year after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, regardless of when the CISWI unit reaches final compliance. Each owner or operator that takes more than 1 year to reach final compliance must submit a final control plan ( increment 1) by the date 6 months after publication of the final rule for this Federal plan in the Federal Register and reach final compliance ( increment 2) by the date 2 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. To ensure timely progress towards implementation of the Federal plan, the proposed rules include a requirement for owners or operators of CISWI units seeking to take an additional year to reach final compliance to submit a request to the Administrator that documents the need for an extension. To meet the increment 1 requirement, the owner or operator of each CISWI unit must submit a final control plan that includes five items: ( 1) A description of the air pollution control devices and/ or process changes that will be employed so that each CISWI unit complies with the emission limits and other requirements, ( 2) a list of the types of waste burned, ( 3) the maximum design waste burning capacity, ( 4) the anticipated maximum charge rate, and, ( 5) if applicable, the petition for sitespecific operating limits. A final control plan is not required for units that will be shut down, but those units must close by 1 year after the final rule is published or must submit a closure agreement by 6 months after the final rule is published, close no later than 2 years after the rule is published, and meet other requirements as described in section V. A. of this preamble. To meet the second increment of progress, the owner or operator of each CISWI unit must incorporate all process changes or complete retrofit construction in accordance with the final control plan. The owner or operator must connect the air pollution control equipment or process changes such that when the CISWI unit is brought on line all necessary process changes or air pollution control equipment will operate as designed. F. How Did EPA Determine the Compliance Schedule? The EPA determined the compliance schedule based on the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and the feasibility of owners or operators to retrofit combustion units with air pollution control devices. CISWI units must comply within 1 year after publication of the final Federal plan or meet increments of progress. The requirement to reach final compliance within 1 year is consistent with 40 CFR 60.24( c) of subpart B. Subpart B requires final compliance to be `` as expeditiously as practicable* * *'' and requires increments of progress if the compliance schedule is longer than 1 year. The EPA believes that many CISWI units can reach final compliance within 1 year after promulgation of the Federal plan based on their similarity to HMIWI units. In addition to the 1 year after promulgation of the Federal plan, units could use the time between this proposed rule and promulgation of the final Federal plan to plan and begin retrofits. The proposed compliance schedule for CISWI units is similar to the compliance schedule for HMIWI units. Most CISWI units are similar in size to HMIWI units. In addition, CISWI units would require similar controls to meet the CISWI Federal plan emission limits as HMIWI units would need to meet the HMIWI Federal plan emission limits. To determine the compliance schedule for HMIWI units, EPA conducted case studies of eight HMIWI units that completed retrofits of the types of controls needed to meet the HMIWI Federal plan ( 64 FR 36430, July 6, 1999). Based on these case studies ( Docket No. A 98 24, II A 1), EPA found that many HMIWI units can meet the requirements of the Federal plan within 1 year. Similarly, many CISWI units could meet a 1­ year schedule. We expect that some CISWI units could need more than 1 year to comply, as did some HMIWI units, due to sitespecific circumstances. For units that cannot comply within 1 year, the proposed Federal plan establishes increments of progress, as required by subpart B. The proposed date for the first increment of progress, submittal of a final control plan, is 6 months after publication of the final Federal plan in the Federal Register. The proposed date for the second increment of progress, final compliance, is 2 years after publication of the final Federal plan in the Federal Register. These increments are derived from the findings of the case studies performed to characterize the retrofit of control systems for hospital medical and infectious waste ( HMIWI) incinerators ( Docket A 98 24, Item II A 1). The size and design of CISWI are similar to the smaller HMIWI that were the subjects of the case studies. In particular, most units are small and controls will be ordered `` off­ the­ shelf'' as assembled packages. Thus, the Agency did not see a need for increments to address details of on­ site construction and installation of control systems. Also, CISWI sites are not thought to have the problems with space and access that were concerns for HMIWI retrofits. In addition, CISWI units have the time between publication of this proposed rule and publication of the final rule in the Federal Register to begin developing the final control plan and to initiate retrofit activities. The proposed rules do not include increments of progress for air curtain incinerators ( ACI). Air curtain incinerators must comply with the requirements of the Federal plan one year after the date of promulgation of the final rule. Delaying implementation for ACI would not be appropriate because there will be little or no need for the installation of control equipment on these units( Primarily because control VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70647 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules equipment is typically infeasible for ACI). Compliance with the opacity limits applicable to this class of units would primarily be achieved by good operation and maintenance practices. This approach is consistent with the proposed requirement for completion of CISWI operator training by the date one year after promulgation of the final rule. V. CISWI That Have or Will Shut Down A. Units That Plan To Close Rather Than Comply If you plan to permanently close your currently operating CISWI unit, you must do one of the following: ( a) close by the date 1 year after publication of the final rule for this Federal plan in the Federal Register, or ( b) submit a legally binding closure agreement, including the date of closure, to the Administrator by the date 6 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The closure agreement must specify the date by which operation will cease. The closure date cannot be later than the final compliance date of the CISWI Federal plan ( 2 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register). If you close your CISWI unit after the date 1 year after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, but before the date 2 years after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, then you must comply with the operator training and qualification requirements by the date 1 year after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. In addition, while still in operation, you are subject to the same requirements for title V operating permits that apply to units that will not shut down. B. Inoperable Units In cases where a CISWI unit has already shut down, has been rendered inoperable, and does not intend to restart, the CISWI unit may be left off the source inventory in a State, Tribal, or this Federal plan. A CISWI unit that has been rendered inoperable would not be covered by the Federal plan. The CISWI owner or operator may do the following to render a CISWI unit inoperable: ( 1) Weld the waste charge door shut, ( 2) remove stack ( and by­ pass stack, if applicable), ( 3) remove combustion air blowers, or ( 4) remove burners or fuel supply appurtenances. C. CISWI Units That Have Shut Down CISWI units that are known to have already shut down ( but are not known to be inoperable) will be included in the source inventory and identified in any State or Tribal plan submitted to EPA. 1. Restarting Before The Final Compliance Date If the owner or operator of an inactive CISWI unit plans to restart before the final compliance date, the owner or operator must submit a control plan for the CISWI unit and meet the applicable compliance schedule. Final compliance is required for all pollutants and all CISWI units no later than the final compliance date. ( See section IV. E for the discussion on compliance schedules and increments of progress.) 2. Restarting After The Final Compliance Date Under this proposed Federal plan, a control plan would not be needed for inactive CISWI units that restart after the final compliance date. However, before restarting, such CISWI units would have to complete the operator training and qualification requirements and inspection requirements ( if applicable) and complete retrofit or process modifications. Performance testing to demonstrate compliance would be required within 180 days after restarting. There would be no need to show that the increments of progress have been met since these steps would have occurred before restart while the CISWI unit was shut down and not generating emissions. A CISWI unit that operates out of compliance after the final compliance date would be in violation of the Federal plan and subject to enforcement action. VI. Implementation of the Federal Plan and Delegation A. Background of Authority Under sections 111( d) and 129( b) of the CAA, EPA is required to adopt emission guidelines that are applicable to existing solid waste incineration sources. These emission guidelines are not enforceable until EPA approves a State or Tribal plan or adopts a Federal plan that implements and enforces them, and the State, Tribal, or Federal plan has become effective. As discussed above, the Federal plan regulates CISWI units in a State or Tribal area that does not have an EPA­ approved plan currently in effect. Congress has determined that the primary responsibility for air pollution prevention and control rests with State and local agencies. See section 101( a)( 3) of the CAA. Consistent with that overall determination, Congress established sections 111 and 129 of the CAA with the intent that the States and local agencies take the primary responsibility for ensuring that the emission limitations and other requirements in the emission guidelines are achieved. Also, in section 111( d) of the CAA, Congress explicitly required that EPA establish procedures that are similar to those under section 110( c) for State Implementation Plans. Although Congress required EPA to propose and promulgate a Federal plan for States that fail to submit approvable State plans on time, States and Tribes may submit approvable plans after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan. The EPA strongly encourages States that are unable to submit approvable plans to request delegation of the Federal plan so that they can have primary responsibility for implementing the emission guidelines, consistent with Congress' intent. Approved and effective State plans or delegation of the Federal plan is EPA's preferred outcome since EPA believes that State and local agencies not only have the responsibility to carry out the emission guidelines, but also have the practical knowledge and enforcement resources critical to achieving the highest rate of compliance. For these reasons, EPA will do all that it can to expedite delegation of the Federal plan to State and local agencies, whenever possible. The EPA also believes that Indian Tribes should be the primary parties responsible for regulating air quality within Indian country, if they desire to do so. See EPA's Indian Policy (`` Policy for Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations,'' signed by William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of EPA, dated November 4, 1984), reaffirmed in a 2001 memorandum (`` EPA Indian Policy,'' signed by Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of EPA, dated July 11,2001). B. Delegation of the Federal Plan and Retained Authorities If a State or Indian Tribe intends to take delegation of the Federal plan, the State or Indian Tribe must submit to the appropriate EPA Regional Office a written request for delegation of authority. The State or Indian Tribe must explain how it meets the criteria for delegation. See generally `` Good Practices Manual for Delegation of NSPS and NESHAP'' ( EPA, February 1983). In order to obtain delegation, an Indian Tribe must also establish its eligibility to be treated in the same manner as a State ( see section IV. E. 1 of this preamble). The letter requesting delegation of authority to implement the Federal plan must demonstrate that the State or Tribe has adequate resources, as well as the legal and enforcement authority to administer and enforce the program. A memorandum of agreement VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70648 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules between the State or Tribe and EPA would set forth the terms and conditions of the delegation, the effective date of the agreement, and would also serve as the mechanism to transfer authority. Upon signature of the agreement, the appropriate EPA Regional Office would publish an approval notice in the Federal Register, thereby incorporating the delegation authority into the appropriate subpart of 40 CFR part 62. If authority is not delegated to a State or Indian Tribe, EPA will implement the Federal plan. Also, if a State or Tribe fails to properly implement a delegated portion of the Federal plan, EPA will assume direct implementation and enforcement of that portion. The EPA will continue to hold enforcement authority along with the State or Tribe even when a State or Tribe has received delegation of the Federal plan. In all cases where the Federal plan is delegated, EPA will retain and will not transfer authority to a State or Tribe to approve the following items: ( 1) Alternative site­ specific operating parameters established by facilities using CISWI controls other than a wet scrubber ( § 62.14640 of subpart III), ( 2) Alternative methods of demonstrating compliance, ( 3) Alternative requirements that could change the stringency of the underlying standard, which are likely to be nationally significant, or which may require a national rulemaking and subsequent Federal Register notice. The following authorities may not be delegated to the State, Tribal or local agencies: Approval of alternative nonopacity emission standards, approval of alternative opacity standard, approval of major alternatives to test methods, approval of major alternatives to monitoring, and waiver of recordkeeping and reporting; and ( 4) Petitions to the Administrator to add a chemical recovery unit to § 62.14525( n) of subpart III. CISWI owners or operators who wish to establish alternative operating parameters or alternative methods of demonstrating compliance should submit a request to the Regional Office Administrator with a copy to the appropriate State or Tribe. C. Mechanisms for Transferring Authority There are two mechanisms for transferring implementation authority to State or Tribal agencies: ( 1) EPA approval of a State or Tribal plan after the Federal plan is in effect; and ( 2) if a State or Tribe does not submit or obtain approval of its own plan, EPA delegation to a State or Tribe of the authority to implement certain portions of this Federal plan to the extent appropriate and if allowed by State or Tribal law. Both of these options are described in more detail below. 1. Federal Plan Becomes Effective Prior to Approval of a State or Tribal Plan After CISWI units in a State or Tribal area become subject to the Federal plan, the State or Tribal agency may still adopt and submit a plan to EPA. If EPA determines that the State or Tribal plan is as protective as the emission guidelines, EPA will approve the State or Tribal plan. If EPA determines that the plan is not as protective as the emission guidelines, EPA will disapprove the plan and the CISWI units covered in the State or Tribal plan would remain subject to the Federal plan until a State or Tribal plan covering those CISWI units is approved and effective. Upon the effective date of an approved State or Tribal plan, the Federal plan would no longer apply to CISWI units covered by such a plan, and the State or Tribal agency would implement and enforce the State or Tribal plan in lieu of the Federal plan. When an EPA Regional Office approves a State or Tribal plan, it will amend the appropriate subpart of 40 CFR part 62 to indicate such approval. 2. State or Tribe Takes Delegation of the Federal Plan The EPA, in its discretion, may delegate to State or eligible Tribal agencies the authority to implement this Federal plan. As discussed above, EPA believes that it is advantageous and the best use of resources for State or Tribal agencies to agree to undertake, on EPA's behalf, the administrative and substantive roles in implementing the Federal plan to the extent appropriate and where authorized by State or Tribal law. If a State requests delegation, EPA will generally delegate the entire Federal plan to the State agency. These functions include administration and oversight of compliance reporting and recordkeeping requirements, CISWI inspections, and preparation of draft notices of violation. The EPA also believes that it is the best use of resources for Tribal agencies to undertake a role in the implementation of the Federal plan. The Tribal Authority Rule issued on February 12, 1998 ( 63 FR 7254) provides Tribes the opportunity to develop and implement Clean Air Act programs. However, due to resource constraints and other factors unique to Tribal governments, it leaves to the discretion of the Tribe whether to develop these programs and which elements of the program they will adopt. Consistent with the approach of the Tribal Authority Rule, EPA may choose to delegate a partial Federal plan ( i. e., to delegate authority for some functions needed to carry out the plan) in appropriate circumstances and where consistent with Tribal law. Both States and Tribal agencies, that have taken delegation, as well as EPA, will have responsibility for bringing enforcement actions against sources violating Federal plan provisions. However, EPA recognizes that Tribes have limited criminal enforcement authority, and EPA will address in the delegation agreement with the Tribe how criminal enforcement issues are referred to EPA. D. Implementing Authority The EPA will delegate authority within the Agency to the EPA Regional Administrators to implement the CISWI Federal plan. All reports required by this Federal plan should be submitted to the appropriate Regional Office Administrator. Table 1 under Supplementary Information lists the names and addresses of the EPA Regional Office contacts and the States that they cover. E. CISWI Federal Plan and Indian Country The term `` Indian country,'' as used in this preamble, means ( 1) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights­ of­ way running through the reservation; ( 2) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a State; and ( 3) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights­ of­ way running through the same. The CISWI Federal plan would apply throughout Indian country to ensure that there is not a regulatory gap for existing CISWI units in Indian country. However, eligible Indian tribes now have the authority under the CAA to develop Tribal plans in the same manner that States develop State plans. On February 12, 1998, EPA promulgated regulations that outline provisions of the CAA for which it is appropriate to treat Tribes in the same manner as States. See 63 FR 7254 ( Final Rule for Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management, ( Tribal Authority Rule)) ( codified at 40 CFR part 49). As of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70649 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2 A title V application should be submitted early enough for the permitting authority to find the application either complete or incomplete before the title V application deadline. In the event the application is found incomplete by the permitting authority, the source must submit the information needed to make the application complete by the application deadline in order to obtain the application shield. See 40 CFR 62.14835( b) and 40 CFR 70.5( a)( 2) and 71.5( a)( 2). 3 For example, in the absence of such an interpretation, if a final Federal plan were to become effective more than 24 months after the promulgation of emission guidelines promulgated under sections 111 and 129, a source, if subject to the Federal plan, would have less than 12 months to prepare and submit a complete title V permit application and to have the permit issued. EPA's interpretation allows section 129( e) to be read consistently with section 503( d) of the Act and 40 CFR 70.7( b) and 71.7( b). EPA's interpretation is also consistent with section 503( c) of the Act which requires sources to submit title V applications not later than 12 months after becoming subject to a title V permits programs. If a permit as opposed to a title V application were required by the later of the two deadlines specified in section 129( e), some section 129 sources would be required to have been issued final title V permits in potentially much less time than allotted for non­ section 129 sources to submit their title V applications. 4 If a source is subject to title V for more than one reason, the 12­ month time frame for submitting a title V application is triggered by the requirement which first causes the source to become subject to title V. As provided in section 503( c) of the CAA, permitting authorities may establish permit application deadlines earlier than the 12­ month deadline. March 16, 1998, the effective date of the Tribal Authority Rule, EPA has had authority under the CAA to approve Tribal programs such as Tribal plans to implement and enforce the CISWI emission guidelines. 1. Tribal Implementation Section 301( d) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator to treat an Indian tribe as a State under certain circumstances. The Tribal Authority Rule, which implements section 301( d) of the CAA, identifies provisions of the CAA for which it is appropriate to treat a Tribe as a State. ( See 40 CFR 49.3 and 49.4.) Under the Tribal Authority Rule, a Tribe may be treated as a State for purposes of this Federal plan. If a Tribe meets the criteria below, EPA can delegate to an Indian tribe authority to implement the Federal plan in the same way it can delegate authority to a State: ( 1) The applicant is an Indian tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior; ( 2) The Indian tribe has a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and functions; ( 3) The functions to be exercised by the Indian tribe pertain to the management and protection of air resources within the exterior boundaries of the reservation or other areas within the tribe's jurisdiction; and ( 4) The Indian tribe is reasonably expected to be capable, in the EPA Regional Administrator's judgment, of carrying out the functions to be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of the CAA and all applicable regulations. ( See 40 CFR 49.6.) 2. EPA Implementation The CAA also provides EPA with the authority to administer Federal programs in Indian country. This authority is based in part on the general purpose of the CAA, which is national in scope. Section 301( a) of the CAA provides EPA broad authority to issue regulations that are necessary to carry out the functions of the CAA. Congress intended for EPA to have the authority to operate a Federal program when Tribes choose not to develop a program, do not adopt an approvable program, or fail to adequately implement an air program authorized under section 301( d) of the CAA. Section 301( d)( 4) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator to directly administer provisions of the CAA to achieve the appropriate purpose where Tribal implementation is not appropriate or administratively not feasible. The EPA's interpretation of its authority to directly implement Clean Air Act programs in Indian country is discussed in more detail in the Tribal Authority Rule. See 63 FR at 7262 7263. As mentioned previously, Tribes may, but are not required to, submit a CISWI plan under section 111( d) of the CAA. 3. Applicability in Indian Country The Federal plan would apply throughout Indian country except where an EPA­ approved plan already covers an area of Indian country. This approach is consistent with EPA's implementation of the Federal Operating Permits program in Indian country ( see 64 FR 8247 ( February 19, 1999)). VII. Title V Operating Permits Except for the sources specified in section 62.14830 of this proposed rule, sources subject to this CISWI Federal plan must obtain title V operating permits. These title V operating permits must assure compliance with all applicable requirements for these sources, including all applicable requirements of this Federal plan. See 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 1), 70.2, 71.6( a)( 1) and 71.2. Owners or operators of section 129 sources ( including CISWI units) subject to standards or regulations under sections 111 and 129 must operate pursuant to a title V permit not later than 36 months after promulgation of emission guidelines under sections 111 and 129 or by the effective date of the State, Tribal, or Federal title V operating permits program that covers the area in which the unit is located, whichever is later. The EPA has interpreted section 129( e) to be consistent with section 503( d) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.7( b) and 71.7( b). ( See, e. g., the final Federal Plan for Hospital/ Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators, August 15, 2000 ( 65 FR 49868, 49878)). Section 503( d) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.7( b) and 71.7( b) allow a source to operate without being in violation of title V once the source has submitted a timely and complete permit application, even if the source has not yet received a final title V operating permit from the permitting authority. 2 As a result, EPA interprets the dates in section 129( e) to be the dates by which complete title V applications need to be submitted. In the absence of such an interpretation, a section 129 source may be required to prepare and submit a complete title V application and the permitting authority would have to issue a permit to this source in a very short period of time. 3 As a result of EPA's interpretation, existing CISWI units must submit complete title V applications by the later of the following dates: Not later than 36 months after the promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD or by the effective date of the State, Tribal, or Federal title V operating permits program that covers the area in which the unit is located. As of today's proposal, all areas of the country are covered by effective title V programs. As a result, the relevant section 129( e) date for existing CISWI units is 36 months following promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD, i. e., December 1, 2003. Therefore, December 1, 2003 is the latest possible date by which complete applications for existing CISWI units can be submitted and still be considered timely. This date applies regardless of when the CISWI Federal plan becomes effective or when an EPA approved section 111( d)/ 129 plan for existing CISWI units becomes effective. If, however, an earlier application deadline applies to an existing CISWI unit, then this deadline must be met in order for the unit to be in compliance with section 502( a) of the CAA. To determine when an application is due for an existing CISWI unit, section 129( e) of the CAA must be read in conjunction with section 503( c) of the CAA. As stated in section 503( c), a source has up to 12 months to apply for a title V permit once it becomes subject to a title V permitting program. 4 For example, if an existing CISWI unit VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70650 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules 5 See CAA section 502( b)( 9); 40 CFR 70.7( f)( 1)( i) and 71.7( f)( 1)( i). Owners or operators of CISWI units, which have been permitted and are subject to this Federal plan, may wish to consult their operating permits program regulations or permitting authorities to determine whether their permits must be reopened to incorporate the requirements of this Federal plan. becomes subject to a title V permitting program for the first time on the effective date of this Federal plan, then the source must apply for a title V permit within 12 months of the effective date of this Federal plan in order to operate after this date in compliance with Federal law. An application deadline earlier than either of the two dates noted above, i. e., December 1, 2003 or not later than 12 months after the effective date of this Federal plan, may apply to an existing CISWI unit if it is subject to title V for more than one reason. For example, an existing CISWI unit may already be subject to title V as a result of being a major source under one or more of three major source definitions in title V section 112, section 302, or part D of title I of the CAA. See 40 CFR 70.3( a)( 1) and 71.3( a)( 1) ( subjecting major sources to title V permitting) and 40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2 ( defining major source for purposes of title V). See also 40 CFR 70.3( a) and ( b) and 71.3( a) and ( b) for a list of the applicability criteria which trigger the requirement to apply for a title V permit. If an owner or operator is already subject to title V by virtue of some requirement other than this Federal plan and has submitted a timely and complete permit application, but the draft title V permit has not yet been released by the permitting authority, then the owner or operator must supplement his title V application by including the applicable requirements of this Federal plan in accordance with 40 CFR 70.5( b) or 71.5( b). If an existing CISWI unit is a major source or is part of a major source, is subject to this Federal plan, and is already covered by a title V permit with a remaining permit term of 3 or more years on the effective date of this Federal plan, then the owner or operator will receive from his permitting authority a notice of intent to reopen his source's title V permit to include the requirements of this Federal plan. Reopenings required for such CISWI units must be completed not later than 18 months after the effective date of this Federal plan in accordance with the procedures established in 40 CFR 70.7( f)( 1)( i) or 71.7( f)( 1)( i). If an existing CISWI unit subject to this Federal plan does not meet the above criteria, e. g., the unit is part of a nonmajor source or is covered by a permit which has a remaining term of less than 3 years on the effective date of this Federal plan, then the permitting authority does not need to reopen the source's permit, as a matter of Federal law, to include the requirements of this Federal plan. 5 However, the owner or operator of a source subject to a section 111/ 129 Federal plan remains subject to, and must act in compliance with, section 111/ 129 requirements and all other applicable requirements to which the source is subject regardless of whether these requirements are included in a title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 1), 70.2, 71.6( a)( 1) and 71.2. The EPA has recently become aware that there has been some confusion regarding the Title V obligations of section 129 sources that are subject to standards or regulations under sections 111 and 129. We are therefore including the following chart to help clarify when CISWI units ( even those not subject to this Federal plan) must apply for a title V permit. While the following chart provides specific information relative to CISWI units, the same title V obligations apply to all section 129 sources subject to standards or regulations under sections 111 and 129. Of course, specific deadlines will vary for other section 129 sources depending on when the relevant NSPS is promulgated, when the relevant State or Tribal section 111( d)/ 129 plan is approved by EPA and becomes effective, etc. Lastly, the following table takes into account that as of the promulgation date, i. e., December 1, 2000, for the NSPS ( subpart CCCC of part 60) and emission guidelines ( subpart DDDD of part 60) for CISWI units, every area of the country was covered by a title V permits program under 40 CFR part 70 or part 71. This point is relevant because a section 111/ 129 standard cannot trigger the requirement for a source to apply for a title V permit unless a title V permits program is in effect in the area in which the source is located. Title V Permit Application Deadlines If a CISWI unit is a major source or is part of a major source, and had commenced operation as of the effective date of the relevant title V permits program, Then a complete title V application which covers the entire source 6 is due not later than 12 months ( or earlier if required by the title V permitting authority) after the effective date of the relevant title V permits program. See CAA section 503( c) and 40 CFR 70.4( b)( 11)( i), 71.4( i)( 1), 70.5( a)( 1)( i) and 71.5( a)( 1)( i). If a CISWI unit is a major source or is part of a major source, but did not commence operation until after the relevant title V permits program became effective, Then a complete title V application which covers the entire source is due not later than 12 months ( or earlier if required by the title V permitting authority) after the date the source commences operation. See CAA section 503( c) and 40 CFR 70.5( a)( 1)( i) and 71.5( a)( 1)( i). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70651 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules If a CISWI unit is a nonmajor source or is part of a nonmajor source, is subject to the CISWI NSPS ( subpart CCCC of 40 CFR part 60), and had commenced operation as of December 1, 2000, Then a complete title V application 7 is due not later than 12 months after subpart CCCC was promulgated, i. e., December 1, 2001 ( or earlier if required by the title V permitting authority). See CAA section 503( c) and 40 CFR 70.5( a)( 1)( i) and 71.5( a)( 1)( i). If a CISWI unit is a nonmajor source or is part of a nonmajor source, is subject to the CISWI NSPS ( subpart CCCC of 40 CFR part 60), but did not commence operation until after December 1, 2000, Then a complete title V application 7 is due not later than 12 months ( or earlier if required by the title V permitting authority) after the date the source commences operation. See CAA section 503( c) and 40 CFR 70.5( a)( 1)( i) and 71.5( a)( 1)( i). If a CISWI unit is a nonmajor source or is part of a nonmajor source, and is subject to an EPA approved and effective State or Tribal section 111( d)/ 129 plan, Then a complete title V application is due not later than 12 months ( or earlier if required by the title V permitting authority) after the effective date of the EPA approved State or Tribal section 11( d)/ 129 plan. 8 See CAA section 503( c) and 40 CFR 70.5( a)( 1)( i) and 71.5( a)( 1)( i). In no event, however, can such an existing CISWI unit submit a complete title V application after December 1, 2003 and have it be considered timely. See CAA section 129( e) and 40 CFR 62.14835 of subpart III. If a CISWI unit is a nonmajor source or is part of a nonmajor source, and is subject to the CISWI Federal plan ( subpart III of 40 CFR part 62), Then a complete title V application is due not later than 12 months ( or earlier if required by the title V permitting authority) after the effective date of 40 CFR part 62, subpart III. See CAA section 503( c) and 40 CFR 70.5( a)( 1)( i) and 71.5( a)( 1)( i). In no event, however, can such an existing CISWI unit submit a complete title V application after December 1, 2003 and have it be considered timely. See CAA section 129( e) and 40 CFR 62.14835 of subpart III. If a CISWI unit is required to obtain a title V permit due to triggering more than one of the applicability criteria listed above or in 40 CFR 70.3( a) or 71.3( a), Then a complete title V application is due not later than 12 months ( or earlier if required by the title V permitting authority) after the unit triggers the criterion which first caused the unit to be subject to title V. See CAA section 503( c) and 40 CFR 70.3( a) and ( b), 70.5( a)( 1), 71.3( a) and ( b) and 71.5( a)( 1). In no event, however, can an existing CISWI unit submit a complete title V application after December 1, 2003 and have it be considered timely. See CAA section 129( e) and 40 CFR 62.14835 of subpart III. Reopening Title V Permits If a CISWI unit is a major source or is part of a major source, is subject to the CISWI NSPS ( subpart CCCC of 40 CFR part 60), and is covered by a title V permit with a remaining permit term of 3 or more years on December 1, 2000, Then the title V permitting authority must complete a reopening of the source's title V permit to incorporate the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC not later than June 1, 2002. See CAA section 502( b)( 9); 40 CFR 70.7( f)( 1)( i) and 71.7( f)( 1)( i). If a CISWI unit is a major source or is part of a major source, is subject to an EPA approved and effective State or Tribal section 111( d)/ 129 plan for CISWI units, and is covered by a title V permit with a remaining term of 3 or more years on the effective date of the EPA approved section 111( d)/ 129 plan, Then the title V permitting authority must complete a reopening of the source's title V permit to incorporate the requirements of this EPA approved and effective section 111( d)/ 129 plan not later than 18 months after the effective date of this plan. See CAA section 502( b)( 9); 40 CFR 70.7( f)( 1)( i) and 71.7( f)( 1)( i). If a CISWI unit is a major source or is part of a major source, is subject to the CISWI Federal plan ( supbart III of 40 CFR part 62), and is covered by a title V permit with a remaining permit term of 3 or more years on the effective date of this Federal plan, Then the title V permitting authority must complete a reopening of the source's title V permit to incorporate the requirements of subpart III of 40 CFR part 62 not later than 18 months after the effective date of the CISWI Federal plan. See CAA section 502( b)( 9); 40 CFR 70.7( f)( 1)( i) and 71.7( f)( 1)( i). Updating Existing Title V Permit Applications If a CISWI unit is subject to the CISWI NSPS ( subpart CCCC of 40 CFR part 60), but first became subject to title V permitting prior to the promulgation of this NSPS, and the owner or operator of the unit has submitted a timely and complete title V permit application, but the draft title V permit has not yet been released by the permitting authority, Then the owner or operator must supplement the title V application by including the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC in accordance with 40 CFR 70.5( b) or 71.5( b). If a CISWI unit is subject to an EPA approved and effective State or Tribal section 111( d)/ 129 plan for CISWI units, but first became subject to title V permitting prior to the effective date of the section 111( d)/ 129 plan, and the owner or operator of the unit has submitted a timely and complete title V permit application, but the draft title V permit has not yet been released by the permitting authority, Then the owner or operator must supplement the title V application by including the applicable requirements of the approved and effective section 111( d)/ 129 plan in accordance with 40 CFR 70.5( b) or 71.5( b). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70652 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules 9 An owner or operator of a source subject to a section 111/ 129 Federal plan remains subject to, and must act in compliance with, section 111/ 129 requirements and all other applicable requirements to which the source is subject regardless of whether these requirements are included in a title V permit. See 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 1), 70.2, 71.6( a)( 1) and 71.2. 10 Under 40 CFR 70.4( b)( 3)( iv), permitting authorities are allowed to issue permits for solid waste incineration units combusting municipal waste subject to standards under section 129( e) of the Act for a period not to exceed 12 years, provided that the permits are reviewed at least every 5 years. Permits with acid rain provisions must be issued for a fixed term of five years; shorter terms for such permits are not allowed. 11 If the Administrator chooses to retain certain authorities under a standard, those authorities cannot be delegated, e. g., alternative methods of demonstrating compliance. 12 The EPA interprets the phrase `` assure compliance'' in section 502( b)( 5)( A) to mean that permitting authorities will implement and enforce If a CISWI unit is subject to the CISWI Federal plan ( subpart III of 40 CFR part 62), but first became subject to title V permitting prior to the effective date of this Federal plan, and the owner or operator of the unit has submitted a timely and complete title V permit application, but the draft title V permit has not yet been released by the permitting authority, Then the owner or operator must supplement the title V application by including the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 62, subpart III in accordance with 40 CFR 70.5( b) or 71.5( b). 6 A title V application from a major source must address all emissions units at the title V source, not just the section 129 emissions unit. See 40 CFR 70.3( c)( 1) and 71.3( c)( 1). ( For information on aggregating emissions units to determine what is a source under title V, see the definition of major source in 40 CFR 70.2, 71.2, and 63.2.) 7 Consistent with 40 CFR 70.3( c)( 2) and 71.3( c)( 2), a permit application from a nonmajor title V source is only required to address the emissions units which caused the source to be subject to title V. The requirements which trigger the need for the owner or operator of a nonmajor source to apply for a title V permit are found in 40 CFR 70.3( a) and ( b) and 71.3( a) and ( b). Permits issued to these nonmajor sources must include all of the applicable requirements that apply to the triggering units, e. g., State Implementation Plan requirements, not just the requirements which caused the source to be subject to title V. See footnote # 2 in Change to Definition of Major Source rule, November 27, 2001 ( 66 FR 59161, 59163). 8 If a CISWI unit becomes subject to an approved and effective State or Tribal section 111( d)/ 129 plan after being subject to an effective Federal plan, the CISWI unit is still required to file a complete title V application consistent with the application deadlines for units subject to the CISWI Federal plan. Title V and Delegation of a Federal Plan During the development of the Federal plan for Hospital/ Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators ( HMIWI), a State agency raised the question of whether a title V operating permits program could be used as a mechanism for transferring the authority to implement and enforce section 111/ 129 requirements from EPA to State and local agencies. See `` Transfer of Authority'' section of final Federal plan for HMIWI, August 15, 2000 ( 65 FR 49868, 49873). The State agency noted that the proposal for that rulemaking described two mechanisms for transferring authority to State and local agencies following promulgation of the Federal plan. Those two mechanisms were: ( 1) The approval of a State or Tribal plan after the Federal plan is in effect; and ( 2) if a State or Tribe does not submit or obtain approval of its own plan, EPA delegation to a State or Tribe of the authority to implement and enforce the HMIWI Federal plan. The State asked EPA to recognize the Title V operating permits program as a third mechanism for transferring authority to State and local agencies. The commenter said that State and local agencies implement Title V programs and that Title V permits must include the requirements of the Federal plan. The commenter concluded that Title V permitting authorities already have implementation responsibility for the Federal plan through their Title V permits programs, regardless of whether the authority to implement the Federal plan is delegated to the State or local agency. In its response to the State, the EPA explained why the issuance of a Title V permit is not equivalent to the approval of a State plan or delegation of a Federal plan by focusing on situations in which a Title V permitting authority without delegation of a Federal plan could not implement and enforce section 111/ 129 requirements. This situation would arise any time a Title V permit was not in effect for a source subject to the section 111/ 129 Federal plan or where the permit did not contain the applicable section 111/ 129 requirements. For example, a title V source may be allowed to operate without a title V permit for a number of years in some cases between the time the source first triggers the requirement to apply for a permit and the issuance of the permit. The preamble to the final HMIWI Federal plan also noted that a source with a Title V permit with a permit term less than 3 years is not required by part 70 to have its permit reopened by a State or Tribe to include new applicable requirements such as the HMIWI standard. 9 See 40 CFR 70.7( f)( 1)( i). In addition to the explanation provided in the preamble to the final HMIWI Federal plan, there are additional State implementation and enforcement gaps which would not be addressed by implementing and enforcing the section 111/ 129 standard through a Title V permit. The following is an example of such a gap: Title V permits are not permanent. With two exceptions, all permits must be renewed at least every 5 years 10. Although 40 CFR 70.4( b)( 10) requires States to provide that a permit or the terms and conditions of a permit may not expire until the permit is renewed, this requirement only applies if a timely and complete application for a renewal permit has been submitted by the source, creating a potential gap. In contrast to the example, the two mechanisms that EPA has identified for transferring authority ensure that a State or Tribe can implement and enforce the section 111/ 129 standards at all times. Legally, delegation of a standard or requirement results in a delegated State or Tribe standing in for EPA as a matter of Federal law. This means that obligations a source may have to the EPA under a federally promulgated standard become obligations to a State ( except for functions that the EPA retains for itself) upon delegation. 11 Although a State or Tribe may have the authority to incorporate section 111/ 129 requirements into its title V permits, and implement and enforce these requirements in these permits without first taking delegation of the section 111/ 129 Federal plan, the State or Tribe is not standing in for EPA as a matter of Federal law in this situation. Where a State or Tribe does not take delegation of a section 111/ 129 Federal plan, obligations that a source has to EPA under the Federal plan continue after a title V permit is issued to the source. As a result, the EPA continues to maintain that an approved part 70 operating permits program cannot be used as a mechanism to transfer the authority to implement and enforce the Federal plan from the EPA to a State or Tribe. As mentioned above, a State or Tribe may have the authority under State or Tribal law to incorporate section 111/ 129 requirements into its title V permits, and implement and enforce these requirements in that context without first taking delegation of the section 111/ 129 Federal plan. 12 Some States or VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70653 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules each applicable standard, regulation, or requirement which must be included in the title V permits the permitting authorities issue. See definition of `` applicable requirement'' in 40 CFR 70.2. See also 40 CFR 70.4( b)( 3)( i) and 70.6( a)( 1). 13 It is important to note that an AG's opinion submitted at the time of initial title V program approval is sufficient if it demonstrates that a State or Tribe has adequate authority to incorporate section 111/ 129 requirements into its title V permits, and to implement and enforce these requirements through its title V permits without delegation. Tribes, however, may not be able to implement and enforce a section 111/ 129 standard in a title V permit until the section 111/ 129 standard has been delegated. In these situations, a State or Tribe should not issue a part 70 permit to a source subject to a Federal plan before taking delegation of the section 111/ 129 Federal plan. If a State or Tribe can provide an Attorney General's ( AG's) opinion delineating its authority to incorporate section 111/ 129 requirements into its Title V permits, and then implement and enforce these requirements through its Title V permits without first taking delegation of the requirements, then a State or Tribe does not need to take delegation of the section 111/ 129 requirements for purposes of title V permitting. 13 In practical terms, without approval of a State or Tribal plan, delegation of a Federal plan, or an adequate AG's opinion, States and Tribes with approved part 70 permitting programs open themselves up to potential questions regarding their authority to issue permits containing section 111/ 129 requirements, and to assure compliance with these requirements. Such questions could lead to the issuance of a notice of deficiency for a State's or Tribe's part 70 program. As a result, prior to a State or Tribal permitting authority drafting a part 70 permit for a source subject to a section 111/ 129 Federal plan, the State or Tribe, EPA Regional Office, and source in question are advised to ensure that delegation of the relevant Federal plan has taken place or that the permitting authority has provided to the EPA Regional Office an adequate AG's opinion. In addition, if a permitting authority chooses to rely on an AG's opinion and not take delegation of a Federal plan, a section 111/ 129 source subject to the Federal plan in that State must simultaneously submit to both EPA and the State or Tribe all reports required by the standard to be submitted to the EPA. Given that these reports are necessary to implement and enforce the section 111/ 129 requirements when they have been included in title V permits, the permitting authority needs to receive these reports at the same time as the EPA. In the situation where a permitting authority chooses to rely on an AG's opinion and not take delegation of a Federal plan, EPA Regional Offices will be responsible for implementing and enforcing section 111/ 129 requirements outside of any title V permits. Moreover, in this situation, EPA Regional Offices will continue to be responsible for developing progress reports, entering emissions data into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS)/ AIRS Facility Subsystem ( AFS), and conducting any other administrative functions required under this Federal plan or any other section 111/ 129 Federal plan. See Section III. J. of this preamble titled `` Progress Reports'; section II. J. of the proposed Federal plan for HMIWI, July 6, 1999 ( 64 FR 36426, 36431); 40 CFR 60.25( e), and Appendix D of 40 CFR part 60. It is important to note that the EPA is not using its authority under 40 CFR 70.4( i)( 3) to request that all States and Tribes which do not take delegation of this Federal plan submit supplemental AG's opinions at this time. However, the EPA Regional Offices shall request, and permitting authorities shall provide, such opinions when the EPA questions a State's or Tribe's authority to incorporate section 111/ 129 requirements into a title V permit, and implement and enforce these requirements in that context without delegation. Lastly, the EPA would like to correct and clarify the following sentences from the `` Transfer of Authority'' section of the preamble to the final HMIWI Federal plan ( 65 FR 49868, 49873): `` Prior to delegation, only the EPA will have enforcement authority. In neither instance does the title V permit status of a source affect the enforcement responsibility of EPA and the State or Tribal permitting authorities.'' In situations where a State or Tribe is subject to a section 111/ 129 Federal plan and does not take delegation of the Federal plan, the following applies: Prior to delegation, only EPA can implement and enforce section 111/ 129 requirements outside of a title V permit. Whenever there is a title V permit in effect which includes section 111/ 129 requirements, however, EPA and the State or Tribe have dual authority to implement and enforce the section 111/ 129 requirements in the title V permit. When a State or Tribe has not taken delegation of a section 111/ 129 Federal plan, the previous sentence is relevant only in situations where a State or Tribe has the authority to incorporate section 111/ 129 requirements into title V permits, and to implement and enforce these requirements in title V permits without delegation. VIII. Administrative Requirements This section addresses the following administrative requirements: Docket, Public Hearing, Executive Orders 12866, 13132, 13175, 13045, and 13211, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act/ Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act. Since today's rule simply proposes to implement the CISWI emission guidelines ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD) as promulgated on December 1, 2000, and does not impose any new requirements, much of the following discussion of administrative requirements refers to the documentation of applicable administrative requirements as discussed in the preamble to the rule promulgating the emission guidelines ( 65 FR 75338, December 1, 2000). A. Docket The docket is intended to be an organized and complete file of the administrative records compiled by EPA. 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 they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket ( with limited exceptions) will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. See section 307( d)( 7)( A) of the CAA. As discussed above, a docket has been prepared for this action pursuant to the procedural requirements of section 307( d) of the CAA, 42 U. S. C. 7607( d). Supporting information is included in Docket A 2000 52. Docket number A 94 63 contains the technical support for the final emission guidelines, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. Docket A 2000 52 incorporates all of the information in Docket A 94 63. B. Public Hearing A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the proposed standards in accordance with section 307( d)( 5) of the CAA. Persons wishing to make oral presentations on the proposed standards should contact EPA ( see ADDRESSES). If a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions during the oral VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70654 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments. To provide an opportunity for all who may wish to speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written statement on or before January 24, 2003. Written statements should be addressed to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( see ADDRESSES), and refer to Docket No. A 2000 52. Written statements and supporting information will be considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public inspection and copying, or mailed upon request, at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( see ADDRESSES). C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 ( October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and, therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The 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 impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The EPA considered the 2000 emission guidelines to be significant and the rules were reviewed by OMB in 2000. See 65 FR 75338, December 1, 2000. The Federal plan promulgated today would simply implement the 2000 emission guidelines and does not result in any additional control requirements or impose any additional costs above those previously considered during promulgation of the 2000 emission guidelines. Therefore, this regulatory action is considered `` not significant'' under Executive Order 12866. D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' are 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. This rule establishes emission limits and other requirements for solid waste incineration units that are not covered by an EPA­ approved and effective State or Tribal plan. The EPA is required by section 129 of the CAA, 42 U. S. C. 7429, to establish the standards for such units. This regulation primarily affects private industry and does not impose significant economic costs on State or local governments. The standards established by this rule apply to facilities that operate commercial or industrial solid waste incineration units located in States that do not have EPAapproved plans covering such units by the effective date of the promulgated Federal plan ( and the owners or operators of such facilities). The regulation does not include an express provision preempting State or local regulations. However, once this Federal plan is in effect, covered facilities would be subject to the standards established by this rule, regardless of any less protective State or local regulations that contain emission limitations for the pollutants addressed by this rule. To the extent that this might preempt State or local regulations, it does not significantly affect the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule; and EPA has complied with the requirements of section 4( e), to the extent that they may be applicable to the regulations, by providing notice to potentially affected State and local officials through publication of this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA consulted with representatives of State and local governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input into the development of the CISWI emission guidelines. This consultation took place during the Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee Act committee meetings, where members representing State and local governments participated in developing recommendations for our combustionrelated rulemakings, including the CISWI emission guidelines. Additionally, EPA sponsored the Small Communities Outreach Project, which involved meetings with elected officials and other government representative to provide them with information about the CISWI emission guidelines and to solicit their comments. The concerns raised by representative of State and local governments were considered during the development of the CISWI emission guidelines. 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. E. 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. The EPA knows of no CISWI units presently owned by Indian tribal VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70655 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules governments. However, if any exist now or in the future, the rule would not have tribal implications on these tribal governments as defined by the Executive Order. This Federal plan simply implements the 2000 emission guidelines. It does not result in any additional control requirements nor imposes any additional costs above those previously considered during promulgation of the 2000 emission guidelines. Thus, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. F. 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, ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. If the regulatory action meets these criteria, EPA 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 EPA considered. The EPA interprets 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 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. Additionally, this proposed rule is not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866. G. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 F. R. 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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, EPA 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 costeffective 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 of why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, EPA must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, thereby enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of the regulatory proposal with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has determined that this 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. The environmental impact analysis for the emission guidelines estimates the total national annualized cost impact of this regulatory action at $ 11.6 million per year ( Docket A 94 63). This proposed Federal plan will apply to only a subset of the units considered in the environmental impacts analysis for the emission guidelines. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Additionally, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, because commercial and industrial units are not likely to be owned by small governments. I. Regulatory Flexibility Act/ Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq., generally requires Federal agencies to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include businesses, small not­ for­ profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business that has less than 500 employees; ( 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 that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The SBA guidelines define a small business based on number of employees or annual revenues and the size standards vary from industry to industry. Generally, businesses covered by the North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes affected by this rule are considered small if they have less than 500 employees or less than $ 5 million in annual sales. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. During the 2000 CISWI emission guidelines rulemaking, EPA determined that based on the low number of affected small entities in each individual market, the alternative method of waste disposal available, and the relatively low control cost, the CISWI emission guidelines should not generate a significant small business impact on a substantial number of small entities in the commercial and industrial sectors. The EPA determined that it was not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final emission guidelines. The EPA has also determined that the final emission guidelines would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ( 65 FR 75348). This Federal plan would not establish any new requirements. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of 5 U. S. C. 605( b), EPA has determined that this proposed Federal plan will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and thus a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70656 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules J. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request ( ICR) document has been prepared for the emission guidelines ( ICR No. 1927.02 for subpart DDDD) and copies may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information; Collection Strategies Division ( 2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 566 1672. Copies may also be downloaded from the internet at http:/ / www. epa. gov/ icr. This ICR reflects the burden estimate for the emission guidelines which were promulgated in the Federal Register on December 1, 2000. The burden estimate includes the burden associated with State or Tribal plans as well as the burden associated with the proposed Federal plan. Consequently, the burden estimates described below overstate the information collection burden associated with the Federal plan. However, upon approval by EPA, a State or Tribal plan becomes Federally enforceable. Therefore, it is important to estimate the full burden associated with the State or Tribal plans and the Federal plan. As State or Tribal plans are approved, the Federal plan burden will decrease, but the overall burden of the State or Tribal plans and the Federal plan will remain the same. The Federal plan contains monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. The information will be used to ensure that the Federal plan requirements are met on a continuous basis. Records and reports will be necessary to enable us to identify waste incineration units that may not be in compliance with the Federal plan requirements. Based on reported information, EPA would decide which units and what records or processes should be inspected. The records that owners and operators of existing CISWI units maintain will indicate to EPA whether personnel are operating and maintaining control equipment property. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA ( 42 U. S. C. 7414). All information submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to our policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information. The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after promulgation of the emission guidelines for industry and the implementing agency is outlined below. Affected entity Total hours Labor costs Capital costs O& M costs Total costs Industry ............................... 9,145 $ 407,067 0 0 $ 407,067 Implementing agency ......... 1,817 $ 48,386 0 0 $ 48,386 The EPA expects the Federal plan to affect a maximum of 116 units over the first 3 years. ( Note: This assumes that no State plans are in effect.) The EPA assumes that 6 existing units will be replaced by 6 new units each year. There are no capital, start­ up, or operation and maintenance costs for existing units during the first 3 years. The implementing agency would not incur any capital or start­ up costs. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 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 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 number for this proposed rule and for the emissions guidelines which it implements is 2060 0451. The OMB control numbers for our regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995 ( Pub. L. 104 113; 15 U. S. C. 272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in 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 the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed Federal plan involves technical standards. The EPA proposes in this plan to use EPA Methods 1, 3A, 3B, 5, 6, 6C, 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, 7E, 9, 10, 10A, 10B, 23, 26A, and 29. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 7A, 7D, 9, and 10B. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the Docket No. A 2000 52 for this proposed plan. This search for emission measurement procedures identified 24 voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that 20 of these 24 standards were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed Federal plan. Therefore, EPA does not propose to adopt these standards today. The reasons for this determination for the 20 methods are discussed below. The standard, ASTM D3162 ( 1994) `` Standard Test Method for Carbon Monoxide in the Atmosphere ( Continuous Measurement by Nondispersive Infrared Spectrometry),'' is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 10 in this proposed Federal plan because this ASTM standard, which is stated to be applicable in the range of 0.5 100 ppm CO, does not cover the potential range in the plan ( up to 157 ppm). Whereas EPA Method 10 has a range from 20 1000 ppm CO. Also, ASTM D3162 does not provide a procedure to remove carbon dioxide interference. Therefore, this ASTM standard is not appropriate for combustion source conditions. In terms of NDIR instrument performance VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70657 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules specifications, ASTM D3162 has much higher maximum allowable rise and fall times ( 5 minutes) than EPA Method 10 ( which has 30 seconds). However, it should be noted that ASTM D3162 has more quality control requirements than EPA Method 10 in terms of instrument calibration procedures, span gas cylinder validation procedures, and operational checks. The standard ASTM E1979 98 ( 1998), `` Standard Practice for Ultrasonic Extraction of Paint, Dust, Soil, and Air Samples for Subsequent Determination of Lead,'' is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 29 in this proposed Federal plan. This ASTM standard does not require the use of hydrogen fluoride ( HF) as in EPA Method 29 and, therefore, it cannot be used for the preparation, digestion, and analysis of Method 29 samples. Additionally, Method 29 requires the use of a glass fiber filter, whereas this ASTM standard requires cellulose filters and other probable nonglass fiber media which cannot be considered equivalent to EPA Method 29. The European standard EN 1911 1,2,3 ( 1998), `` Stationary Source Emissions Manual Method of Determination of HCl Part 1: Sampling of Gases Ratified European Text Part 2: Gaseous Compounds Absorption Ratified European Text Part 3: Adsorption Solutions Analysis and Calculation Ratified European Text,'' is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 26A. Part 3 of this standard cannot be considered equivalent to EPA Method 26A because the sample absorbing solution ( water) would be expected to capture both HCl and chlorine gas, if present, without the ability to distinguish between the two. The EPA Method 26A uses an acidified absorbing solution to first separate HCl and chlorine gas so that they can be selectively absorbed, analyzed, and reported separately. In addition, in EN 1911 the absorption efficiency for chlorine gas would be expected to vary as the pH of the water changed during sampling. The following ten methods are impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this plan 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 Methods 1 and 3B; ASTM D5835 95, `` Standard Practice for Sampling Stationary Source Emissions, for Automated Determination of Gas Concentration,'' for EPA Method 3A; ISO 10396: 1993, `` Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations,'' for EPA Method 3A; CAN/ CSA Z223.2 M86( 1986), `` Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Streams,'' for EPA Method 3A; ASME C00031 or PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10, `` Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for EPA Methods 6 and 7; ASTM D1608 98, `` Test Method for Oxides of Nitrogen in Gaseous Combustion Products ( Pheno­ Disulfonic Acid Procedures),'' for EPA Method 7; ISO 7934: 1998, `` Stationary Source Emissions Determination of the Mass Concentration of Sulfur Dioxide Hydrogen Peroxide/ Barium Perchlorate/ Thorin Method,'' for EPA Method 6; ISO 11564: 1998, `` Stationary Source Emissions Determination of the Mass Concentration of Nitrogen Oxides NEDA ( naphthylethylenediamine)/ Photometric Method,'' for EPA Methods 7 and 7C; CAN/ CSA Z223.21 M1978, `` Method for the Measurement of Carbon Monoxide: 3 Method of Analysis by Non­ Dispersive Infrared Spectrometry,'' for EPA Methods 10 and 10A; and European Committee for Standardization ( CEN) EN 1948 3 ( 1997), `` Determination of the Mass Concentration of PCDD'S/ PCDF'S Part 3: Identification and Quantification,'' for EPA Method 23. The following seven methods are impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this Federal plan because they lacked sufficient quality assurance and quality control requirements necessary for EPA compliance assurance requirements: ASME PTC 38 80 R85 or C00049, `` Determination of the Concentration of Particulate Matter in Gas Streams,'' for EPA Method 5; ASTM D3685/ D3685M 98, `` Test Methods for Sampling and Determination of Particulate Matter in Stack Gases,'' for EPA Method 5; ISO 9096: 1992, `` Determination of Concentration and Mass Flow Rate of Particulate Matter in Gas Carrying Ducts Manual Gravimetric Method,'' for EPA Method 5; CAN/ CSA Z223.1 M1977, `` Method for the Determination of Particulate Mass Flows in Enclosed Gas Streams,'' for EPA Method 5; ISO 11632: 1998, `` Stationary Source Emissions Determination of the Mass Concentration of Sulfur Dioxide Ion Chromatography,'' for EPA Method 6; CAN/ CSA Z223.24 M1983, `` Method for the Measurement of Nitric Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide in Air,'' for EPA Method 7; and CAN/ CSA Z223.26 M1987, `` Measurement of Total Mercury in Air Cold Vapour Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometeric Method,'' for EPA Method 29. The following four of the 24 voluntary consensus standards identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of this proposed plan because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ISO/ DIS 12039, `` Stationary Source Emissions Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A; ASTM Z6449Z, `` Standard Method for the Determination of Sulfur Dioxide in Stationary Sources,'' for EPA Method 6; ASTM Z6590Z, `` Manual Method for Both Speciated and Elemental Mercury,'' for EPA Method 29 ( portion for mercury only); prEN 13211 ( 1998), `` Air Quality Stationary Source Emissions Determination of the Concentration of Total Mercury,'' for EPA Method 29 ( portion for mercury only). While EPA is not proposing to include these four voluntary consensus standards in today's proposed plan, the EPA will consider the standards when final. The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements proposed in this Federal plan and specifically invites the public to identify potentially­ applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commenters should also explain why this plan should adopt these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's standards. Emission test methods 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). Table 1 of proposed Subpart III lists the EPA testing methods included in the emission Federal Plan Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators. Under 40 CFR 63.8( f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Metals, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal. Dated: November 6, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. 40 CFR part 62 is proposed to be amended as follows: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70658 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules PART 62 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 7671q. 2. Amend § 62.13 by adding paragraph ( d) to read as follows: § 62.13 Federal plans. * * * * * ( d) The substantive requirements of the Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units Federal plan are contained in subpart III of this part. These requirements include emission limits, compliance schedules, testing, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 3. Amend part 62 by adding subpart III to read as follows: Subpart III Federal Plan Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units That Commenced Construction on or Before November 30, 1999 Introduction Sec. 62.14500 What is the purpose of this subpart? 62.14505 What are the principal components of this subpart? Applicability 62.14510 Am I subject to this subpart? 62.14515 Can my CISWI unit be covered by both a State plan and this subpart? 62.14520 How do I determine if my CISWI unit is covered by an approved and effective State or Tribal plan? 62.14521 If my CISWI unit is not listed in the Federal plan inventory, am I exempt from this subpart? 62.14525 Can my combustion unit be exempt from this subpart? 62.14530 What if I have a chemical recovery unit that is not listed in § 62.14525( n)? 62.14531 When must I submit any records required pursuant to an exemption allowed under § 62.14525? Compliance Schedule and Increments of Progress 62.14535 When must I comply with this subpart if I plan to continue operation of my CISWI unit? 62.14536 What steps are required to request an extension of the initial compliance date if I plan to continue operation of my CISWI unit? 62.14540 When must I complete each increment of progress? 62.14545 What must I include in each notification of achievement of an increment of progress? 62.14550 When must I submit a notification of achievement of the first increment of progress? 62.14555 What if I do not meet an increment of progress? 62.14560 How do I comply with the increment of progress for submittal of a control plan? 62.14565 How do I comply with the increment of progress for achieving final compliance? § 62.14570 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my CISWI unit? § 62.14575 What must I do if I close my CISWI unit and then restart it? Waste Management Plan 62.14580 What is a waste management plan? 62.14585 When must I submit my waste management plan? 62.14590 What should I include in my waste management plan? Operator Training and Qualification 62.14595 What are the operator training and qualification requirements? 62.14600 When must the operator training course be completed? 62.14605 How do I obtain my operator qualification? 62.14610 How do I maintain my operator qualification? 62.14615 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? 62.14620 What site­ specific documentation is required? 62.14625 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not accessible? Emission Limitations and Operating Limits 62.14630 What emission limitations must I meet and by when? 62.14635 What operating limits must I meet and by when? 62.14536 What steps are required to request an extension of the initial compliance date if I plan to continue operation of my CISWI unit? 62.14640 What if I do not use a wet scrubber to comply with the emission limitations? 62.14645 What happens during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction? Performance Testing 62.14650 How do I conduct the initial and annual performance test? 62.14655 How are the performance test data used? Initial Compliance Requirements 62.14660 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and establish the operating limits? 62.14665 By what date must I conduct the initial performance test? Continuous Compliance Requirements 62.14670 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and the operating limits? 62.14675 By what date must I conduct the annual performance test? 62.14680 May I conduct performance testing less often? 62.14685 May I conduct a repeat performance test to establish new operating limits? Monitoring 62.14690 What monitoring equipment must I install and what parameters must I monitor? 62.14695 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I must obtain? Recordkeeping and Reporting 62.14700 What records must I keep? 62.14705 Where and in what format must I keep my records? 62.14710 What reports must I submit? 62.14715 When must I submit my waste management plan? 62.14720 What information must I submit following my initial performance test? 62.14725 When must I submit my annual report? 62.14730 What information must I include in my annual report? 62.14735 What else must I report if I have a deviation from the operating limits or the emission limitations? 62.14740 What must I include in the deviation report? 62.14745 What else must I report if I have a deviation from the requirement to have a qualified operator accessible? 62.14750 Are there any other notifications or reports that I must submit? 62.14755 In what form can I submit my reports? 62.14760 Can reporting dates be changed? Air Curtain Incinerators that Burn 100 Percent Wood Wastes and Clean Lumber 62.14765 What is an air curtain incinerator? 62.14770 When must I achieve final compliance? 62.14795 How do I achieve final compliance? 62.14805 What must I do if I close my air curtain incinerator and then restart it? 62.14810 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my air curtain incinerator and not restart it? 62.14815 What are the emission limitations for air curtain incinerators that burn 100 percent wood wastes and clean lumber? 62.14820 How must I monitor opacity for air curtain incinerators that burn 100 percent wood wastes and clean lumber? 62.14825 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for air curtain incinerators that burn 100 percent wood wastes and clean lumber? Title V Requirements 62.14830 Does this subpart require me to obtain an operating permit under title V of the Clean Air Act? 62.14835 When must I submit a title V permit application for my existing CISWI unit? Definitions 62.14840 What definitions must I know? Tables Table 1 of Subpart III of Part 62 Emission Limitations Table 2 of Subpart III of Part 62 Operating Limits for Wet Scrubbers Table 3 of Subpart III of Part 62 Toxic Equivalency Factors Table 4 of Subpart III of Part 62 Summary of Reporting Requirements VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 40 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70659 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules Introduction § 62.14500 What is the purpose of this subpart? ( a) This subpart establishes emission requirements and compliance schedules for the control of emissions from commercial and industrial solid waste incineration ( CISWI) units that are not covered by an EPA approved and currently effective State or Tribal plan. The pollutants addressed by these emission requirements are listed in Table 1 of this subpart. These emission requirements are developed in accordance with sections 111( d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act and subpart B of 40 CFR part 60. ( b) In this subpart, you means the owner or operator of a CISWI unit. § 62.14505 What are the principal components of this subpart? This subpart contains the eleven major components listed in paragraphs ( a) through ( k) of this section. ( a) Increments of progress toward compliance. ( b) Waste management plan. ( c) Operator training and qualification. ( d) Emission limitations and operating limits. ( e) Performance testing. ( f) Initial compliance requirements. ( g) Continuous compliance requirements. ( h) Monitoring. ( i) Recordkeeping and reporting. ( j) Definitions. ( k) Tables. Applicability § 62.14510 Am I subject to this subpart? ( a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a commercial and industrial solid waste incinerator ( CISWI) unit as defined in § 62.14840 and the CISWI unit meets the criteria described in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( a)( 3) of this section. ( 1) Construction of your CISWI unit commenced on or before November 30, 1999. ( 2) Your CISWI unit is not exempt under § 62.14525. ( 3) Your CISWI unit is not regulated by an EPA approved and currently effective State or Tribal plan, or your CISWI unit is located in any State whose approved State or Tribal plan is subsequently vacated in whole or in part. ( b) If you made changes after June 1, 2001 that meet the definition of modification or reconstruction after promulgation of the final 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC ( New Source Performance Standards for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units), your CISWI unit is subject to subpart CCCC of 40 CFR part 60 and this subpart no longer applies to that unit. ( c) If you make physical or operational changes to your existing CISWI unit primarily to comply with this subpart, then such changes do not qualify as modifications or reconstructions under subpart CCCC of 40 CFR part 60. § 62.14515 Can my CISWI unit be covered by both a State plan and this subpart? ( a) If your CISWI unit is located in a State that does not have an EPAapproved State plan or your State's plan has not become effective, this subpart applies to your CISWI unit until EPA approves a State plan that covers your CISWI unit and that State plan becomes effective. However, a State may enforce the requirements of a State regulation while your CISWI unit is still subject to this subpart. ( b) After the EPA approves a State plan covering your CISWI unit, and after that State plan becomes effective, you will no longer be subject to this subpart and will only be subject to the approved and effective State plan. § 62.14520 How do I determine if my CISWI unit is covered by an approved and effective State or Tribal plan? This part ( 40 CFR part 62) contains a list of State and Tribal areas with approved Clean Air Act section 111( d) and section 129 plans along with the effective dates for such plans. The list is published annually. If this part does not indicate that your State or Tribal area has an approved and effective plan, you should contact your State environmental agency's air director or your EPA Regional Office to determine if EPA has approved a State plan covering your unit since publication of the most recent version of this subpart. § 62.14521 If my CISWI unit is not listed in the Federal plan inventory, am I exempt from this subpart? Not necessarily. Sources subject to this subpart are not limited to the inventory of sources listed in Docket A 2000 52 for the Federal plan. If your CISWI units meets the applicability criteria in § 62.14510, this subpart applies to you whether or not your unit is listed in the Federal plan inventory in the docket. § 62.14525 Can my combustion unit be exempt from this subpart? This subpart exempts fifteen types of units described in paragraphs ( a) through ( o) of this section except for the requirements specified in this section and in § 62.14531. ( a) Pathological waste incineration units. Incineration units burning 90 percent or more by weight ( on a calendar quarter basis and excluding the weight of auxiliary fuel and combustion air) of pathological waste, low­ level radioactive waste, and/ or chemotherapeutic waste as defined in § 62.14840 are not subject to this subpart if you meet the two requirements specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Notify the Administrator that the unit meets these criteria. ( 2) Keep records on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of pathological waste, low­ level radioactive waste, and/ or chemotherapeutic waste burned, and the weight of all other fuels and wastes burned in the unit. ( b) Agricultural waste incineration units. Incineration units burning 90 percent or more by weight ( on a calendar quarter basis and excluding the weight of auxiliary fuel and combustion air) of agricultural wastes as defined in § 62.14840 are not subject to this subpart if you meet the two requirements specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Notify the Administrator that the unit meets these criteria. ( 2) Keep records on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of agricultural waste burned, and the weight of all other fuels and wastes burned in the unit. ( c) Municipal waste combustion units. Incineration units that meet either of the two criteria specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) or ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Units that are regulated under subpart Ea of 40 CFR part 60 ( Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors); subpart Eb of 40 CFR part 60 ( Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction is Commenced After September 20, 1994); subpart Cb of 40 CFR part 60 ( Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustors Constructed on or Before September 20, 1994); subpart AAAA of 40 CFR part 60 ( Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources: Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units); or subpart BBBB of 40 CFR part 60 ( Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units). ( 2) Units that burn greater than 30 percent municipal solid waste or refusederived fuel, as defined in 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ea, subpart Eb, subpart AAAA, and subpart BBBB, and that have the capacity to burn less than 35 tons ( 32 megagrams) per day of municipal solid waste or refuse­ derived fuel, if you meet the two requirements VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70660 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules in paragraphs ( c)( 2)( i) and ( ii) of this section. ( i) Notify the Administrator that the unit meets these criteria. ( ii) Keep records on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of municipal solid waste burned, and the weight of all other fuels and wastes burned in the unit. ( d) Medical waste incineration units. Incineration units regulated under subpart Ec of 40 CFR part 60 ( Standards of Performance for Hospital/ Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators for Which Construction is Commenced After June 20, 1996); 40 CFR part 60 subpart Ce ( Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Hospital/ Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators); and 40 CFR part 62 subpart HHH ( Federal Plan Requirements for Hospital/ Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators Constructed on or before June 20, 1996). ( e) Small power production facilities. Units that meet the three requirements specified in paragraphs ( e)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) The unit qualifies as a small power­ production facility under section 3( 17)( C) of the Federal Power Act ( 16 U. S. C. 796( 17)( C)). ( 2) The unit burns homogeneous waste ( not including refuse­ derived fuel) to produce electricity. ( 3) You notify the Administrator that the unit meets all of these criteria. ( f) Cogeneration facilities. Units that meet the three requirements specified in paragraphs ( f)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) The unit qualifies as a cogeneration facility under section 3( 18)( B) of the Federal Power Act ( 16 U. S. C. 796( 18)( B)). ( 2) The unit burns homogeneous waste ( not including refuse­ derived fuel) to produce electricity and steam or other forms of energy used for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes. ( 3) You notify the Administrator that the unit meets all of these criteria. ( g) Hazardous waste combustion units. Units regulated under subpart EEE of part 63 ( National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste Combustors). ( h) Materials recovery units. Units that combust waste for the primary purpose of recovering metals, such as primary and secondary smelters. ( i) Air curtain incinerators. Air curtain incinerators that burn 100 percent wood waste and clean lumber are only required to meet the requirements under `` Air Curtain Incinerators That Burn 100 Percent Wood Wastes and Clean Lumber'' ( § § 62.14765 through 62.14825) and the title V operating permit requirements ( § § 62.14830 and 62.14835). ( j) Cyclonic barrel burners. ( k) Rack, part, and drum reclamation units. ( l) Cement kilns. ( m) Sewage sludge incinerators. Incineration units regulated under subpart O of 40 CFR part 60 ( Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment Plants). ( n) Chemical recovery units. Combustion units burning materials to recover chemical constituents or to produce chemical compounds where there is an existing commercial market for such recovered chemical constituents or compounds. The seven types of units described in paragraphs ( n)( 1) through ( 7) of this section are considered chemical recovery units. ( 1) Units burning only pulping liquors ( i. e., black liquor) that are reclaimed in a pulping liquor recovery process and reused in the pulping process. ( 2) Units burning only spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid. ( 3) Units burning only wood or coal feedstock for the production of charcoal. ( 4) Units burning only manufacturing byproduct streams/ residues containing catalyst metals which are reclaimed and reused as catalysts or used to produce commercial grade catalysts. ( 5) Units burning only coke to produce purified carbon monoxide that is used as an intermediate in the production of other chemical compounds. ( 6) Units burning only hydrocarbon liquids or solids to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, synthesis gas, or other gases for use in other manufacturing processes. ( 7) Units burning only photographic film to recover silver. ( o) Laboratory units. Units that burn samples of materials for the purpose of chemical or physical analysis. § 62.14530 What if I have a chemical recovery unit that is not listed in § 62.14525( n)? ( a) If you have a recovery unit that is not listed in § 62.14525( n), you can petition the Administrator to add the unit to the list. The petition must contain the six items in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. ( 1) A description of the source of the materials being burned. ( 2) A description of the composition of the materials being burned, highlighting the chemical constituents in these materials that are recovered. ( 3) A description ( including a process flow diagram) of the process in which the materials are burned, highlighting the type, design, and operation of the equipment used in this process. ( 4) A description ( including a process flow diagram) of the chemical constituent recovery process, highlighting the type, design, and operation of the equipment used in this process. ( 5) A description of the commercial markets for the recovered chemical constituents and their use. ( 6) The composition of the recovered chemical constituents and the composition of these chemical constituents as they are bought and sold in commercial markets. ( b) Until the Administrator approves the petition, the incineration unit is covered by this subpart. ( c) If a petition is approved, the Administrator will amend § 62.14525( n) to add the unit to the list of chemical recovery units. § 62.14531 When must I submit any records required pursuant to an exemption allowed under § 62.14525? Owners or operators of sources that qualify for the exemptions in § 62.14525( a) through ( o) must submit any records required to support their claims of exemption to the EPA Administrator ( or delegated enforcement authority) upon request. Upon request by any person under the regulation at part 2 of this chapter ( or a comparable law or regulation governing a delegated enforcement authority), the EPA Administrator ( or delegated enforcement authority) must request the records in § 62.14525( a) through ( o) from an owner or operator and make such records available to the requestor to the extent required by part 2 of this chapter ( or a comparable law governing a delegated enforcement authority). Any records required under § 62.14525( a) through ( o) must be maintained by the source for a period of at least 5 years. Notifications of exemption claims required under § 62.14525( a) through ( o) of this section must be maintained by the EPA or delegated enforcement authority for a period of at least 5 years. Any information obtained from an owner or operator of a source accompanied by a claim of confidentiality will be treated in accordance with the regulations in part 2 of this chapter ( or a comparable law governing a delegated enforcement authority). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70661 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules Compliance Schedule and Increments of Progress § 62.14535 When must I comply with this subpart if I plan to continue operation of my CISWI unit? If you plan to continue operation of your CISWI unit, then you must follow the requirements in paragraph ( a) or ( b) of this section depending on when you plan to come into compliance with the requirements of this subpart. ( a) If you plan to continue operation and come into compliance with the requirements of this subpart by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, then you must complete the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( a)( 5) of this section. ( 1) You must comply with the operator training and qualification requirements and inspection requirements ( if applicable) of this subpart by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( 2) You must submit a waste management plan no later than the date six months after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( 3) You must achieve final compliance by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. To achieve final compliance, you must incorporate all process changes and complete retrofit construction of control devices, as specified in the final control plan, so that, if the affected CISWI unit is brought online, all necessary process changes and air pollution control devices would operate as designed. ( 4) You must conduct the initial performance test within 90 days after the date when you are required to achieve final compliance under paragraph ( a)( 3) of this section. ( 5) You must submit an initial report including the results of the initial performance test no later than 60 days following the initial performance test ( see § § 62.14700 through 62.14760 for complete reporting and recordkeeping requirements). ( b) If you plan to continue operation and come into compliance with the requirements of this subpart after the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, but before the date two years after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, you must petition for and be granted an extension of the final compliance date specified § 62.14535( a)( 3) by meeting the requirements of § 62.14536 and you must meet the requirements for increments of progress specified in § 62.14540 through § 62.14565. To achieve the final compliance increment of progress, you must complete the requirements of paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( b)( 5) of this section. ( 1) You must comply with the operator training and qualification requirements and inspection requirements ( if applicable) of this subpart by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( 2) You must submit a waste management plan no later than the date six months after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( 3) You must achieve final compliance by the date two years after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. For the final compliance increment of progress, you must incorporate all process changes and complete retrofit construction of control devices, as specified in the final control plan, so that, when the affected CISWI unit is brought online, all necessary process changes and air pollution control devices operate as designed. ( 4) You must conduct the initial performance test within 90 days after the date when you are required to achieve final compliance under paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section. ( 5) You must submit an initial report including the result of the initial performance no later than 60 days following the initial performance test ( see § § 62.14700 through 62.14760 for complete reporting and recordkeeping requirements). § 62.14536 What steps are required to request an extension of the initial compliance date if I plan to continue operation of my CISWI unit? If you plan to continue operation and want to come into compliance with the requirements of this subpart after the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, but before the date two years after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, then you must petition to the Administrator to grant you an extension by following the procedures outlined in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section. ( a) You must submit your request for an extension to the EPA Administrator ( or delegated enforcement authority) on or before the date two months after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( b) Your request must include documentation of the analyses undertaken to support your need for an extension, including an explanation of why you are unable to meet the final compliance date specified in § 62.14535( a)( 3) and why your requested extension date is needed to provide sufficient time for you to design, fabricate, and install the emissions control systems necessary to meet the requirements of this subpart. A request based upon the avoidance of costs of meeting provisions of this Subpart is not acceptable and will be denied. § 62.14540 When must I complete each increment of progress? If you plan to come into compliance after the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, you must meet the two increments of progress specified in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section. ( a) Increment 1. Submit a final control plan by the date 6 months after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( b) Increment 2. Reach final compliance by the date 2 years after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. § 62.14545 What must I include in each notification of achievement of an increment of progress? Your notification of achievement of an increment of progress must include the four items specified in paragraphs ( a) through ( d) of this section. ( a) Notification of the date that the increment of progress has been achieved. ( b) Any items required to be submitted with each increment of progress. ( c) Signature of the owner or operator of the CISWI unit. ( d) The date you were required to complete the increment of progress. § 62.14550 When must I submit a notification of achievement of the first increment of progress? Your notification for achieving the first increment of progress must be postmarked no later the date ten days after the date that is six months from the date of promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. § 62.14555 What if I do not meet an increment of progress? Failure to meet an increment of progress is a violation of the standards under this subpart. If you fail to meet an increment of progress, you must submit a notification to the Administrator postmarked within 10 business days after the due date for that increment of progress. You must inform the Administrator that you did not meet the increment, and you must continue to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70662 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules submit reports each subsequent calendar month until the increment of progress is met. § 62.14560 How do I comply with the increment of progress for submittal of a control plan? For your control plan increment of progress, you must satisfy the two requirements specified in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section. ( a) Submit the final control plan that includes the six items described in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. ( 1) A description of the devices for air pollution control and process changes that you will use to comply with the emission limitations and other requirements of this subpart. ( 2) The type( s) of waste to be burned. ( 3) The maximum design waste burning capacity. ( 4) The anticipated maximum charge rate. ( 5) If applicable, the petition for sitespecific operating limits under § 62.14640. ( 6) A schedule that includes the date by which you will award the contracts to procure emission control equipment or related materials, initiate on­ site construction, initiate on­ site installation of emission control equipment, and/ or incorporate process changes, and the date by which you will initiate on­ site construction. ( b) Maintain an onsite copy of the final control plan. § 62.14565 How do I comply with the increment of progress for achieving final compliance? For the final compliance increment of progress, you must incorporate all process changes and complete retrofit construction of control devices, as specified in the final control plan, so that, when the affected CISWI unit is brought online, all necessary process changes and air pollution control devices operate as designed. § 62.14570 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my CISWI unit? If you plan to permanently close your CISWI unit, then you must follow the requirements in either paragraph ( a) or ( b) of this section depending on when you plan to shut down. ( a) If you plan to shut down by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, rather that come into compliance with the complete set of requirements in this subpart, then you must shut down by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. You must meet the title V operating permit requirements of § § 62.14830 and 62.14835 regardless of when you shut down. ( b) If you plan to shut down rather than come into compliance with the complete set of requirements of this subpart, but are unable to shut down by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, then you must petition EPA for and be granted an extension by following the procedures outlined in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) You must submit your request for an extension to the EPA Administrator ( or delegated enforcement authority) by the date two months after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. Your request must include: ( i) Documentation of the analyses undertaken to support your need for an extension, including an explanation of why your requested extension date is sufficient time for you to shut down while the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register does not provide sufficient time for shut down. A request based upon the avoidance of costs of meeting provisions of this Subpart is not acceptable and will be denied. Your documentation must include an evaluation of the option to transport your waste offsite to a commercial or municipal waste treatment and/ or disposal facility on a temporary or permanent basis; and ( ii) Documentation of incremental steps of progress, including dates for completing the increments of progress, that you will take towards shutting down. Some suggested incremental steps of progress towards shut down are provided as follows: If you . . . then your increments of progress could be . . . ( A) Need an extension so you can install on onsite alternative waste treatment technology before you shut down your CISWI. ( 1) Date when you will enter into a contract with an alternative treatment technology vendor, ( 2) Date for initiating onsite construction or installation of the alternative technology, ( 3) Date for completing onsite construction or installation of the alternative technology and ( 4) Date for shutting down the CISWI. ( B) Need an extension so you can acquire the services of a commercial waste disposal company before you shut down your CISWI. ( 1) Date when price quotes will be obtained from commercial disposal companies, ( 2) Date when you will enter into a contract with a commercial disposal company, and ( 3) Date for shutting down the CISWI. ( 2) You must shut down no later than by the date two years after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( 3) You must comply with the operator training and qualification requirements and inspection requirements ( if applicable) of this subpart by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( 4) You must submit a legally binding closure agreement to the Administrator by the date six months after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. The closure agreement must specify the date by which operation will cease. The closure date cannot be later than the date 2 years after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( 5) You must meet the title V operating permit requirements of § § 62.14830 and 62.14835 regardless of when you shut down. § 62.14575 What must I do if I close my CISWI unit and then restart it? If you temporarily close your CISWI unit and restart the unit for the purpose of continuing operation of your CISWI unit, then you must follow the requirements in paragraphs ( a), ( b), or ( c) of this section depending on when you plan to come into compliance with the requirements of this subpart. You must meet the title V operating permit requirements of § § 62.14830 and 62.14835 at the time you restart your CISWI unit. ( a) If you plan to continue operation and come into compliance with the requirements of this subpart by the by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, then you must complete the requirements of § 62.14535( a). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 40 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70663 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( b) If you plan to continue operation and come into compliance with the requirements of this subpart on or before the date two years after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, then you must complete the requirements § 62.14535( b). You must have first requested and been granted an extension from the initial compliance date by following the requirements of § 62.14536. ( c) If you restart your CISWI unit after the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register and resume operation, but have not previously requested an extension by meeting all of the requirements of § 62.14536, you must meet all of the requirements of § 62.14535( a)( 1) through ( a)( 5) at the time you restart your CISWI unit. Upon restarting your CISWI unit, you must have incorporated all process changes and completed retrofit construction of control devices so that when the affected CISWI unit is brought online, all necessary process changes and air pollution control devices operate as designed. Waste Management Plan § 62.14580 What is a waste management plan? A waste management plan is a written plan that identifies both the feasibility and the methods used to reduce or separate certain components of solid waste from the waste stream in order to reduce or eliminate toxic emissions from incinerated waste. § 62.14585 When must I submit my waste management plan? You must submit a waste management plan no later than the date six months after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. § 62.14590 What should I include in my waste management plan? A waste management plan must include consideration of the reduction or separation of waste­ stream elements such as paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, batteries, or metals; or the use of recyclable materials. The plan must identify any additional waste management measures, and the source must implement those measures considered practical and feasible, based on the effectiveness of waste management measures already in place, the costs of additional measures, the emissions reductions expected to be achieved, and any other environmental or energy impacts they might have. Operator Training and Qualification § 62.14595 What are the operator training and qualification requirements? ( a) You must have a fully trained and qualified CISWI unit operator accessible at all times when the unit is in operation, either at your facility or able to be at your facility within one hour. The trained and qualified CISWI unit operator may operate the CISWI unit directly or be the direct supervisor of one or more other plant personnel who operate the unit. If all qualified CISWI unit operators are temporarily not accessible, you must follow the procedures in § 62.14625. ( b) Operator training and qualification must be obtained through a Stateapproved program or by completing the requirements included in paragraph ( c) of this section. ( c) Training must be obtained by completing an incinerator operator training course that includes, at a minimum, the three elements described in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Training on the thirteen subjects listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i) through ( xiii) of this section. ( i) Environmental concerns, including types of emissions. ( ii) Basic combustion principles, including products of combustion. ( iii) Operation of the specific type of incinerator to be used by the operator, including proper startup, waste charging, and shutdown procedures. ( iv) Combustion controls and monitoring. ( v) Operation of air pollution control equipment and factors affecting performance ( where applicable). ( vi) Inspection and maintenance of the incinerator and air pollution control devices. ( vii) Actions to correct malfunctions or conditions that may lead to malfunction. ( viii) Bottom and fly ash characteristics and handling procedures. ( ix) Applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration workplace standards. ( x) Pollution prevention. ( xi) Waste management practices. ( xii) Recordkeeping requirements. ( xiii) Methods to continuously monitor CISWI unit and air pollution control device operating parameters and monitoring equipment calibration procedures ( where applicable). ( 2) An examination designed and administered by the instructor. ( 3) Written material covering the training course topics that can serve as reference material following completion of the course. § 62.14600 When must the operator training course be completed? ( a) The operator training course must be completed by the later of the two dates specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) The date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( 2) Six months after an employee assumes responsibility for operating the CISWI unit or assumes responsibility for supervising the operation of the CISWI unit. ( b) You must follow the requirements in § 63.14625 if all qualified operators are temporarily not accessible. § 62.14605 How do I obtain my operator qualification? ( a) You must obtain operator qualification by completing a training course that satisfies the criteria under § 62.14595( b) or ( c). ( b) Qualification is valid from the date on which the training course is completed and the operator successfully passes the examination required under § 62.14595( c)( 2). § 62.14610 How do I maintain my operator qualification? To maintain qualification, you must complete an annual review or refresher course of at least 4 hours covering, at a minimum, the five topics described in paragraphs ( a) through ( e) of this section. ( a) Update of regulations. ( b) Incinerator operation, including startup and shutdown procedures, waste charging, and ash handling. ( c) Inspection and maintenance. ( d) Responses to malfunctions or conditions that may lead to malfunction. ( e) Discussion of operating problems encountered by attendees. § 62.14615 How do I renew my lapsed operator qualification? You must renew a lapsed operator qualification by one of the two methods specified in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section. ( a) For a lapse of less than 3 years, you must complete a standard annual refresher course described in § 62.14610. ( b) For a lapse of 3 years or more, you must repeat the initial qualification requirements in § 62.14605( a). § 62.14620 What site­ specific documentation is required? ( a) Documentation must be available at the facility and readily accessible for all CISWI unit operators that addresses the ten topics described in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 10) of this section. You VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70664 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules must maintain this information and the training records required by paragraph ( c) of this section in a manner that they can be readily accessed and are suitable for inspection upon request. ( 1) Summary of the applicable standards under this subpart. ( 2) Procedures for receiving, handling, and charging waste. ( 3) Incinerator startup, shutdown, and malfunction procedures. ( 4) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air supply levels. ( 5) Procedures for operating the incinerator and associated air pollution control systems within the standards established under this subpart. ( 6) Monitoring procedures for demonstrating compliance with the incinerator operating limits. ( 7) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures. ( 8) The waste management plan required under § § 62.14580 through 62.14590. ( 9) Procedures for handling ash. ( 10) A list of the wastes burned during the performance test. ( b) You must establish a program for reviewing the information listed in paragraph ( a) of this section with each employee who operates your incinerator. ( 1) The initial review of the information listed in paragraph ( a) of this section must be conducted by the later of the two dates specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1)( i) through ( ii) of this section. ( i) The date 1 year after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. ( ii) Two months after being assigned to operate the CISWI unit. ( 2) Subsequent annual reviews of the information listed in paragraph ( a) of this section must be conducted no later than 12 months following the previous review. ( c) You must also maintain the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Records showing the names of all plant personnel who operate your CISWI unit who have completed review of the information in § 62.14620( a) as required by § 62.14620( b), including the date of the initial review and all subsequent annual reviews. ( 2) Records showing the names of all plant personnel who operate your CISWI unit who have completed the operator training requirements under § 62.14595, met the criteria for qualification under § 62.14605, and maintained or renewed their qualification under § 62.14610 or § 62.14615. Records must include documentation of training, the dates of the initial refresher training, and the dates of their qualification and all subsequent renewals of such qualifications. ( 3) For each qualified operator, the phone and/ or pager number at which they can be reached during operating hours. § 62.14625 What if all the qualified operators are temporarily not accessible? If all qualified operators are temporarily not accessible ( i. e., not at the facility and not able to be at the facility within 1 hour), you must meet one of the two criteria specified in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of this section, depending on the length of time that a qualified operator is not accessible. ( a) When all qualified operators are not accessible for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks, the CISWI unit may be operated by other plant personnel familiar with the operation of the CISWI unit who have completed a review of the information specified in § 62.14620( a) within the past 12 months. However, you must record the period when all qualified operators were not accessible and include this deviation in the annual report as specified under § 62.14730. ( b) When all qualified operators are not accessible for 2 weeks or more, you must take the two actions that are described in paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Notify the Administrator of this deviation in writing within 10 days. In the notice, state what caused this deviation, what you are doing to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible, and when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible. ( 2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks outlining what you are doing to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible, stating when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible and requesting approval from the Administrator to continue operation of the CISWI unit. You must submit the first status report 4 weeks after you notify the Administrator of the deviation under paragraph ( b)( 1) of this section. If the Administrator notifies you that your request to continue operation of the CISWI unit is disapproved, the CISWI unit may continue operation for 90 days, then must cease operation. Operation of the unit may resume if you meet the two requirements in paragraphs ( b)( 2)( i) and ( ii) of this section. ( i) A qualified operator is accessible as required under § 62.14595( a). ( ii) You notify the Administrator that a qualified operator is accessible and that you are resuming operation. Emission Limitations and Operating Limits § 62.14630 What emission limitations must I meet and by when? You must meet the emission limitations specified in Table 1 of this subpart by the applicable final compliance date for your CISWI unit. § 62.14635 What operating limits must I meet and by when? ( a) If you use a wet scrubber to comply with the emission limitations, you must establish operating limits for four operating parameters ( as specified in table 2 of this subpart) as described in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 4) of this section during the initial performance test. ( 1) Maximum charge rate, calculated using one of the two different procedures in paragraph ( a)( 1)( i) or ( ii), as appropriate. ( i) For continuous and intermittent units, maximum charge rate is 110 percent of the average charge rate measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limitations. ( ii) For batch units, maximum charge rate is 110 percent of the daily charge rate measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limitations. ( 2) Minimum pressure drop across the wet scrubber, which is calculated as 90 percent of the average pressure drop across the wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission limitations; or minimum amperage to the wet scrubber, which is calculated as 90 percent of the average amperage to the wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the particulate matter emission limitations. ( 3) Minimum scrubber liquor flow rate, which is calculated as 90 percent of the average liquor flow rate at the inlet to the wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limitations. ( 4) Minimum scrubber liquor pH, which is calculated as 90 percent of the average liquor pH at the inlet to the wet scrubber measured during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the hydrogen chloride emission limitation. ( b) You must meet the operating limits established during the initial performance test on the date the initial performance test is required or completed ( whichever is earlier). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70665 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( c) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the emission limitations, you must operate each fabric filter system such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during any 6­ month period. In calculating this operating time percentage, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken by you to initiate corrective action. § 62.14640 What if I do not use a wet scrubber to comply with the emission limitations? If you use an air pollution control device other than a wet scrubber, or limit emissions in some other manner, to comply with the emission limitations under § 62.14630, you must petition the Administrator for specific operating limits to be established during the initial performance test and continuously monitored thereafter. You must not conduct the initial performance test until after the petition has been approved by the Administrator. Your petition must include the five items listed in paragraphs ( a) through ( e) of this section. ( a) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as additional operating limits. ( b) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and emissions of regulated pollutants, identifying how emissions of regulated pollutants change with changes in these parameters, and how limits on these parameters will serve to limit emissions of regulated pollutants. ( c) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/ or lower values for these parameters which will establish the operating limits on these parameters. ( d) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and instruments. ( e) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these parameters. § 62.14645 What happens during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction? ( a) The emission limitations and operating limits apply at all times except during periods of CISWI unit startup, shutdown, or malfunction as defined in § 62.14840. ( b) Each malfunction must last no longer than three hours. Performance Testing § 62.14650 How do I conduct the initial and annual performance test? ( a) All performance tests must consist of a minimum of three test runs conducted under conditions representative of normal operations. ( b) You must document that the waste burned during the performance test is representative of the waste burned under normal operating conditions by maintaining a log of the quantity of waste burned ( as required in § 62.14700( b)( 1)) and the types of waste burned during the performance test. ( c) All performance tests must be conducted using the minimum run duration specified in Table 1 of this subpart. ( d) Method 1 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A must be used to select the sampling location and number of traverse points. ( e) Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A must be used for gas composition analysis, including measurement of oxygen concentration. Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A must be used simultaneously with each method. ( f) All pollutant concentrations, except for opacity, must be adjusted to 7 percent oxygen using Equation 1 of this section: C O ( Eq. 1) adj= ( ) ( ) Cmeas 20 9 7 20 9 2 . / . % Where: Cadj = pollutant concentration adjusted to 7 percent oxygen; Cmeas = pollutant concentration measured on a dry basis; ( 20.9 7) = 20.9 percent oxygen ¥ 7 percent oxygen ( defined oxygen correction basis); 20.9 = oxygen concentration in air, percent; and % O2 = oxygen concentration measured on a dry basis, percent. ( g) You must determine dioxins/ furans toxic equivalency by following the procedures in paragraphs ( g)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Measure the concentration of each dioxin/ furan tetra­ through octacongener emitted using EPA Method 23. ( 2) For each dioxin/ furan congener measured in accordance with paragraph ( g)( 1) of this section, multiply the congener concentration by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor specified in Table 3 of this subpart. ( 3) Sum the products calculated in accordance with paragraph ( g)( 2) of this section to obtain the total concentration of dioxins/ furans emitted in terms of toxic equivalency. § 62.14655 How are the performance test data used? You use results of performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations in Table 1 of this subpart. Initial Compliance Requirements § 62.14660 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations and establish the operating limits? You must conduct an initial performance test, as required under 40 CFR 60.8, to determine compliance with the emission limitations in Table 1 of this subpart and to establish operating limits using the procedure in § 62.14635 or § 62.14640. The initial performance test must be conducted using the test methods listed in Table 1 of this subpart and the procedures in § 62.14650. § 62.14665 By what date must I conduct the initial performance test? The initial performance test must be conducted no later than 90 days after your final compliance date. Continuous Compliance Requirements § 62.14670 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations and the operating limits? ( a) You must conduct an annual performance test for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, and opacity for each CISWI unit as required under 40 CFR 60.8 to determine compliance with the emission limitations. The annual performance test must be conducted using the test methods listed in Table 1 of this subpart and the procedures in § 62.14650. ( b) You must continuously monitor the operating parameters specified in § 62.14635 or established under § 62.14640. Operation above the established maximum or below the established minimum operating limits constitutes a deviation from the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 EP25NO02.000</ MATH> 70666 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules established operating limits. Three­ hour rolling average values are used to determine compliance ( except for baghouse leak detection system alarms) unless a different averaging period is established under § 62.14640. Operating limits do not apply during performance tests. ( c) You must only burn the same types of waste used to establish operating limits during the performance test. § 62.14675 By what date must I conduct the annual performance test? You must conduct annual performance tests for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, and opacity within 12 months following the initial performance test. Conduct subsequent annual performance tests within 12 months following the previous one. § 62.14680 May I conduct performance testing less often? ( a) You can test less often for a given pollutant if you have test data for at least 3 years, and all performance tests for the pollutant ( particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, or opacity) over 3 consecutive years show that you comply with the emission limitation. In this case, you do not have to conduct a performance test for that pollutant for the next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test during the third year and no later than 36 months following the previous performance test. ( b) If your CISWI unit continues to meet the emission limitation for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, or opacity, you may choose to conduct performance tests for these pollutants every third year, but each test must be within 36 months of the previous performance test. ( c) If a performance test shows a deviation from an emission limitation for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, or opacity, you must conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until all performance tests over a 3­ year period show compliance. § 62.14685 May I conduct a repeat performance test to establish new operating limits? ( a) Yes. You may conduct a repeat performance test at any time to establish new values for the operating limits. The Administrator may request a repeat performance test at any time. ( b) You must repeat the performance test if your feed stream is different than the feed streams used during any performance test used to demonstrate compliance. Monitoring § 62.14690 What monitoring equipment must I install and what parameters must I monitor? ( a) If you are using a wet scrubber to comply with the emission limitation under § 62.14630, you must install, calibrate ( to manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate devices ( or establish methods) for monitoring the value of the operating parameters used to determine compliance with the operating limits listed in Table 2 of this subpart. These devices ( or methods) must measure and record the values for these operating parameters at the frequencies indicated in Table 2 of this subpart at all times except as specified in § 62.14695( a). ( b) If you use a fabric filter to comply with the requirements of this subpart, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak detection system as specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 8) of this section. ( 1) You must install and operate a bag leak detection system for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter. ( 2) Each bag leak detection system must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. ( 3) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less. ( 4) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of relative or absolute particulate matter loadings. ( 5) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor. ( 6) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative particulate matter emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel. ( 7) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak detection system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell. For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. ( 8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors. ( c) If you are using something other than a wet scrubber to comply with the emission limitations under § 62.14630, you must install, calibrate ( to the manufacturers' specifications), maintain, and operate the equipment necessary to monitor compliance with the site­ specific operating limits established using the procedures in § 62.14640. § 62.14695 Is there a minimum amount of monitoring data I must obtain? ( a) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or quality control activities ( including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments of the monitoring system), you must conduct all monitoring at all times the CISWI unit 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 compliance with the operating limits. Recordkeeping and Reporting § 62.14700 What records must I keep? You must maintain the 13 items ( as applicable) as specified in paragraphs ( a) through ( m) of this section for a period of at least 5 years: ( a) Calendar date of each record. ( b) Records of the data described in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 6) of this section: ( 1) The CISWI unit charge dates, times, weights, and hourly charge rates. ( 2) Liquor flow rate to the wet scrubber inlet every 15 minutes of operation, as applicable. ( 3) Pressure drop across the wet scrubber system every 15 minutes of operation or amperage to the wet scrubber every 15 minutes of operation, as applicable. ( 4) Liquor pH as introduced to the wet scrubber every 15 minutes of operation, as applicable. ( 5) For affected CISWI units that establish operating limits for controls other than wet scrubbers under § 62.14640, you must maintain data collected for all operating parameters used to determine compliance with the operating limits. ( 6) If a fabric filter is used to comply with the emission limitations, you must record the date, time, and duration of each alarm and the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken. You must also record the percent of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70667 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules operating time during each 6­ month period that the alarm sounds, calculated as specified in § 62.14635( c). ( c) Identification of calendar dates and times for which monitoring systems used to monitor operating limits were inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, or out of control ( except for downtime associated with zero and span and other routine calibration checks). Identify the operating parameters not measured, the duration, reasons for not obtaining the data, and a description of corrective actions taken. ( d) Identification of calendar dates, times, and durations of malfunctions, and a description of the malfunction and the corrective action taken. ( e) Identification of calendar dates and times for which data show a deviation from the operating limits in table 2 of this subpart or a deviation from other operating limits established under § 62.14640 with a description of the deviations, reasons for such deviations, and a description of corrective actions taken. ( f) The results of the initial, annual, and any subsequent performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the emission limits and/ or to establish operating limits, as applicable. Retain a copy of the complete test report including calculations. ( g) Records showing the names of CISWI unit operators who have completed review of the information in § 62.14620( a) as required by § 62.14620( b), including the date of the initial review and all subsequent annual reviews. ( h) Records showing the names of the CISWI operators who have completed the operator training requirements under § 62.14595, met the criteria for qualification under § 62.14605, and maintained or renewed their qualification under § 62.14610 or § 62.14615. Records must include documentation of training, the dates of the initial and refresher training, and the dates of their qualification and all subsequent renewals of such qualifications. ( i) For each qualified operator, the phone and/ or pager number at which they can be reached during operating hours. ( j) Records of calibration of any monitoring devices as required under § 62.14690. ( k) Equipment vendor specifications and related operation and maintenance requirements for the incinerator, emission controls, and monitoring equipment. ( l) The information listed in § 62.14620( a). ( m) On a daily basis, keep a log of the quantity of waste burned and the types of waste burned ( always required). § 62.14705 Where and in what format must I keep my records? All records must be available onsite in either paper copy or computer­ readable format that can be printed upon request, unless an alternative format is approved by the Administrator. § 62.14710 What reports must I submit? See Table 4 of this subpart for a summary of the reporting requirements. § 62.14715 When must I submit my waste management plan? You must submit the waste management plan no later than the date six months after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. § 62.14720 What information must I submit following my initial performance test? You must submit the information specified in paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section no later than 60 days following the initial performance test. All reports must be signed by the facilities manager. ( a) The complete test report for the initial performance test results obtained under § 62.14660, as applicable. ( b) The values for the site­ specific operating limits established in § 62.14635 or § 62.14640. ( c) If you are using a fabric filter to comply with the emission limitations, documentation that a bag leak detection system has been installed and is being operated, calibrated, and maintained as required by § 62.14690( b). § 62.14725 When must I submit my annual report? You must submit an annual report no later than 12 months following the submission of the information in § 62.14720. You must submit subsequent reports no more than 12 months following the previous report. As with all other requirements in this subpart, the requirement to submit an annual report does not modify or replace the operating permit requirements of 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. § 62.14730 What information must I include in my annual report? The annual report required under § 62.14725 must include the ten items listed in paragraphs ( a) through ( j) of this section. If you have a deviation from the operating limits or the emission limitations, you must also submit deviation reports as specified in § § 62.14735, 62.14740, and 62.14745. ( a) Company name and address. ( b) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name, title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the report. ( c) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. ( d) The values for the operating limits established pursuant to § 62.14635 or § 62.14640. ( e) If no deviation from any emission limitation or operating limit that applies to you has been reported, a statement that there was no deviation from the emission limitations or operating limits during the reporting period, and that no monitoring system used to determine compliance with the operating limits was inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning or out of control. ( f) The highest recorded 3­ hour average and the lowest recorded 3­ hour average, as applicable, for each operating parameter recorded for the calendar year being reported. ( g) Information recorded under § 62.14700( b)( 6) and ( c) through ( e) for the calendar year being reported. ( h) If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the results of that test. ( i) If you met the requirements of § 62.14680( a) or ( b), and did not conduct a performance test during the reporting period, you must state that you met the requirements of § 62.14680( a) or ( b), and, therefore, you were not required to conduct a performance test during the reporting period. ( j) Documentation of periods when all qualified CISWI unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours, but less than 2 weeks. § 62.14735 What else must I report if I have a deviation from the operating limits or the emission limitations? ( a) You must submit a deviation report if any recorded 3­ hour average parameter level is above the maximum operating limit or below the minimum operating limit established under this subpart, if the bag leak detection system alarm sounds for more than 5 percent of the operating time for any 6­ month reporting period, or if a performance test was conducted that deviated from any emission limitation. ( b) The deviation report must be submitted by August 1 of that year for data collected during the first half of the calendar year ( January 1 to June 30), and by February 1 of the following year for data you collected during the second half of the calendar year ( July 1 to December 31). § 62.14740 What must I include in the deviation report? In each report required under § 62.14735, for any pollutant or VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70668 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules parameter that deviated from the emission limitations or operating limits specified in this subpart, include the six items described in paragraphs ( a) through ( f) of this section. ( a) The calendar dates and times your unit deviated from the emission limitations or operating limit requirements. ( b) The averaged and recorded data for those dates. ( c) Duration and causes of each deviation from the emission limitations or operating limits and your corrective actions. ( d) A copy of the operating limit monitoring data during each deviation and any test report that documents the emission levels. ( e) The dates, times, number, duration, and causes for monitoring downtime incidents ( other than downtime associated with zero, span, and other routine calibration checks). ( f) Whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, or during another period. § 62.14745 What else must I report if I have a deviation from the requirement to have a qualified operator accessible? ( a) If all qualified operators are not accessible for two weeks or more, you must take the two actions in paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Within ten days of each deviation, you must submit a notification that includes the three items in paragraphs ( a)( 1)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) A statement of what caused the deviation. ( ii) A description of what you are doing to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible. ( iii) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be available. ( 2) Submit a status report to the Administrator every 4 weeks that includes the three items in paragraphs ( a)( 2)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) A description of what you are doing to ensure that a qualified operator is accessible. ( ii) The date when you anticipate that a qualified operator will be accessible. ( iii) Request approval from the Administrator to continue operation of the CISWI unit. ( b) If your unit was shut down by the Administrator, under the provisions of § 62.14625( b)( 2), due to a failure to provide an accessible qualified operator, you must notify the Administrator that you are resuming operation once a qualified operator is accessible. § 62.14750 Are there any other notifications or reports that I must submit? Yes. You must submit notifications as provided by 40 CFR 60.7. § 62.14755 In what form can I submit my reports? Submit initial, annual, and deviation reports electronically or in paper format, postmarked on or before the submittal due dates. § 62.14760 Can reporting dates be changed? If the Administrator agrees, you may change the semiannual or annual reporting dates. See 40 CFR 60.19( c) for procedures to seek approval to change your reporting date. Air Curtain Incinerators that Burn 100 Percent Wood Wastes and Clean Lumber § 62.14765 What is an air curtain incinerator? An air curtain incinerator operates by forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open chamber or open pit in which combustion occurs. Incinerators of this type can be constructed above or below ground and with or without refractory walls and floor. ( Air curtain incinerators are different from conventional combustion devices which typically have enclosed fireboxes and controlled air technology such as mass burn, modular, and fluidized bed combustors.) § 62.14770 When must I achieve final compliance? If you plan to continue operating, then you must achieve final compliance by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. It is unlawful for your air curtain incinerator to operate after the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register if you have not achieved final compliance. An air curtain incinerator that continues to operate after the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register without being in compliance is subject to penalties. § 62.14795 How do I achieve final compliance? For the final compliance, you must complete all equipment changes and retrofit installation control devices so that, when the affected air curtain incinerator is placed into service, all necessary equipment and air pollution control devices operate as designed and meet the opacity limits of § 62.14815. § 62.14805 What must I do if I close my air curtain incinerator and then restart it? ( a) If you close your incinerator but will reopen it prior to the final compliance date in this subpart, you must achieve final compliance by the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( b) If you close your incinerator but will restart it after the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register, you must have completed any needed emission control retrofits and meet the opacity limits of § 62.14815 on the date your incinerator restarts operation. ( c) You must meet the title V operating permit requirements of § § 62.14830 and 62.14835 at the time you restart your air curtain incinerator. § 62.14810 What must I do if I plan to permanently close my air curtain incinerator and not restart it? If you plan to permanently close your incinerator rather than comply with this subpart, you must submit a closure notification, including the date of closure, to the Administrator by the date by the 180 days after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. You must meet the title V operating permit requirements of § § 62.14830 and 62.14835 regardless of when you shut down. § 62.14815 What are the emission limitations for air curtain incinerators that burn 100 percent wood wastes and clean lumber? ( a) After the date the initial test for opacity is required or completed ( whichever is earlier), you must meet the limitations in paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) The opacity limitation is 10 percent ( 6­ minute average), except as described in paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section. ( 2) The opacity limitation is 35 percent ( 6­ minute average) during the startup period that is within the first 30 minutes of operation. ( b) Except during malfunctions, the requirements of this subpart apply at all times, and each malfunction must not exceed 3 hours. § 62.14820 How must I monitor opacity for air curtain incinerators that burn 100 percent wood wastes and clean lumber? ( a) Use Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A to determine compliance with the opacity limitation. ( b) Conduct an initial test for opacity as specified in § 60.8 no later than 90 days after the date one year after promulgation of the CISWI Federal plan in the Federal Register. ( c) After the initial test for opacity, conduct annual tests no more than 12 calendar months following the date of your previous test. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70669 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 62.14825 What are the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for air curtain incinerators that burn 100 percent wood wastes and clean lumber? ( a) Keep records of results of all initial and annual opacity tests onsite in either paper copy or electronic format, unless the Administrator approves another format, for at least 5 years. ( b) Make all records available for submittal to the Administrator or for an inspector's onsite review. ( c) Submit an initial report no later than 60 days following the initial opacity test that includes the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) The types of materials you plan to combust in your air curtain incinerator. ( 2) The results ( each 6­ minute average) of the initial opacity tests. ( d) Submit annual opacity test results within 12 months following the previous report. ( e) Submit initial and annual opacity test reports as electronic or paper copy on or before the applicable submittal date and keep a copy onsite for a period of 5 years. Title V Requirements § 62.14830 Does this subpart require me to obtain an operating permit under title V of the Clean Air Act? Yes. If you are subject to this subpart, you are required to apply for and obtain a title V operating permit unless you meet the relevant requirements specified in 40 CFR 62.14525( a) ( h) and ( j) ( o) and all of the requirements specified in 40 CFR 62.14531. § 62.14835 When must I submit a title V permit application for my existing CISWI unit? ( a) If your existing CISWI unit is not subject to an earlier permit application deadline, a complete title V permit application must be submitted not later than the date 36 months after promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD ( December 1, 2003), or by the effective date of the applicable State, Tribal, or Federal operating permits program, whichever is later. For any existing CISWI unit not subject to an earlier application deadline, this final application deadline applies regardless of when this Federal plan is effective, or when the relevant State or Tribal section 111( d)/ 129 plan is approved by EPA and becomes effective. See sections 129( e), 503( c), 503( d), and 502( a) of the Clean Air Act. ( b) A `` complete'' title V permit application is one that has been determined or deemed complete by the relevant permitting authority under section 503( d) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 70.5( a)( 2) or 71.5( a)( 2). You must submit a complete permit application by the relevant application deadline in order to operate after this date in compliance with Federal law. See sections 503( d) and 502( a) of the Clean Air Act; 40 CFR 70.7( b) and 71.7( b). Definitions § 62.14840 What definitions must I know? Terms used but not defined in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, subparts A and B of part 60 and subpart A of this part 62. Administrator means the Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency or his/ her authorized representative or Administrator of a State Air Pollution Control Agency. Agricultural waste means vegetative agricultural materials such as nut and grain hulls and chaff ( e. g., almond, walnut, peanut, rice, and wheat), bagasse, orchard prunings, corn stalks, coffee bean hulls and grounds, and other vegetative waste materials generated as a result of agricultural operations. Air curtain incinerator means an incinerator that operates by forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open chamber or pit in which combustion occurs. Incinerators of this type can be constructed above or below ground and with or without refractory walls and floor. ( Air curtain incinerators are different from conventional combustion devices which typically have enclosed fireboxes and controlled air technology such as mass burn, modular, and fluidized bed combustors.) Auxiliary fuel means natural gas, liquified petroleum gas, fuel oil, or diesel fuel. Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter ( i. e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or other principle to monitor relative particulate matter loadings. Calendar quarter means three consecutive months ( nonoverlapping) beginning on: January 1, April 1, July 1, or October 1. Calendar year means 365 consecutive days starting on January 1 and ending on December 31. Chemotherapeutic waste means waste material resulting from the production or use of antineoplastic agents used for the purpose of stopping or reversing the growth of malignant cells. Clean lumber means wood or wood products that have been cut or shaped and include wet, air­ dried, and kilndried wood products. Clean lumber does not include wood products that have been painted, pigment­ stained, or pressure­ treated by compounds such as chromate copper arsenate, pentachlorophenol, and creosote. Commercial and industrial solid waste incineration ( CISWI) unit means any combustion device that combusts commercial and industrial waste, as defined in this subpart. The boundaries of a CISWI unit are defined as, but not limited to, the commercial or industrial solid waste fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system, and bottom ash. The CISWI unit does not include air pollution control equipment or the stack. The CISWI unit boundary starts at the commercial and industrial solid waste hopper ( if applicable) and extends through two areas: ( 1) The combustion unit flue gas system, which ends immediately after the last combustion chamber. ( 2) The combustion unit bottom ash system, which ends at the truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to final disposal. It includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash handling system. Commercial and industrial waste, for the purposes of this subpart, means solid waste combusted in an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion without energy recovery that is a distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility ( including field­ erected, modular, and custom built incineration units operating with starved or excess air), or solid waste combusted in an air curtain incinerator without energy recovery that is a distinct operating unit of any commercial or industrial facility. Contained gaseous material means gases that are in a container when that container is combusted. Cyclonic barrel burner means a combustion device for waste materials that is attached to a 55 gallon, openhead drum. The device consists of a lid, which fits onto and encloses the drum, and a blower that forces combustion air into the drum in a cyclonic manner to enhance the mixing of waste material and air. 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, operating limit, or VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70670 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules operator qualification and accessibility requirements; ( 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 ( 3) Fails to meet any emission limitation, operating limit, or operator qualification and accessibility requirement in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless or whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. Dioxins/ furans means tetra­ through octachlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxins and dibenzofurans. Discard means, for purposes of this subpart and 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD, only, burned in an incineration unit without energy recovery. Drum reclamation unit means a unit that burns residues out of drums ( e. g., 55 gallon drums) so that the drums can be reused. Energy recovery means the process of recovering thermal energy from combustion for useful purposes such as steam generation or process heating. Fabric filter means an add­ on air pollution control device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams through filter media, also known as a baghouse. Low­ level radioactive waste means waste material which contains radioactive nuclides emitting primarily beta or gamma radiation, or both, in concentrations or quantities that exceed applicable Federal or State standards for unrestricted release. Low­ level radioactive waste is not high­ level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by­ product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ( 42 U. S. C. 2014( e)( 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. Modification or modified CISWI unit means a CISWI unit you have changed later than promulgation of the final CISWI emission guidelines in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD and that meets one of two criteria: ( 1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the CISWI unit ( not including the cost of land) updated to current costs ( current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of the CISWI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition of CISWI unit. ( 2) Any physical change in the CISWI unit or change in the method of operating it that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 of the Clean Air Act has established standards. Particulate matter means total particulate matter emitted from CISWI units as measured by Method 5 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. Parts reclamation unit means a unit that burns coatings off parts ( e. g., tools, equipment) so that the parts can be reconditioned and reused. Pathological waste means waste material consisting of only human or animal remains, anatomical parts, and/ or tissue, the bags/ containers used to collect and transport the waste material, and animal bedding ( if applicable). Rack reclamation unit means a unit that burns the coatings off racks used to hold small items for application of a coating. The unit burns the coating overspray off the rack so the rack can be reused. Reconstruction means rebuilding a CISWI unit and meeting two criteria: ( 1) The reconstruction begins on or after promulgation of the final CISWI emission guidelines in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. ( 2) The cumulative cost of the construction over the life of the incineration unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the CISWI unit ( not including land) updated to current costs ( current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of the CISWI unit used to calculate these costs, see the definition of CISWI unit. Refuse­ derived fuel means a type of municipal solid waste produced by processing municipal solid waste through shredding and size classification. This includes all classes of refuse­ derived fuel including two fuels: ( 1) Low­ density fluff refuse­ derived fuel through densified refuse­ derived fuel. ( 2) Pelletized refuse­ derived fuel. Shutdown means the period of time after all waste has been combusted in the primary chamber. Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended ( 86 Stat. 880), or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ( 68 Stat. 923). For purposes of this subpart and 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD, only, solid waste does not include the waste burned in the fifteen types of units described in 40 CFR 60.2555 of subpart DDDD and § 62.14525 of this subpart. Standard conditions, when referring to units of measure, means a temperature of 68 ° F ( 20 ° C) and a pressure of 1 atmosphere ( 101.3 kilopascals). Startup period means the period of time between the activation of the system and the first charge to the unit. Tribal plan means a plan submitted by a Tribal Authority pursuant to 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81 that implements and enforces 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. Wet scrubber means an add­ on air pollution control device that utilizes an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquor to collect particulate matter ( including nonvaporous metals and condensed organics) and/ or to absorb and neutralize acid gases. Wood waste means untreated wood and untreated wood products, including tree stumps ( whole or chipped), trees, tree limbs ( whole or chipped), bark, sawdust, chips, scraps, slabs, millings, and shavings. Wood waste does not include: ( 1) Grass, grass clippings, bushes, shrubs, and clippings from bushes and shrubs from residential, commercial/ retail, institutional, or industrial sources as part of maintaining yards or other private or public lands. ( 2) Construction, renovation, or demolition wastes. ( 3) Clean lumber. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70671 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 OF SUBPART III OF PART 62. EMISSION LIMITATIONS For the air pollutant You must meet this emission limitation a Using this averaging time And determining compliance using this method Cadmium ................................................ 0.004 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter. 3­ run average ( 1 hour minimum sample time per run). Performance test ( Method 29 of appendix A of part 60) Carbon monoxide ................................... 157 parts per million by dry volume. 3­ run average ( 1 hour minimum sample time per run). Performance test ( Method 10, 10A, or 10B, of appendix A of part 60) Dioxins/ furans ( toxic equivalency basis) 0.41 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter. 3­ run average ( 4 hour minimum sample time per run). Performance test ( Method 23 of appendix A of part 60) Hydrogen chloride .................................. 62 parts per million by dry volume. 3­ run average ( 1 hour minimum sample time per run). Performance test ( Method 26A of appendix A of part 60) Lead ........................................................ 0.04 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter. 3­ run average ( 1 hour minimum sample time per run). Performance test ( Method 29 of appendix A of part 60) Mercury ................................................... 0.47 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter. 3­ run average ( 1 hour minimum sample time per run). Performance test ( Method 29 of appendix A of part 60) Opacity ................................................... 10 percent ............................. 6­ minute averages ................ Performance test ( Method 9 of appendix A of part 60) Oxides of nitrogen .................................. 388 parts per million by dry volume. 3­ run average ( 1 hour minimum sample time per run). Performance test ( Methods average 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A of part 60) Particulate matter ................................... 70 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter. 3­ run average ( 1 hour minimum sample time per run). Performance test ( Method 5 or 29 of appendix A of part 60) Sulfur dioxide .......................................... 20 parts per million by dry volume. 3­ run average ( 1 hour minimum sample time per run). Performance test ( Method 6 or 6c of appendix A of part volume 60) a All emission limitations ( except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. TABLE 2 OF SUBPART III OF PART 62. OPERATING LIMITS FOR WET SCRUBBERS For these operating parameters You must establish these operating limits And monitor using these minimum frequencies Data measurement Data recording Averaging time Charge rate ........................... Maximum charge rate .......... Continuous ....... Every hour ........ 1. Daily ( batch units). 2. 3­ hour rolling ( continuous and intermittent units). a Pressure drop across the wet scrubber or amperage to wet scrubber. Minimum pressure drop or amperage. Continuous ....... Every 15 minutes 3­ hour rolling. a Scrubber liquor flow rate ....... Minimum flow rate ................ Continuous ....... Every 15 minutes 3­ hour rolling. a Scrubber liquor pH ................ Minimum pH ......................... Continuous ....... Every 15 minutes 3­ hour rolling a a Calculated each hour as the average of the previous 3 operating hours. TABLE 3 OF SUBPART III OF PART 62. TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS Dioxin/ furan congener Toxic equivalency factor A. 2,3,7,8­ tetrachlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxin ................................................................................................................................................ 1 B. 12,3,7,8­ pentachlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxin ............................................................................................................................................ 0.5 C. 1,2,3,4,7,8­ hexachlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxin ......................................................................................................................................... 0.1 D. 1,2,3,7,8,9­ hexachlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxin ......................................................................................................................................... 0.1 E. 12,3,6,7,8­ hexachlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxin .......................................................................................................................................... 0.1 F. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ heptachlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxin ..................................................................................................................................... 0.01 G. 0ctachlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxin ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.001 H. 2,3,7,8­ tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 I. 2,3,4,7,8­ pentachlorinated dibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................. 0.5 J. 1,2,3,7,8­ pentachlorinated dibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................. 0.05 K. 1,2,3,4,7,8­ hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0.1 L. 1,2,3,6,7,8­ hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0.1 M. 1,2,3,7,8,9­ hexachlorinated dibenzofuran .............................................................................................................................................. 0.1 N. 2,3,4,6,7,8­ hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0.1 O. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ heptachlorinated dibenzofuran .......................................................................................................................................... 0.01 P. 1,2,3,4,7,8,9­ heptachlorinated dibenzofuran ........................................................................................................................................... 0.01 Q. 0ctachlorinated dibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.001 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2 70672 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 227 / Monday, November 25, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 OF SUBPART III OF PART 62. SUMMARY OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Report Due Date Contents Reference A. Waste Management Plan. No later than the date 6 months after publication of the final rule the Federal Register. Waste management plan ...................................... § 62.14715. B. Initial Test Report ........ No later than 60 days following the performance test. 1. Complete test report for the initial performance test. 2. The values for the site­ specific operating limits 3. Installation of bag leak detection systems for fabric filters. § 62.14720. C. Annual Report ............. No later than 12 months following the submission of the initial test report. Subsequent reports are to be submitted no more than 12 months following the previous report. 1. Name and address ............................................ 2. Statement and signature by responsible official 3. Date of report .................................................... 4. Values for the operating limits .......................... 5. If no deviations or malfunctions were reported, a statement that no deviations occurred during reporting period. 6. Highest recorded 3­ hour average and the lowest 3­ hour average, as applicable, for each operating parameter recorded for the calendar year being reported. 7. Information for deviations or malfunctions recorded under § 62.14700( b)( 6) and ( c) through ( e). 8. If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the results of the test. 9. If a performance test was not conducted during the reporting period, a statement that the requirements of § 62.14680( a) or ( b) were met. 10. Documentation of periods when all qualified CISWI unit operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours but less than 2 weeks. § § 62.14725 and 62.14730 Subsequent reports are to be submmitted no moer than 12 months following the previous report D. Emission Limitation or Operating Limit Deviation Report. By August 1 of that year for data collected during the first half of the calendar year. By February 1 of the following year for data collected during the second half of the calendar year. 1. Dates and times of deviations .......................... 2. Averaged and recorded data for these dates ... 3. Duration and causes for each deviation and the corrective actions taken. 4. Copy of operating limit monitoring data and any test reports. 5. Dates, times, and causes for monitor downtime incidents. 6. Whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. § § 62.14735 and 62.14740. E. Qualified Operator Deviation Notification. Within 10 days of deviation 1. Statement of cause of deviation ....................... 2. Description of efforts to have an accessible qualified operator. 3. The date a qualified operator will be accessible § 62.14745( a)( 1). F. Qualified Operator Deviation Status Report. Every 4 weeks following deviation. 1. Description of efforts to have an accessible qualified operator. 2. The date a qualified operator will be accessible 3. Request for approval to continue operation ..... § 62.14745( a)( 2). G. Qualified Operator Deviation Notification of Resumed Operation. Prior to resuming operation Notification that you are resuming operation ........ § 62.14745( b). a This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements. [ FR Doc. 02 28923 Filed 11 22 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 18: 05 Nov 22, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25NOP2. SGM 25NOP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.572208

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0074-0001

Proposed Rule

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products; Proposed Rule

Wednesday, December 4, 2002 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products; Proposed Rule VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72276 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ FRL 7385 7] RIN 2060 AG57 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for plastic parts and products surface coating operations located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP). The proposed standards would implement section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) by requiring these operations to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). The proposed rule would protect air quality and promote the public health by reducing emissions of HAP emitted in the largest quantities by facilities in the surface coating of plastic parts and products source category to include methyl ethyl ketone ( MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone ( MIBK), toluene, and xylenes. Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, and effects on the central nervous system, liver, and heart. In general, these findings have only been shown with concentrations higher than those typically in the ambient air. The proposed standards would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from major sources in this source category by approximately 80 percent. DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 3, 2003. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing, they should do so by December 24, 2002. If requested, a public hearing will be held within approximately 30 days following publication of this notice in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Comments. By U. S. Postal Service, written comments should be submitted ( in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( 6102T), Attention Docket Number A 99 12, 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 ( 6102T), Attention Docket Number A 99 12, U. S. EPA, Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division ( C539 03), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 7946, to request to speak at a public hearing or to find out if a hearing will be held. Docket. Docket No. A 99 12 contains supporting information used in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U. S. EPA, Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460, and may be inspected from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division ( C539 03), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number ( 919) 541 5580; facsimile number ( 919) 541 5689; electronic mail ( e­ mail) address: teal. kim@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by e­ mail to: a­ and­ rdocket epa. gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A 99 12. 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: Ms. Kim Teal, c/ o OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404 02), U. S. EPA, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The EPA 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 it is received by EPA, 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 Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division ( C539 03), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number ( 919) 541 7946 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also contact Ms. Eck to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed emission standards. Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. 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 will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. ( See section 307( d)( 7)( A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by calling ( 202) 566 1742. 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 by the EPA Administrator, 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. Regulated Entities. The source category definition includes facilities that apply coatings to plastic parts and VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72277 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules products. In general, facilities that coat plastic parts and products are covered under the Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) and North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes listed in Table 1. However, facilities classified under other SIC or NAICS codes may be subject to the proposed standards if they meet the applicability criteria. Not all facilities classified under the SIC and NAICS codes in the following table will be subject to the proposed standards because some of the classifications cover products outside the scope of the NESHAP for plastic parts and products. TABLE 1. CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THE PROPOSED STANDARDS Category SIC NAICS Examples of potentially regulated entities Industrial ...................................... 2522 337214 ............................... Office furniture, except wood. 3086 32614, 32615 ..................... Plastic foam products ( e. g., pool floats, wrestling mats, life jackets 3089 326199 ............................... Plastic products not elsewhere classified ( e. g., name plates, coin holders, storage boxes, license plate housings, cosmetic caps, cup holders). 3579 333313 ............................... Office machines. 3663 33422 ................................. Radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment ( e. g., cellular telephones). 3711 336211 ............................... Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing. 3714 336399 ............................... Motor vehicle parts and accessories. 3715 336212 ............................... Truck Trailer Manufacturing. 3716 336213 ............................... Motor Home Manufacturing. 3792 336214 ............................... Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing. 3799 336999 ............................... Transportation equipment not elsewhere classified ( e. g., snowmobile hoods, running boards, tractor body panels, personal watercraft parts). 3841 339111, 339112 ................. Medical equipment and supplies. 3949 33992 ................................. Sporting and athletic goods. 3993 33995 ................................. Signs and advertising specialties. 3999 339999 ............................... Manufacturing industries not elsewhere classified ( e. g., bezels, consoles, panels, lenses). Federal, State, and Local Governments ................ ............................................. Government owned or operated facilities that perform plastic parts and products surface coating. Examples include Department of Defense facilities. 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 coating operation is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.4481 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 are used in the development of NESHAP? C. What are the health effects associated with HAP emissions from the surface coating of plastic parts and products? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by this proposed rule? B. What is the relationship to other rules? C. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions? D. What is the affected source? E. What are the emission limits, operating limits, and other standards? F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? G. What are the continuous compliance provisions? 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 subcategories? B. How did we select the regulated pollutants? C. How did we select the affected source? D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards for existing and new sources? E. How did we select the format of the proposed standards? F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements? G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements? H. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? I. How did we select the compliance date? IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts A. What are the air 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. 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 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. The Plastic Parts and Products ( Surface Coating) category of major sources was listed on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576) under the Surface Coating Processes industry group. Major sources of HAP are those that emit or have the potential to emit equal to, or greater than, 9.1 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72278 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules megagrams per year ( Mg/ yr) ( 10 tons per year ( tpy)) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/ yr ( 25 tpy) of any combination of HAP. B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing 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 subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled 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 bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory ( or the best­ performing five 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 the cost of achieving the emission reductions, any non­ air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP Emissions From the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products? The major HAP emitted from the plastic parts and products surface coating industry include MEK, MIBK, toluene, and xylenes. These compounds account for over 85 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category. Other HAP identified in emissions include ethylene glycol monobutyl ether ( EGBE) and glycol ethers. The HAP that would be controlled with this proposed rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects include chronic health disorders ( e. g., birth defects and effects on the central nervous system, liver, and heart), and acute health disorders ( e. g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, and effects on the central nervous system). We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities covered by the proposed emission standards for this source category, and the people living around the facilities, that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the proposed rule would reduce emissions and subsequent exposures. II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected By This Proposed Rule? The proposed rule will apply to you if you own or operate a plastic parts and products surface coating facility that is a major source, or is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions. We have defined a plastic parts and products surface coating facility as any facility engaged in the surface coating of any plastic part or product. You will not be subject to the proposed rule if your plastic parts and products surface coating facility is located at an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility that has the potential to emit HAP but is not a major source. You may establish area source status by limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through your permitting authority. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations, or hobby shops that are operated for personal rather than commercial purposes. The source category also does not include coating of magnet wire, coating of plastics to produce fiberglass boats ( except postmold coating of personal watercraft or their parts), or the extrusion of plastic onto a part or product to form a coating. Post­ mold coating of personal watercraft and their parts is included in the source category. This source category also does not include surface coating of plastic parts and products that would be subject to certain other subparts of 40 CFR part 63. In particular, it does not include the following coating operations: ( 1) Coating operations that are subject to the aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities NESHAP ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG). ( 2) Operations coating plastic and wood that are subject to the wood furniture NESHAP ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ). ( 3) Operations coating plastic and metal parts of large appliances that are subject to the large appliance surface coating NESHAP ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN, 67 FR 48254, July 23, 2002). ( 4) Operations coating plastic and metal parts of metal furniture that would be subject to the proposed metal furniture surface coating NESHAP ( 67 FR 20206, April 24, 2002). ( 5) Operations coating plastic and wood parts of wood building products that would be subject to the proposed wood building products surface coating NESHAP ( 67 FR 42400, June 21, 2002). ( 6) In­ mold and gel coating operations in manufacturing of reinforced plastic composites that are subject to the proposed reinforced plastics composites production NESHAP ( 66 FR 40324, August 2, 2001). ( 7) Surface coating of parts that are pre­ assembled from plastic and metal components, where greater than 50 percent of the surface area coated is metal and subject to the proposed NESHAP for the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products ( subpart MMMM of part 63; 67 FR 52780, August 13, 2002). If you can demonstrate that more than 50 percent of the surface area coated is comprised of metal, then you would need to demonstrate compliance only with the proposed NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products ( proposed subpart MMMM of part 63; 67 FR 52780, August 13, 2002). You must maintain records to document that more than 50 percent of the surface area coated is metal. We have established four subcategories in the plastic parts and products surface coating source category: ( 1) General use coating, ( 2) thermoplastic olefin ( TPO) coating, ( 3) headlamp coating, and ( 4) assembled on­ road vehicle coating. The general use coating subcategory includes all plastic parts and products coating operations except TPO, headlamp, and assembled on­ road vehicle coating. This includes operations that coat a wide variety of substrates, surfaces, and types of plastic parts, as well as more specialized coating scenarios. Each subcategory consists of all coating operations, including associated surface VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72279 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules preparation, equipment cleaning, mixing, storage, and waste handling. As discussed in section III. A. of this preamble, our analysis of data currently available to us indicates that while subcategories for headlamp coating, TPO coating, and assembled on­ road vehicle coating are appropriate, there is no need for further subcategorization. We are, however, interested in public comments regarding whether there is additional information that would indicate the need for a separate subcategory for other plastic coating operations. Subcategorization may be appropriate in operations that employ separate and distinct processes for which there is no technology available ( including reformulation) to allow compliance with the general use limits. We welcome public comments and data on any additional separate and distinct coating operations, including facilityspecific data on processes, coating and cleaning material usage, emissions, and control techniques that may require consideration for subcategorization. Late in development of the proposed rule, Department of Defense ( DoD) stakeholders approached EPA and suggested that their operations are distinctly different from the kinds of operations addressed in these standards. Furthermore, DoD operations may present unique challenges in permitting, demonstrating compliance, and enforcement of potentially overlapping regulations. The DoD stakeholders suggested that a separate subcategory or source category dealing with multiple surface coating operations performed by DoD civilian and military personnel or performed at DoD installations may be appropriate. Some of the specific concerns expressed by DoD stakeholders include the requirement to purchase materials that meet military specifications for their surface coating operations. Military specifications are typically based on the coating's performance characteristics ( e. g., chemical agent resistance), and the coatings must often be compatible with multiple substrates. These materials are purchased using a stock number which could represent hundreds of different formulations that meet the performance specifications; however, the HAP content of such materials could fluctuate widely between formulations. Additionally, since the materials may be used at the maintenance depot, DoD installation, or in the field, the options available to achieve emissions reductions ( e. g., addon control technology) could be limited. Furthermore, much of DoD equipment is coated as an assembled product comprised of as many as five different substrates, in a wide range of shapes and sizes, which must be capable of serving in a multitude of challenging environments and situations. We are currently evaluating the need for a DoD source category or subcategory, and we request comment on the appropriate approach for addressing unique DoD coating operations. An alternative approach to establishing separate emission limits for each subcategory would be to establish a `` multi­ component'' emission limit for the entire source category. A multicomponent approach could allow sources to calculate a source­ specific emission limit based on a weightedaverage using the MACT limit and the percentage solids for each component of the limit. The source would then calculate its emission rate to determine compliance with the source­ specific emission limit. The source­ specific emission limit would be calculated as follows: Emission Limit = [`` component A'' MACT limit) × (`` component A'' % solids)]+ [`` component B'' MACT limit) × (`` component B'' % solids)] The source's emission rate would be calculated as follows: Emission Rate Total pounds of organic HAP emitted ds of solids used = Total poun The source­ specific approach would allow averaging between the different components of the multi­ component emission limit. However, there would be some additional requirements. In addition to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements included in these proposed standards, the multicomponent emission limit approach would require a source to calculate and record the source­ specific emission limit each month. The calculation would reflect a rolling 12­ month compliance period based on the amount of coating solids used for each separate component during each rolling 12­ month period. We are requesting comments on the feasibility, and burden associated with each of the approaches ( i. e., subcategory or multi­ component emission limits). Comments should include specific examples and supporting information for the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules? Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject to other rules if they perform surface coating of parts or products that are regulated by other NESHAP. For example, there may be facilities that coat plastic and metal parts using the same or different coatings, coating application processes, and conveyance equipment, either simultaneously or at alternative times. These facilities could be required to demonstrate compliance with two surface coating NESHAP ( e. g., proposed subparts MMMM ( 67 FR 52780, August 13, 2002) and PPPP) with limits based on different units ( i. e., pounds HAP emitted per gallon of coating solids used versus pounds HAP emitted per pound of coating solids used) and possibly different compliance dates. Furthermore, because their operations may not be dedicated to particular parts or products ( e. g., job shops or contract coaters), their compliance requirements could vary over time due to fluctuations in their operations. These types of facilities may present unique challenges with respect to permitting, demonstrating compliance ( e. g., possibly dual recordkeeping and reporting requirements), and enforcement. Historically, EPA has handled this situation by giving facilities the option of complying with the NESHAP with the most stringent emission limits ( i. e., the NESHAP that results in the lowest emissions from the affected source), in lieu of complying with each otherwise applicable NESHAP. This option would require sources to demonstrate which of the applicable standards is the most stringent. This demonstration is necessary because, as stated previously, the emission limits may be expressed in different units. Under this compliance option, once the demonstration is made, a facility would ensure that all coating operations covered by a NESHAP comply with the single, more stringent NESHAP. This option allows a facility operational flexibility, while ensuring that the facility is in compliance with the requirements of the CAA ( i. e., VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 EP04DE02.000</ MATH> 72280 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules achieving emissions reductions consistent with section 112( d)). This option may also simplify permitting and provide clarity for compliance and enforcement. The EPA believes that this approach towards addressing potentially overlapping regulations is appropriate in this proposed rule and solicits comments on the desirability of providing such a compliance option. A second option which may provide facilities with the desired operational flexibility is the `` predominant activity'' approach which was shared with stakeholders in May 2001. This approach would allow a facility to determine the predominant coating activity ( e. g., plastic parts) among all the coating activities that are subject to a NESHAP ( e. g., plastic parts and miscellaneous metal products) and demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP established for the source category represented by the predominant activity. A source not electing to comply with the predominant activity option would continue to be subject to separate NESHAP and would need to demonstrate compliance with each one. Although EPA received encouraging feedback for a predominant activity approach from many stakeholders ( e. g., industry representatives, State and local authorities), there were few suggestions on either how to measure and document predominant ( e. g., surface area coated, volume solids used, etc.) or the appropriate criteria for establishing which activity is predominant ( e. g., a numerical percent of the facility's surface coating operations that would qualify appropriately as predominant). In defining a predominant activity approach, the criteria used to define predominant should, for practical reasons, minimize fluctuation of the predominant activity between different source categories at job shops/ contract coaters. In addition, the basis ( e. g., surface area coated, volume solids used, etc.) for measuring predominant would need to be established and should be suitable for all sources. One possible way to help minimize fluctuation over time in what is identified as the predominant activity would be to base predictions about which activity would be predominant on appropriate records for the most recent 3 5 years. Sources would then comply with the NESHAP relevant to that predominant activity under its operating permit and would have the opportunity to review its predominant activity designation, and modify as appropriate, during each permit renewal. In implementing a predominant activity option, EPA needs to balance good public policy ( avoiding overlapping regulations where feasible and sensible) with ensuring emissions reductions consistent with the legislative mandate of sections 112( d)( 3) and ( i)( 3) of the CAA ( i. e., ensuring emission reductions achieved under the predominant activity option are comparable to those achieved through compliance with each applicable NESHAP separately). We specifically request comment on how a predominant activity approach should be structured to ensure that emission reductions achieved are consistent with the requirements of sections 112( d)( 3) and ( i)( 3). A third option under consideration is the development of a subcategory for facilities with coating operations that would otherwise be subject to more than one coating NESHAP. Based on survey data collected under CAA section 114, we would establish a MACT floor that reflects HAP emission rates from the relevant coating operations. The practical advantages associated with this approach are similar to the benefits stated for the more stringent NESHAP approach ( i. e., simplification of permitting, clarity of requirements, and achieving mandated emissions reductions). This approach may also limit the need for separate tracking systems for surface coating operations. A disadvantage with this option is that it may not afford facilities as much operational flexibility as the other two options. A fourth option is to expand the definition of the source category and four subcategories currently under consideration to include `` incidental'' surface coating operations being performed on other substrates ( e. g. metal) that meet the applicability criteria for another surface coating source category. Under this approach, a facility could demonstrate that a specified percentage of its NESHAPregulated surface coating activities are within the scope of a specific category or subcategory. The remaining NESHAP­ regulated coating operations would be considered incidental for purposes of determining which category or subcategory the overall operations were in, as they would represent a small portion of the total coating operations. Once this demonstration is made, all NESHAP­ regulated coating operations conducted at the facility would be included in, and subject to, the emission limitations for the primary source category. We request comment on the feasibility, benefits, and disadvantages associated with each option presented. We also request comment on additional options for consideration. For all options, we request facility­ specific data that would support the recommended option. These data include information on the processes; coating and cleaning material usage; the proportion of coating and cleaning material being used with different substrates; and the difference in the emission reductions achieved based on complying with each applicable NESHAP separately and the option being recommended. Additionally, we request comment and supporting documentation on the criteria ( e. g., numerical percentage) and basis ( e. g., surface area coated) for determining predominant activity and defining incidental operations. Finally, we request comment on the burden associated with monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for each option. Standards of Performance for Industrial Surface Coating: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTT The new source performance standards ( NSPS) for plastic parts for business machines apply to facilities that apply coatings to plastic parts for use in business machines that began construction, reconstruction, or modification after January 8, 1986. The pollutants regulated are volatile organic compounds ( VOC). Emissions of VOC are limited to 1.5 kilogram VOC per liter ( kg VOC/ liter) of coating solids applied for primers and color coats, and 2.3 kg VOC/ liter of coating solids applied for texture coatings and touch­ up coatings. The affected facility is each individual spray booth. The proposed rule differs from the NSPS in three ways. First, the affected source for the proposed rule is defined broadly as the collection of all coating operations and related activities and equipment at the facility, whereas the affected facility for the NSPS is defined narrowly as each individual spray booth. The broader definition of an affected source allows a facility's emissions to be combined for compliance purposes. Second, the proposed rule regulates organic HAP. While most, although not all, organic HAP emitted from plastic parts and products surface coating operations are VOC, some VOC are not listed as HAP. Therefore, the NSPS regulate a potentially different range of pollutants than the proposed NESHAP. Third, the HAP emission limitations in the proposed rule are based on the amount of coating solids used at the affected source. The VOC limitations in the NSPS are based on the amount of coating solids actually applied to the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72281 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules plastic parts and products, which necessitates estimates of transfer efficiency in the compliance calculations. Because of the differences between the NSPS and the proposed NESHAP, compliance with either rule cannot be deemed compliance with the other. A plastic parts and products surface coating operation that meets the applicability requirements of both the NSPS and the proposed NESHAP must comply with both. Overlapping reporting, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements may be resolved through your title V permit. Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities NESHAP ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GG) The aerospace NESHAP establish HAP and VOC emission limitations for aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities that produce or repair aerospace vehicles ( e. g., airplanes, helicopters, space vehicles) or vehicle parts. The aerospace NESHAP apply only to parts and assemblies that are critical to the aerospace vehicle's structural integrity or flight performance. Therefore, the possibility exists that some facilities would be subject to the requirements of both the aerospace NESHAP and the proposed plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP. For example, a facility that performs maintenance operations consisting of both exterior and interior reconstruction and overhaul of commercial airplanes may perform coating of plastic parts, such as tray tables and seat panels, that are not considered critical to the structural integrity or flight performance. These parts may be removed from the airplane and painted on­ site to cover scratches and other wear marks before being reinstalled. Such coating activities and associated equipment would be subject to the proposed plastic parts and products coating NESHAP. We do not foresee that any conflicts will exist between the requirements for the aerospace NESHAP and the proposed plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP. If a plastic part that is critical to the aerospace vehicle's structural integrity or flight performance is coated, the coating operation for that part will fall under the aerospace NESHAP. Only plastic parts that are not critical to the aerospace vehicle's structural integrity or flight performance will fall under the proposed plastic parts and products surface coating NESHAP. C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Emissions? The proposed NESHAP would regulate emissions of organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from plastic parts and products surface coating operations include MEK, MIBK, toluene, and xylenes. These compounds account for over 85 percent of this source category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. Other organic HAP emissions identified include EGBE and glycol ethers. The majority of organic HAP emissions from a facility engaged in plastic parts and products surface coating operations can be attributed to the application, drying, and curing of coatings. The remaining emissions are primarily from cleaning operations. In most cases, organic HAP emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling are relatively small. The organic HAP emissions associated with coatings ( the term `` coatings'' includes protective and decorative coatings as well as adhesives) occur due to volatilization of solvents and carriers. Coatings are most often applied either by using a spray gun in a spray booth or by dipping the substrate in a tank containing the coating. In a spray booth, volatile components evaporate from the coating as it is applied to the part and from the overspray. The coated part then passes through a flash­ off area where additional volatiles evaporate from the coating. Finally, the coated part passes through a drying/ curing oven, or is allowed to air dry, where the remaining volatiles are evaporated. Organic HAP emissions also occur from the activities undertaken during cleaning operations where solvent is used to remove coating residue or other unwanted materials. Cleaning in this industry includes cleaning of spray guns and transfer lines ( e. g., tubing or piping), tanks, and the interior of spray booths. Cleaning also includes applying solvents to manufactured parts prior to coating application and to equipment ( e. g., cleaning rollers, pumps, conveyors, etc.). Mixing and storage are other sources of emissions. Organic HAP emissions can occur from displacement of organic vapor­ laden air in containers used to store organic HAP solvents or to mix coatings containing organic HAP solvents. The displacement of vaporladen air can occur during the filling of containers and can be caused by changes in temperature or barometric pressure, or by agitation during mixing. Volatilization of organic HAP can also occur during waste handling. D. What Is the Affected Source? We define an affected source as a stationary source, a group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. The proposed standards define the affected source as the collection of all operations associated with the surface coating of plastic parts and products within each of the four subcategories ( TPO, headlamps, assembled on­ road vehicle and general use). These operations include preparation of a coating for application ( e. g., mixing with thinners or other additives); surface preparation of the plastic parts and products; coating application and flash­ off; drying and/ or curing of applied coatings; cleaning of equipment used in surface coating; storage of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and handling and conveyance of waste materials from the surface coating operations. The coating operation does not include the application of coatings using hand­ held aerosol containers. A few facilities have coating operations in more than one subcategory. For example, a few facilities have TPO coating operations that are in the TPO coating subcategory and also have other plastic parts and products coating operations that are in the general use coating subcategory. In such a case, the facility would have two separate affected sources: ( 1) The collection of all operations associated with the surface coating of TPO, and ( 2) the collection of all operations associated with general use coating. Each of these affected sources would be required to meet the emission limits that apply to its subcategory. Another example of a facility with coating operations in more than one subcategory would be a facility that assembles and paints motor homes. The use of adhesives, caulks, sealants, and associated materials in assembling the motor home would be in the general use coating subcategory and would constitute one affected source. The use of coatings and associated materials in painting the assembled motor home would be in the assembled on­ road vehicle subcategory and would constitute a second affected source. E. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards? Emission Limits. We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions from each existing affected source using the emission limits in Table 2. The proposed emission limits for each new VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72282 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules or reconstructed affected source are given in Table 3. TABLE 2. EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES For any affected source applying coating to . . . The organic HAP emission limit you must meet, in kg organic HAP emitted/ kg coating solids used ( lb organic HAP source emitted lb coating solids used), is: TPO substrates ........................ 0.23 Headlamps ............................... 0.45 Aassembled on­ road vehicles 1.34 Other ( general use) plastic parts and products. 0.16 TABLE 3. EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED AFFECTED SOURCES For any affected source applying coating to . . . The organic HAP emission limit you must meet, in kg organic HAP emitted/ kg coating solids used ( lb organic HAP emitted/ lb coating solids used), is: TPO substrates ........................ 0.17 Headlamps ............................... 0.26 Assembled on­ road vehicles .... 1.34 Other ( general use) plastic parts and products. 0.16 You can choose from several compliance options in the proposed rule to achieve the emission limits. You could comply by applying materials ( coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials) that meet the emission limits, either individually or collectively, during each compliance period. You could also use a capture system and add­ on control device to meet the emission limits. You could also comply by using a combination of both approaches. Operating Limits. If you reduce emissions by using a capture system and add­ on control device ( other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance), the proposed operating limits would apply to you. These limits are site­ specific parameter limits that you determine during the initial performance test of the system. For capture systems that are not permanent total enclosures, you would establish average volumetric flow rates or duct static pressure limits for each capture device ( e. g., a hood or enclosure) in each capture system. For capture systems that are permanent total enclosures, you would establish limits on average facial velocity or pressure drop across openings in the enclosure. For thermal oxidizers, you would monitor the combustion temperature. For catalytic oxidizers, you would monitor the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed, or you would monitor the temperature before the catalyst bed and prepare and implement an inspection and maintenance plan that includes periodic catalyst activity checks. For carbon adsorbers for which you do not conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature and the amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. For condensers for which you do not conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature from the condenser. For concentrators, you would monitor the temperature of the desorption stream and the pressure drop across the concentrator. The site­ specific parameter limits that you establish must reflect operation of the capture system and control device during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limits during representative operating conditions. Work Practice Standards. If you use an emission capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from mixing operations, storage tanks and other containers, and handling operations for coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device. The NESHAP General Provisions at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP and would apply to you as indicated in the proposed rule. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliance­ related activities such as notifications, reporting and recordkeeping, performance testing, and monitoring. The proposed rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that are relevant. However, unless specifically overridden in the proposed rule, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply to you. F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? Existing affected sources would have to be in compliance with the final rule no later than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. New and reconstructed sources would have to be in compliance upon initial startup of the affected source or by the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. The effective date is the date on which the final rule is published in the Federal Register. However, affected sources would not be required to demonstrate compliance until the end of the initial compliance period when they will have accumulated the necessary records to document the rolling 12­ month organic HAP emission rate. Compliance with the emission limits is based on a rolling 12­ month organic HAP emission rate determined each month. Each 12­ month period is a compliance period. The initial compliance period, therefore, is the 12­ month period beginning on the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period begins on the compliance date and extends through the end of that month plus the following 12 months. We have defined `` month'' as a calendar month or a pre­ specified period of 28 to 35 days to allow for flexibility at sources where data are based on a business accounting period. Being `` in compliance'' means that the owner or operator of the affected source meets the requirements to achieve the proposed emission limitations during the initial compliance period. However, they will not have accumulated the records for the rolling 12­ month organic HAP emission rate until the end of the initial compliance period. At the end of the initial compliance period, the owner or operator would use the data and records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in compliance with the organic HAP emission limit and other applicable requirements for that period. If the affected source does not meet the applicable limit and other requirements, it is out of compliance. Emission Limits. There are three proposed options for complying with VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72283 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules the proposed emission limits, and the testing and initial compliance requirements vary accordingly. You may choose to use one compliance option for the entire affected source, or you may use different compliance options for different coating operations within the affected source. You may also use different compliance options for the same coating operation at different times. Option 1: Compliant Materials This option is a pollution prevention option that allows you to easily demonstrate compliance by using low­ HAP or non­ HAP coatings and other materials. If you use coatings that, based on their organic HAP content, individually meet the kg ( pound ( lb)) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used levels in the applicable emission limits and you use non­ HAP thinners and other additives and cleaning materials, this compliance option is available to you. For this option, we have minimized recordkeeping and reporting requirements. You can demonstrate compliance by using manufacturer's formulation data and readily available purchase records to determine the organic HAP content of each coating or other material and the amount of each material used. You would not need to perform any detailed emission rate calculations. If you demonstrate compliance based on the coatings and other materials used, you would demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each coating meets the emission limits for the appropriate subcategory as shown in Tables 2 and 3, and that you used no organic HAP­ containing thinners, other additives, or cleaning materials. For example, if you are using the compliant materials option and your existing source has TPO coating operations, headlamp coating operations, assembled on­ road vehicle coating operations, and general use coating operations, you would demonstrate that: ( 1) Each coating used in the TPO coating operation has an organic HAP content no greater than 0.23 kg ( 0.23 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used; ( 2) each coating used in the headlamp coating operations has an organic HAP content no greater than 0.45 kg ( 0.45 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used; ( 3) each coating used in the assembled on­ road vehicle coating operations has an organic HAP content no greater than 1.34 kg ( 1.34 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used; ( 4) each general use coating has an organic HAP content no greater than 0.16 kg ( 0.16 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used; ( 5) and that you used no organic HAP­ containing thinners, other additives, or cleaning materials. Note that `` no organic HAP'' is not intended to mean absolute zero. Materials that contain `` no organic HAP'' should be interpreted to mean materials that contain organic HAP levels below the levels specified in § 63.4541( a) of the proposed rule, which are typical reporting levels. These typical reporting levels only count organic HAP that are present at 0.1 percent or more by mass for Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA)­ defined carcinogens and at 1.0 percent or more by mass for other compounds. To determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials and the mass fraction of coating solids, you could rely on manufacturer's formulation data. You would not be required to perform tests or analysis of the material if formulation data are available. Alternatively, you could use results from the test methods listed below. You may also use alternative test methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with the NESHAP General Provisions, 40 CFR 63.7( f). However, if there is any inconsistency between the test method results ( either EPA's or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's data, the test method results would prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes. If you elect to perform tests: For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. The proposed rule would allow you to use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP, which would include all organic HAP plus all other organic compounds, and excluding water. If you choose this option, use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For mass fraction of coating solids, use Method 24. Option 2: Compliance Based on the Emission Rate Without Add­ on Controls This option is a pollution prevention option where you can demonstrate compliance based on the organic HAP contained in the mix of coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials you use. This option allows you the flexibility to use some individual coatings that do not, by themselves, meet the kg ( lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used levels in the applicable emission limits if you use other low­ HAP or non­ HAP coatings such that overall emissions from the affected source over a 12­ month period meet the emission limits. You must use this option if you use HAP­ containing thinners, other additives, and cleaning materials and do not have add­ on controls. You would keep track of the mass of organic HAP in each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material, and the amount of each material you use in your affected source each month of the compliance period. You would use this information to determine the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials divided by the total mass of coating solids used during the compliance period. You would demonstrate that your emission rate ( in kg ( lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used) meets the applicable emission limit. You can use readily available purchase records and manufacturer's formulation data to determine the amount of each coating or other material you used and the organic HAP in each material. The proposed rule contains equations that show you how to perform the calculations to demonstrate compliance. If you demonstrate compliance using Option 2, you would be required to: Determine the quantity of each coating, thinner and other additive, and cleaning material used. Determine the mass of organic HAP in each coating, thinner and other additive, and cleaning material using the same types of data and methods previously described for Option 1. You may rely on manufacturer's formulation data or you may choose to use test results as described under Option 1. Determine the mass fraction of coating solids for each coating using the same types of data or methods described under Option 1. Calculate the total mass of organic HAP in all materials and total mass of coating solids used each month. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions and total mass of coating solids for the initial compliance period by adding together all the monthly values for mass of organic HAP and for mass of coating solids for the 12 months of the initial compliance period. Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP emitted for the materials used to the total mass of coating solids used ( kg ( lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) of coating solids used) for the initial compliance period. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72284 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. Note that if you choose to use this option for a particular coating operation rather than for an entire affected source, you would calculate the organic HAP emission rate using just the materials used in that operation. Similarly, if your facility has multiple affected sources using this option ( e. g., a TPO affected source, a headlamp affected source, an assembled on­ road vehicle affected source, and a general use affected source), you would do a separate calculation for each affected source to show that each affected source meets its emission limit. Option 3: Emission Rate With Add­ on Controls Option This option allows sources to use a capture system and an add­ on pollution control device, such as a combustion device or a recovery device, to meet the emission limits. While we believe that, based on typical emission characteristics, most sources will not use control devices, we are providing this option for sources that can use control devices. Fewer than 10 percent of the existing sources for which we have data use control devices and may continue using the control devices for compliance with the proposed standards. Under this option, testing is required to demonstrate the capture system and control device efficiency. Alternatively, you may conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance to demonstrate the amount of organic HAP collected by your recovery device. The proposed rule provides equations showing you how to use records of materials usage, organic HAP contents of each material, capture and control efficiencies, and coating solids content to calculate your emission rate during the compliance period. If you demonstrate compliance based on this option, you would demonstrate that your emission rate considering controls ( in kg ( lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) of coating solids used) is less than the applicable emission limit. For a capture system and add­ on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquidliquid material balance, your testing and initial compliance requirements would be as follows: Conduct an initial performance test to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the equipment and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis. The performance test would have to be completed no later than the compliance date for existing sources and 180 days after the compliance date for new and reconstructed sources. Determine the mass of organic HAP in each coating and other material, and the mass fraction of coating solids for each coating used each month of the initial compliance period. Calculate the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings and other materials, and total mass of coating solids used each month in the controlled operation or group of coating operations. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. Calculate the organic HAP emissions from the controlled coating operations each month using the capture and control efficiencies determined during the performance test, and the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations that month. Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions and total volume of coating solids for the initial compliance period by adding together all the monthly values for mass of organic HAP emissions and for mass of coating solids for the 12 months in the initial compliance period. Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP emissions to the total mass of coating solids used during the initial compliance period. Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. Develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize emissions from storage, mixing, and handling of organic HAP­ containing materials. Note that if you choose to use this option for a particular coating operation rather than for the entire affected source, you would calculate the organic HAP emission rate using just the materials used in that operation. Similarly, if your facility has multiple affected sources using this option ( e. g., a TPO affected source, a headlamp affected source, an assembled on­ road vehicle affected source, and a general use affected source), you would do a separate calculation for each affected source to show that each affected source meets its emission limit. If you use a capture system and addon control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances, you would use specified test methods to determine both the efficiency of the capture system and the emission reduction efficiency of the control device. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M ( and all materials must be applied and dried within the enclosure); or use one of three protocols in § 63.4565 of the proposed rule to measure capture efficiency. If you have a permanent total enclosure and all materials are applied and dried within the enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, you would assume 100 percent capture. To determine the emission reduction efficiency of the control device, you would conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas streams. The test would consist of three runs, each run lasting 1 hour, using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A: Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas volumetric flow rate. Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. Method 4 to determine stack moisture. Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter concentration. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be used. If you use a solvent recovery system, you could choose to determine the overall control efficiency using a liquidliquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test. If you use the material balance alternative, you would be required to measure the amount of all materials used in the controlled coating operations served by the solvent recovery system during each month of the initial compliance period and determine the total volatile matter contained in these materials. You would also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during each month of the initial compliance period. Then you would compare the amount recovered to the amount used to determine the overall control efficiency each month and apply this efficiency to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions for the month. You would total these 12 monthly organic HAP emission values and divide by the total of the 12 monthly values for coating solids used to calculate the emission rate for the 12­ month initial compliance period. You would record the calculations and VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72285 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. Operating Limits. As mentioned above, you would establish operating limits as part of the initial performance test of a capture system and control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances. The operating limits are the minimum or maximum ( as applicable) values achieved for capture systems and control devices during the most recent performance test, conducted under representative conditions, that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits. The proposed rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of emission control systems commonly used in the industry. You would be required to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and ensure that the continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS) meet the requirements in § 63.4568 of the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by EPA and is not delegated to States. If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you would continuously monitor the appropriate temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit would be the average temperature measured during the performance test and for each consecutive 3­ hour period, the average temperature would have to be at or above this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limits would be the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance test. For each 3­ hour period, the average temperature and the average temperature difference would have to be at or above these limits. Alternatively, you would be allowed to meet only the temperature limit before the catalyst bed if you develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer. If you use a carbon adsorber and do not conduct liquid­ liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration. The operating limits would be the carbon bed temperature at the time the carbon bed is returned to service ( not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or nitrogen used for desorption ( to be met as a minimum). If you use a condenser and do not conduct liquid­ liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature to ensure that the air stream is being cooled to a low enough temperature. The operating limit would be the average condenser outlet gas temperature measured during the performance test and for each consecutive 3­ hour period the average temperature would have to be at or below this limit. If you use a concentrator, you would monitor the temperature of the desorption concentrate stream and the pressure drop across the concentrator. These values would be recorded at least once every 15 minutes. The operating limits would be the average temperature ( to be met as a minimum) and the average pressure drop ( not to be exceeded) measured during the performance test. For each capture system that is not a permanent total enclosure, you would establish operating limits for gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each enclosure or capture device. The operating limit would be the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure during the performance test, to be met as a minimum. For each capture system that is a permanent total enclosure, the operating limit would require the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings to be at least 200 feet per minute or the pressure drop across the enclosure to be at least 0.007 inches water. Work Practices. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and implement on an ongoing basis a work practice plan for minimizing organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, material handling, and waste handling operations. This plan would include a description of all steps taken to minimize emissions from these sources ( e. g., using closed storage containers, practices to minimize emissions during filling and transfer of contents from containers, using spill minimization techniques, placing solvent­ laden cloths in closed containers immediately after use, etc.). You would have to make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device. G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions? Emission Limits. If you use the compliant materials option ( Option 1), you would demonstrate continuous compliance if each coating meets the applicable emission limit and you use no organic HAP­ containing thinners, other additives, or cleaning materials. If you use the emission rate without addon controls option ( Option 2), you would demonstrate continuous compliance if, for each 12­ month compliance period, the ratio of kg ( lb) organic HAP emitted to kg ( lb) coating solids used is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit. You would follow the same procedures for calculating the organic HAP emitted to coating solids ratio that you used for the initial compliance period. For each coating operation on which you use a capture system and control device ( Option 3) other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance, you would use the continuous parameter monitoring results for the month as part of the determination of the mass of organic HAP emissions. If the monitoring results indicate no deviations from the operating limits and there were no bypasses of the control device, you would assume the capture system and control device are achieving the same percent emission reduction efficiency as they did during the most recent performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. You would then apply this percent reduction to the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in the controlled coating operations to determine the emissions from those operations during the month. If there were any deviations from the operating limits during the month or any bypasses of the control device, you would account for them in the calculation of the monthly emissions by assuming the capture system and control device were achieving zero emission reduction during the periods of deviation. Then you would determine the organic HAP emission rate by dividing the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the 12­ month compliance period by the total mass of coating solids used during the 12­ month compliance period. Every month, you would calculate the emission rate for the previous 12­ month period. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72286 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules For each coating operation on which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance each month, you would use the liquidliquid material balance to determine control efficiency. To determine the overall control efficiency, you must measure the amount of all materials used during each month and determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month, calculate the overall control efficiency, and apply it to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions each month. Then you would determine the 12­ month organic HAP emission rate in the same manner described above. Operating Limits. If you use a capture system and control device, the proposed rule would require you to achieve on a continuous basis the operating limits you establish during the performance test. If the continuous monitoring shows that the capture system and control device are operating outside the range of values established during the performance test, you have deviated from the established operating limits. If you operate a capture system and control device with bypass lines that could allow emissions to bypass the control device, you would have to demonstrate that captured organic HAP emissions within the affected source are being routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control device. You may choose from the following four monitoring procedures: Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device; Car­ seal or lock­ and­ key valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating; Valve closure monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or Automatic shutdown system to stop the coating operation when flow is diverted from the control device. A deviation would occur for any period of time the bypass monitoring indicates that emissions are not routed to the control device. Work Practices. If you use an emission capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to implement, on an ongoing basis, the work practice plan you developed during the initial compliance period. If you did not develop a plan for reducing organic HAP emissions or you do not implement the plan, this would be a deviation from the work practice standard. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to operate according to your SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device. H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You are required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in the proposed rule. The General Provisions notification requirements include: initial notifications, notification of performance test if you are complying using a capture system and control device, notification of compliance status, and additional notifications required for affected sources with continuous monitoring systems. The General Provisions also require certain records and periodic reports. Initial Notifications. If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must send a notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your facility is located and to your State agency no later than 1 year after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. For new and reconstructed sources, you must send the notification within 120 days after the date of initial startup or 120 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later. That report notifies us and your State agency that you have an existing affected source that is subject to the proposed standards or that you have constructed a new affected source. Thus, it allows you and the permitting authority to plan for compliance activities. You would also need to send a notification of planned construction or reconstruction of a source that would be subject to the proposed rule and apply for approval to construct or reconstruct. Notification of Performance Test. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device for which you do not conduct a liquidliquid material balance, you would conduct a performance test. The performance test would be required no later than the compliance date for an existing affected source. For a new or reconstructed affected source, the performance test would be required no later than 180 days after startup or 180 days after Federal Register publication of the final rule, whichever is later. You must notify us ( or the delegated State or local agency) at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin and submit a report of the performance test results no later than 60 days after the test. Notification of Compliance Status. You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status within 30 days after the end of the initial 12­ month compliance period. In the notification, you must certify whether each affected source has complied with the proposed standards, identify the option( s) you used to demonstrate initial compliance, summarize the data and calculations supporting the compliance demonstration, and provide information on any deviations from the emission limits, operating limits, or other requirements. If you elect to comply by using a capture system and control device for which you conduct performance tests, you must provide the results of the tests. Your notification must also include the measured range of each monitored parameter, the operating limits established during the performance test, and information showing whether the source has complied with its operating limits during the initial compliance period. Recordkeeping Requirements. You must keep records of reported information and all other information necessary to document compliance with the proposed rule for 5 years. As required under the General Provisions, records for the 2 most recent years must be kept on­ site; the other 3 years' records may be kept off­ site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of the control and monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the equipment. Depending on the compliance option that you choose, you may need to keep records of the following: Organic HAP content or volatile organic matter content and coating solids content ( for all compliance options). Quantity of the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used during each compliance period ( for all compliance options). For the emission rate ( with or without add­ on controls) compliance options, calculations of your emission rate for each 12­ month compliance period. All documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device, you must keep records of the following: All required measurements, calculations, and supporting documentation needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72287 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules All results of performance tests and parameter monitoring. All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with your plan for minimizing emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling operations. All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's SSMP when the plan procedures are followed. The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system and control device. Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction that are different from the procedures specified in the affected source's SSMP. Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or inoperative ( including out­ of­ control periods). The proposed rule would require you to collect and keep records according to certain minimum data requirements for the CPMS. Failure to collect and keep the specified minimum data would be a deviation that is separate from any emission limits, operating limits, or work practice standards. Deviations, as determined from these records, would need to be recorded and also reported. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or obligation established by the proposed rule including, but not limited to, the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards, is not met. If you use a capture system and control device to reduce organic HAP emissions, you would have to make your SSMP available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. The plan would stay in your records for the life of the affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the proposed standards. If you revise the plan, you would need to keep the previous superseded versions on record for 5 years following the revision. Periodic Reports. Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period, you would submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in continuous compliance. If deviations occur, you would include them in the report as follows: Report each deviation from the emission limit. Report each deviation from the work practice standards if you use an emission capture system and control device. If you use an emission capture system and control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances, report each deviation from an operating limit and each time a bypass line diverts emissions from the control device to the atmosphere. Report other specific information on the periods of time the deviations occurred. You would also have to include in each semiannual report an identification of the compliance option( s) you used for each affected source and any time periods when you changed to another compliance option. Other Reports. You would be required to submit reports for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device. If the procedures you follow during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction are inconsistent with your plan, you would report those procedures with your semiannual reports in addition to immediate reports required by 40 CFR 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Subcategories? The surface coating of plastic parts and products is a source category that is on the list of source categories to be regulated because it contains major sources which emit or have the potential to emit at least 9.07 Mg ( 10 tons) of any one HAP or at least 22.7 Mg ( 25 tons) of any combination of HAP annually. The proposed rule would control organic HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources. Area sources are not being regulated under this proposed rule. The plastic parts and products surface coating category consists of facilities that apply protective or decorative coatings and adhesive coatings to plastic parts and products through a post­ mold coating process. The surface coating of plastic parts and products includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of plastic parts or products, including panels, housings, bases, covers, and other components formed of synthetic polymers. We use the plastic parts and products lists contained in the SIC and NAICS code descriptions to describe the vast array of plastic parts and products. Due to the broad scope of the plastic parts and products surface coating source category, the source category definition likewise needs to be broad in order to include the varieties of operations and activities that might occur at these facilities. However, a broad description has the potential to unintentionally include surface coating operations that we would not consider to be part of the source category. We intend the source category to include facilities for which the surface coating of plastic parts and products is either their principal activity or an integral part of a production process that is the principal activity. Most coating operations are located at plant sites that are dedicated to these activities. However, some may be located at sites for which some other activity is principal, such as automobile assembly plants that coat plastic automobile parts or accessories off the assembly line. Colocated surface coating operations comparable to the types and sizes of the dedicated plastic parts surface coating facilities, in terms of the coating operation and applicable emission control techniques, are included in the source category. We reviewed the available data and information to identify a descriptor common to sources we intended to include in the category that would further help to describe the category. Based on our review, we believe the quantity of coating used is the most equitable descriptor for purposes of defining the scope of the category. Other descriptors that could have been used but were rejected because they would either be too difficult to implement or they are not as equitable as coating usage include production rate, quantity of emissions, and solvent usage. In selecting the quantity of coating used, we found that facilities in the source category for which data were available to us reported annual coating usage of at least 100 gallons per year. Those facilities that reported below this amount used coatings to assist in or repair minor defects during product assembly operations, and the surface coating operations were not integral to plastic parts and products surface coating. Therefore, the MACT floor determination and the estimated environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts were based on facilities that used greater than 100 gallons per year. We are not aware of any surface coating operation at a major source that is dedicated to plastic parts and products surface coating that is using less than 100 gallons per year and, thus, did not evaluate whether the MACT level of control would be appropriate for such operations if they exist. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations, or hobby shops that are operated for personal rather than commercial purposes. The source category also does not include coating of magnet wire, coating of plastics to produce fiberglass boats ( except the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72288 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules post­ mold coating of personal watercraft or their parts), or the extrusion of plastic onto a plastic part or product to form a coating. These activities and operations are not comparable to the types and sizes of the dedicated facilities in terms of coating operations and applicable control techniques and are regulated or are being considered for regulation as part of other source categories. Thus, they are not considered to be within the scope of the source category. The postmold coating of personal watercraft and their parts is considered within the scope of the source category. The source category also does not include certain other coatings of plastic parts and products that are already being, or would be, regulated by another NESHAP as part of a different source category. We want to avoid overlap of source categories where coating of the same part would be subject to multiple rules. Subcategory Selection. The statute gives us discretion to determine if and how to subcategorize. Once the floor has been determined for new or reconstructed and existing affected sources for a source category or subcategory, we must set MACT standards that are no less stringent than the MACT floor. Such standards must then be met by all sources within the source category or subcategory. A subcategory is a group of similar sources within a given source category. As part of the regulatory development process, we evaluate the similarities and differences between industry segments or groups of facilities comprising a source category. In establishing subcategories, we consider factors such as process operations ( type of process, raw materials, chemistry/ formulation data, associated equipment, and final products); emission characteristics ( amount and type of HAP); control device applicability; and opportunities for pollution prevention. We may also consider existing regulations or guidance from States and other regulatory agencies in determining subcategories. After reviewing survey responses from the industry, facility site visit reports, and information received from stakeholders meetings, we found that the plastic parts and products surface coating industry could be grouped into four subcategories: ( 1) General use coating, ( 2) TPO coating, ( 3) headlamp coating, and ( 4) assembled on­ road vehicle coating. The general use coating subcategory includes all plastic parts and products coating operations except TPO, headlamp, and assembled on­ road vehicle coating. This includes operations that coat a wide variety of substrates, surfaces, and types of plastic parts, as well as more specialized coating scenarios. Each of the subcategories includes coating operations, including associated surface preparation, equipment cleaning, mixing and storage, and waste handling. The TPO coating is considered a separate subcategory from other plastic parts and products coating operations because the surface coating of TPO substrates requires the use of an adhesion promoter in order to apply subsequent coatings to the substrate. The adhesion promoters required in TPO coating operations contain significant levels of organic HAP because these materials contain organic HAP solvents that are capable of wetting the TPO substrate and swelling the rubber content of the substrate. Wetting of the substrate requires a solvent in the adhesion promoter that spreads out over the substrate, and this is dictated by the surface tension of the substrate and the solvent. The surface tensions of organic HAP solvents such as toluene, xylene, and other aromatics are ideal for wetting TPO while other non­ HAP solvents have surface tensions too high to allow the adhesion promoter to spread out over the TPO part. In conjunction with adequate wetting of the TPO, the solvents in the adhesion promoter must be capable of migrating through the surface of the TPO substrate to swell the rubber content ( elastomer) in the TPO. It is this optimum swelling of the rubber content in the TPO and the subsequent entanglement of the elastomer with the paint that provides the adhesion necessary to coat TPO successfully. Many non­ HAP solvents either evaporate too quickly to adequately migrate through and swell the rubber or the solvents swell the rubber content of the TPO to the point of distortion of the part. Therefore, the adhesion promoters used in TPO coating operations often contain high levels of organic HAP solvents to achieve adequate wetting of the substrate, swelling of the rubber, and ultimately, adhesion of the paint to the substrate. The need to use these HAP­ containing materials would make it technically difficult for existing facilities coating TPO to achieve the lower emission rates established by facilities that do not coat TPO. In summary, the technical differences in the type of coatings required due to the nature of the TPO substrate warrant a separate subcategory for TPO coating. Headlamp coating is considered as a separate subcategory because these coating operations require specialized reflective argent coatings and hard clear coatings to meet U. S. Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for reflectivity, brightness, color, and other performance criteria. The reflective argent coatings often used in automotive headlamp coating operations contain significant levels of organic HAP because these coatings achieve the required reflective aluminum appearance with aluminum pigments contained in the coating. These coatings require the use of aromatic or aliphatic HAP solvents in order to allow the aluminum pigments to rise to the surface correctly to create the reflective finish required by Federal safety standards. The hard clear coatings often used in automotive headlamp coating operations, such as the thermal cure and silicone hardcoat technologies, are required to provide the polycarbonate headlamp substrate with necessary abrasion and scratch resistance. Polycarbonate is currently the only plastic substrate approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for use in automotive headlamps because this material is shatter resistant and resists high levels of heat. The hard clear coatings used on the polycarbonate headlamps require the use of certain organic HAP solvents, such as butyl cellosolve, in these coatings to avoid etching of the substrate surface. Other non­ HAP solvents can etch the surface of the polycarbonate which would deflect light and create performance and safety concerns for the final headlamp product. The need to use these materials would make it technically difficult for existing facilities coating automotive headlamps to achieve the lower emission rates established by facilities that do not coat headlamps. In summary, technical differences in the type of coatings required to meet unique end­ product requirements warrant a separate subcategory for headlamp coating. Assembled on­ road vehicle coating is considered a separate subcategory because these coating operations are performed on fully­ assembled vehicles that may contain heat sensitive parts. In addition, fully assembled on­ road vehicles are physically larger than the other parts and products coated in this source category. The large size and presence of heat sensitive parts make certain lower­ HAP technologies, such as heat­ cured waterborne coatings, not feasible for use on fully assembled onroad vehicles and make it technically difficult for these sources to achieve the same emission level as sources that do not coat assembled on­ road vehicles. The problems associated with coating of assembled on­ road vehicles were first raised by recreational vehicle manufacturers that build motor homes VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72289 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules and travel trailers. The EPA recognized that the same problems ( i. e., large part size and heat sensitive components) would be encountered by other facilities that coat plastic bodies on other types of assembled on­ road vehicles. In addition, some facilities coat a mix of assembled on­ road vehicles including automobiles, recreational vehicles, public transportation vehicles, and fleet trucks. Therefore, EPA decided to include all of these in the assembled onroad vehicle subcategory and not limit the subcategory to just recreational vehicles. The on­ road vehicle subcategory is limited to only surface coating on fully assembled on­ road vehicles in order to avoid an overlap with source categories that include assembly­ line coating operations at automobile, light­ duty truck, and heavyduty truck manufacturing facilities. The EPA also recognizes that most assembled on­ road vehicles are a mix of plastic and metal body components. An assembled on­ road vehicle coating operation is considered part of this subcategory if greater than 50 percent of the surface being coated on a vehicle is plastic. B. How Did We Select the Regulated Pollutants? Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the surface coating of plastic parts and products include MEK, MIBK, toluene, and xylenes. These compounds account for more than 85 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. Other organic HAP emissions include EGBE and other glycol ethers. However, many other organic HAP are used, or can be used, in coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Therefore, the proposed rule would regulate emissions of all organic HAP. Although most of the coatings used in this source category do not contain inorganic HAP, a few special purpose coatings used by a few facilities in this source category contain inorganic HAP such as chromium and lead. No inorganic HAP were reported in cleaning materials. If coatings are applied by spraying, inorganic HAP components remain as solids in the dry coating film on the parts being coated or are deposited onto the walls, floor, and grates of the spray booths in which they are applied. Some of the inorganic HAP particles would be entrained in the spray booth exhaust air. Although these emissions have not been quantified, we believe that the inorganic HAP emission levels are very low. Furthermore, emissions of these materials to the atmosphere are minimal because very few of the facilities in this source category use spray application techniques to apply coatings that contain inorganic HAP compounds. At this time, it does not appear that emissions of inorganic HAP from this source category warrant Federal regulation. C. How Did We Select the Affected Source? In selecting the affected source( s) for emission standards, our primary goal is to ensure that MACT is applied to HAPemitting operations or activities within the source category being regulated. The affected source also serves to establish where new source MACT applies under a particular standard. Specifically, the General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 define the terms `` construction'' and `` reconstruction'' with reference to the term `` affected source'' ( 40 CFR 63.2) and provide that new source MACT applies when construction or reconstruction of an affected source occurs ( 40 CFR 63.5). The collection of equipment and activities evaluated in determining MACT ( including the MACT floor) is used in defining the affected source. When emission standards are based on a collection of emissions sources or total facility emissions, we select an affected source based on that same collection of emission sources or the total facility as well. This approach for defining the affected source broadly is particularly appropriate for industries where a single emission standard encompassing multiple emission points within the plant provides the opportunity and incentive for owners and operators to utilize control strategies that are more cost effective than if separate standards were established for each emission point within a facility. The affected source for these proposed standards is broadly defined to include all operations associated with the coating of plastic parts and products and the cleaning of products, substrates or coating operation equipment in a subcategory ( i. e., TPO coating, headlamp coating, assembled on­ road vehicle coating, or general use coating). These operations include storage and mixing of coatings and other materials; surface preparation of the plastic parts and products prior to coating application; coating application and flash­ off, drying and curing of applied coatings; cleaning operations; and waste handling operations. A few facilities have coating operations in more than one subcategory. For example, a few facilities have TPO coating operations that are in the TPO coating subcategory and also have other plastic parts and products coating operations that are in the general use coating subcategory. In such a case, the facility would have two separate affected sources: ( 1) The collection of all operations associated with the surface coating of TPO, and ( 2) the collection of all operations associated with general use coating. Each of these affected sources would be required to meet the emission limits that apply to its subcategory. In selecting the affected source, we considered, for each operation, the extent to which HAP­ containing materials are used and the amount of HAP that are emitted. Cleaning and coating application, flash­ off, and curing/ drying operations account for the majority of HAP emissions at plastic parts and products surface coating operations. These operations are included in the affected source. Mixing, storage, and waste handling operations are included in the affected source. Because we are assuming that all the organic HAP in the materials entering the affected source are volatilized ( emitted), emissions from operations occurring within the affected source ( e. g., mixing operations and storage) are accounted for in the estimate of total materials usage at the affected source. A broad definition of the affected source was selected to provide maximum flexibility in complying with the proposed emission limits for organic HAP. In planning its compliance, each facility can select among available coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials, as well as the use of emissions capture and add­ on control systems, to comply with the emission limits for each subcategory in the most cost­ effective manner. Additional information on the plastic parts and products surface coating operations selected for regulation, and other operations, are included in the docket for the proposed standards. D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources? The MACT floor analysis was performed using a sourcewide emission rate approach for each of the four subcategories: ( 1) General use coating, ( 2) TPO coating, ( 3) headlamp coating, and ( 4) assembled on­ road vehicle coating. Because organic HAP emissions from an affected source are directly related to the materials used, and since it is very difficult to estimate the emissions that occur in any one area within the affected source, an emission VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72290 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules rate approach for affected sources in each subcategory is the most feasible way to determine emission limits. The emission rate approach covers the emissions from all areas within the affected source for each subcategory, including the application and curing process, equipment cleaning and surface preparation operations, mixing and storage of organic HAP materials, and waste handling. The broad emission rate approach will allow for the maximum flexibility for those affected sources in the general use coating subcategory that perform many different types of coating applications and coat many different types of parts during a given year. It would be very difficult to define and set limits on each individual coating step within every coating process. Also, such rules would allow no flexibility and might not be technically feasible for every source. An emission limit that includes all coating operations within an affected source allows an owner/ operator to determine how to most efficiently and cost effectively meet the emission limit for each subcategory. To determine the existing and new source MACT floor for each subcategory, we determined the organic HAP emission rate for each facility in units of kg ( lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) of coating solids used for each subcategory. We then ranked the sources in each subcategory from lowest to highest emission rate to identify the best­ performing sources. We used information obtained from industry survey responses and subsequent changes and clarifications received from the facilities to estimate the sourcewide organic HAP emission rate from each survey respondent. In the relatively few cases where a facility had coating operations in more than one subcategory ( e. g., a TPO coating operation, headlamp coating operation, or assembled on­ road vehicle coating operation, and a general use coating operation), we calculated the organic HAP emission rate for each subcategory separately. For facilities that reported no add­ on control devices, we calculated total organic HAP emissions by assuming that the organic HAP components in all coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials are emitted. If add­ on control devices were reported, their capture and control efficiencies were taken into account. Sources included in the population for determining the MACT floor emission limits were those facilities that are identified as major sources based on their potential to emit, and those that were identified as `` synthetic minor'' sources. For each of the four subcategories, the best­ performing 12 percent of sources ( or the best five sources) were the sources with the lowest calculated organic HAP emission rates. The average, or arithmetic mean, of the bestperforming 12 percent of sources ( or best five sources) was calculated to determine the MACT floor level for each subcategory. For the general use coating subcategory, the average of the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources was determined to be 0.16 kg ( 0.16 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. For the TPO coating subcategory, the average of the bestperforming five existing sources was 0.23 kg ( 0.23 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. For the headlamp coating subcategory, the average of the best­ performing five existing sources was 0.45 kg ( 0.45 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. For the assembled on­ road vehicle coating subcategory, the average of the best­ performing five existing sources was 1.34 kg ( 1.34 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. The facilities represented by the average MACT floor emission level for each of the subcategories were reviewed to assess the achievability of the emission levels for the range of sources in the subcategory. The parameters that were considered in the review included coating types and technologies, application methods, curing temperatures, substrates, regulatory and performance specifications, location by state, part types, industry sectors and amounts of materials used. The review resulted in the determination that there were no differences in the ability of sources within a given subcategory to achieve the existing source MACT floor emission levels, and therefore, it appears that all sources could achieve the existing source MACT floor emission rate for their subcategory. The MACT floor memorandum in the docket includes additional details of our review. We request comment on the analysis and our conclusions. The new source MACT floor level for the general use coating subcategory was determined to be the same as the MACT floor level for existing sources. For the general use coating subcategory, the facilities whose emission rates were lower than the existing source floor ( 0.16 kg ( 0.16 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used) were evaluated to determine whether one of them could be considered the bestperforming similar source and represent the diversity of operations included in the subcategory. We evaluated whether a single source with a lower emission rate was sufficiently similar to all other operations in the subcategory in terms of parts coated, coating types, and application methods used. No single source with an emission rate lower than the existing source MACT floor emission rate represented the full range of variability in the subcategory. For example, some of the facilities with the lowest emission rates used only one or two types of coatings with a narrow range of types of parts and coating application methods. Because a new facility might need to use a variety of coating types and technologies, we rejected facilities using only one or two types of coatings with a limited range of coated parts and application methods as similar sources for the purpose of setting a floor for new sources. Therefore, the new source MACT floor is determined to be the same as the MACT floor for existing sources. You may refer to the MACT floor memorandum in the docket for additional details. The new source MACT floor levels for the TPO coating and headlamp coating subcategories are more stringent than the existing source MACT floor levels for these subcategories. For the TPO coating subcategory, the best­ performing single source achieves an emission level of 0.17 kg ( 0.17 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. The facility is using a waterborne TPO coating process. Available information indicates that waterborne coatings are feasible for TPO substrates, including TPO used in external parts such as bumpers, and can meet performance specifications for the coated parts. When designing a new source, it would be feasible to design the TPO coating operations to use a waterborne coating process, or otherwise control emissions to achieve the emission level of the bestperforming individual source in this subcategory. Therefore, the MACT floor for new sources in the TPO subcategory is determined to be 0.17 kg ( 0.17 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. For the headlamp coating subcategory, the identification of bestperforming similar source was conducted by reviewing the emission rates for existing headlamp coating sources, excluding any organic HAP and solids from adhesives that are used in these operations. The two bestperforming headlamp coating sources both use low­ HAP, high­ solids adhesives in the headlamp operation to do final assembly of the headlamp. While the use of these adhesives is representative of the operations at these existing sources, it is unclear whether new sources in the headlamp coating VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72291 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules subcategory would be performing final assembly of the headlamps or would only be coating one component of the headlamp body. The use of adhesives in headlamp coating operations is purely dependent upon individual customer needs and business decisions on whether to assemble the headlamps at the same site. New headlamp sources with lower emission rates that include adhesives do not represent a similar source that would establish a new source level for the range of new sources in the subcategory. The two bestperforming similar sources in the headlamp subcategory achieve emission rates ( excluding adhesives) of 0.034 kg ( 0.034 lb) HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used and 0.26 kg ( 0.26 lb) HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. The source that is achieving the emission rate of 0.034 kg ( 0.034 lb) HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used has total enclosures and add­ on control devices on a portion of its headlamp coating operation. It is uncertain whether other new headlamp coating sources would be able to use enclosures and add­ on control devices and achieve this emission rate. Typical organics stream concentrations estimated for sources in this subcategory are generally too low to make the use of enclosures and control devices technically feasible. However, the source that is achieving the emission rate of 0.26 kg ( 0.26 lb) HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used coats automotive headlamps using low­ HAP, ultra violet ( UV)­ cure clearcoat technology and low­ HAP, vacuum metallizing technology on polycarbonate substrate. Although this emission rate is not achievable for existing sources that do not currently have the capability to use UV­ cure clearcoat technology or vacuum metallizing technology, it would be feasible to design a new headlamp coating process to use similar low­ HAP, UV­ cure clearcoats and low­ HAP, vacuum metallizing technology, or otherwise control emissions to achieve the emission level of this bestperforming similar source in the headlamp subcategory. Therefore, the MACT floor for new sources in the headlamp coating subcategory is determined to be 0.26 kg ( 0.26 lb) HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. The new source MACT floor level for the assembled on­ road vehicle coating subcategory was determined to be the same as the MACT floor level for existing sources. For this coating subcategory, the facilities whose emission rates were lower than the existing source floor ( 1.34 kg ( 1.34 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used) were evaluated to determine whether one of them could be considered the best­ performing similar source ( and sufficiently representative of the diversity of operations encompassing the subcategory). Some of the variables considered were the types of vehicles coated ( e. g., motorhomes or towable RVs), the amount of the vehicle coated ( either fully painted or only partially painted), whether multiple colors of basecoat were used and the overall ratio of basecoat to clearcoat, and whether or not repair coating operations were performed. Given the diversity of assembled on­ road vehicle coating operations observed during EPA site visits and among the facilities present in the MACT database, EPA has determined that the sources with emission rates lower than the existing source MACT floor emission rate are not representative of the possible range of new sources in the subcategory. For example, some facilities may use only a single color of basecoat per vehicle, while others may use up to four colors of basecoat in more elaborate color schemes. Some facilities may apply a single layer of clearcoat while others may apply two or three layers for a more durable finish. Additionally, some facilities may perform a combination of these during a single compliance period. Given the variability in these factors, EPA does not believe that any single source with a lower emission rate than the existing source floor represents a similar source for the full range of variability for this subcategory. Therefore, the new source MACT floor is determined to be the same as the MACT floor for existing sources. After the MACT floors have been determined for new and existing sources in a source category or subcategory, we must set emission standards that are technically achievable and no less stringent than the floors. Such standards must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. We identify and consider any reasonable regulatory alternatives that are `` beyond­ the­ floor,'' taking into account emissions reductions, cost, non­ air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. These alternatives may be different for new and existing sources because of different MACT floors, and separate standards may be established for new and existing sources. No options beyond the MACT floor could be identified for the general use coating subcategory that would be technically feasible for all new or existing facilities in the subcategory. For the TPO coating subcategory, the use of a waterborne coating technology was identified as a beyond­ the­ floor option for existing sources to be considered. There are currently at least two existing sources that coat TPO using waterborne adhesion promoters and other coatings, and the new source MACT floor ( 0.17 kg ( 0.17 lb) HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used) is based on a facility using the waterborne TPO coating process. We considered the beyond­ the­ floor option of requiring other existing sources coating TPO to switch their TPO coating operations to the waterborne process. However, requiring existing sources to switch to waterborne coating technology would require many costly retrofits to an existing TPO coating operation, including the addition of special pretreatment steps prior to coating application, the installation of curing ovens that aren't currently available at all existing TPO facilities, a lengthening of the coating line to allow for increased drying/ flash­ off time required for waterborne coatings, and a switch to stainless steel spray guns and lines to prevent corrosion of equipment. Information from an existing TPO source that retrofitted its existing coating lines to allow for waterborne TPO coating indicates that their cost to switch to waterborne coating was approximately $ 9 million. The HAP emissions reductions that would be achieved by a typical existing source complying with the MACT floor for TPO coating sources would be approximately 75 percent reduction. If the same typical existing source achieved the beyond the floor level of 0.17 kg ( 0.17 lb) HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used, it would achieve approximately an additional 7 percent emission reduction. Without having information on the benefits that would be achieved by further reducing emissions beyond­ thefloor we do not believe the additional cost of going beyond the floor is warranted at this time without a further evaluation of risk. Therefore, we are not requiring beyond­ the­ floor levels of emissions reductions at this time. After implementation of these standards, we will evaluate the remaining health and environmental risks that may be posed as a result of exposure to emissions from the plastic parts and products surface coating source category. At that time, we will determine whether the additional costs are warranted in light of the available risk information. For the headlamp coating subcategory, we considered two low­ HAP technologies as beyond­ the­ floor options for existing sources. These technologies are UV­ cure clearcoat and vacuum metallizing. There are currently two existing sources that use UV­ cure VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72292 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules clearcoats and one existing source that uses vacuum metallizing to obtain the necessary reflectivity for the headlamps. The new source MACT floor for headlamp coating ( 0.26 kg ( 0.26 lb) HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used) is based on a facility using both technologies to coat automotive headlamps. We considered the beyond­ the­ floor option of requiring other existing sources to switch their coating operations to either of these low­ HAP technologies. However, based on industry information, requiring existing sources to switch to UV­ cure clearcoats or vacuum metallizing could require costly retrofits to an existing headlamp coating operation. The switch to UVcure clearcoat technology could require extensive modifications to coating line design as well as the installation of UVlamps to cure the coatings. Furthermore, since UV­ cure processes do not have production capacities as high as thermal­ cure clearcoat processes, existing sources could be required to build additional coating lines to maintain the same production capacity, and this would require more floor space. The switch to vacuum metallizing from liquid argent coatings could require extensive modifications to the coating line design and raw materials used, as well as the purchase and installation of vacuum metallizing equipment. A single vacuum metallizing chamber can produce approximately 500,000 headlamp lens bodies a year and could cost approximately $ 2 million per chamber. Many sources could need multiple chambers. In addition to the purchase and installation of vacuum metallizing chambers, existing sources would need to purchase more expensive raw plastic materials ( i. e., thermoplastics) in order to achieve the beyond­ the­ floor level of 0.26 kg ( 0.26 lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. Vacuum metallizing requires an absolutely smooth surface for proper reflectivity, and this can be achieved with thermoplastics. Less expensive thermoset plastics that can be used in liquid argent coating processes do not produce the necessary surface to vacuum metallize, without a pre­ coating step that would result in additional HAP emissions. For an existing facility to switch to vacuum metallizing from liquid argent coating without adding a pre­ coating step, the cost of thermoplastic raw materials could be three times the cost of thermoset materials. Therefore, assuming existing headlamp coating sources would require at least two vacuum metallizing chambers and a switch to thermoplastic raw materials, retrofitting an existing headlamp source could result in capital costs of at least $ 4 million for the metallizing chambers and an annual material purchase cost of three times current annual material costs. These costs do not account for additional process line modifications, oven replacements, and testing requirements that will vary in cost from source to source. The HAP emission reductions that would be achieved by a typical existing source complying with the MACT floor for headlamp coating sources would be approximately 78 percent reduction. The incremental emission reduction that would be achieved for the same typical source to reduce its emissions to the beyond­ the­ floor level would be approximately 9 percent. Without having information on the benefits that would be achieved by further reducing emissions beyond­ the­ floor, we do not believe the additional cost of going beyond the floor is warranted at this time without a further evaluation of risk. Therefore, we are not requiring beyond­ the­ floor levels of emission reductions at this time. After implementation of these standards, we will evaluate the remaining health and environmental risks that may be posed as a result of exposure to emissions from the plastic parts and products surface coating source category. At that time, we will determine whether the additional costs are warranted in light of the available risk information. No options beyond the MACT floor could be identified for the assembled on­ road vehicle coating subcategory that would be technically feasible for all new or existing facilities in the subcategory. Add­ on controls were also reviewed to determine if a facility using add­ on controls would represent a technically feasible beyond­ the­ floor option for all new or existing sources in any of the four subcategories. Add­ on controls are used at a few individual facilities in the plastic parts and products surface coating source category and three of its four subcategories. No add­ on controls are used in the assembled off­ road vehicle subcategory. However, based on typical organics stream concentrations estimated for typical facilities in the four subcategories, add­ on control techniques are generally not technically feasible. Therefore, add­ on control techniques were not considered as a beyond­ the­ floor option. For existing sources, we based the proposed standards on the existing source MACT floors for each of the four subcategories. As described earlier, we determined that beyond­ the­ floor options were not technically or economically feasible for all existing sources. For the same reasons, we based the proposed standards for new sources on the new source MACT floor. The MACT levels of control for new and existing sources can be achieved in several different ways. Many sources would be able to use lower­ HAP coatings, although they may not be available to meet the needs of every source. If a source is also using cleaning materials that contain organic HAP, then it may be able to switch to lower­ HAP or non­ HAP cleaning materials, which are widely available, to reduce the sourcewide organic HAP emissions rate to the MACT level. Other available options might be the use of capture systems and add­ on control devices to reduce emissions. We note here that our assumption, used in the development of the MACT floors, that 100 percent of the organic HAP in the materials used are emitted by the affected source would not apply when the source sends organic HAPcontaining waste materials to a facility for treatment or disposal. We made that assumption because the industry survey responses provided little information as to the amount of organic HAP recovered and recycled or treated and disposed. We, therefore, concluded that offsite or onsite treatment and disposal may not be common within the plastic parts and products surface coating industry. We recognize, however, that some facilities may conduct such activities and should be allowed to account for such activities in determining their emissions. Thus, the proposed rule allows you to reduce the organic HAP emissions by the amount of any organic HAP contained in waste treated or disposed at a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility that is regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Standards? We selected the format of the proposed standards to be an emission rate expressed in terms of the mass of organic HAP emitted per mass of coating solids used. The emission rate format would allow plastic parts and products surface coating operation owners and operators flexibility in choosing any combination of means ( including coating reformulation, use of lower­ HAP or non­ HAP materials, solvent elimination, work practices, and add­ on control devices) that is workable for their particular situation to comply with the emission limits. We selected mass of coating solids used as a component of the proposed format to normalize the rate of organic HAP emissions across all sizes and VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72293 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules types of facilities. We also selected kg ( lb) organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used because this is consistent with the data generally available in this industry through Material Safety Data Sheets and other manufacturers' formulation data. Considering the primary means of compliance is likely to be the use of low­ and no­ organic HAP coatings and other materials, this format best ensures that comparable levels of control are achieved by all affected sources. Also, this format allows sources flexibility to use a combination of emission capture and control systems, as well as low­ HAP content coatings and other materials. Other choices for the format of the proposed standards that we considered, but rejected, included a usage limit ( mass per unit time) and a never­ to­ beexceeded limit on the organic HAP content of each coating, solvent, or cleaning material. As it is not our intent to limit a facility's production under these proposed standards, we rejected a usage limit. We also rejected a never­ tobe exceeded organic HAP content limit in order to provide for averaging of HAP emissions from the materials used during the compliance period. In this decision, we considered the nature of the available data, as well as the need to allow for seasonal variations and frequent changes in some coating operations, such as job shops. Finally, we rejected a percent reduction limit as most plastic parts and products surface coating facilities are not expected to use capture systems and add­ on control devices for compliance. In lieu of emission standards, section 112( h) of the CAA allows work practice standards or other requirements to be established when a pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance or capture system, or when measurement is not practicable because of technological and economic limitations. Many plastic parts and products surface coating facilities use some type of work practice measure to reduce HAP emissions from mixing, cleaning, storage, and waste handling areas as part of their standard operating procedures. They use these measures to decrease solvent usage and minimize exposure to workers. However, we do not have data to quantify accurately the emissions reductions achievable by the work practice measures. The level of emissions depends on the type of equipment and the work practices used at the facility and would be very sitespecific For example, emissions from solvent­ laden rags used to clean spray booths would depend on the method used to isolate and store such rags. In addition to lacking adequate data and information to quantify an emissions level for such operations, it is not practicable to measure emissions from these operations since they often occur in large open areas not amenable to testing. Therefore, work practice standards are appropriate for such operations under section 112( h) of the CAA. Under the compliance options where emissions are reduced by using low­ or no­ HAP materials, the compliance determination procedure assumes that all the organic HAP in the materials entering the affected source are volatilized ( emitted). Therefore, emissions from operations occurring within the affected source ( e. g., mixing operations) are accounted for in the determination of total materials usage and emission rate at the affected source. This may not be true when you comply by using capture systems and add­ on control devices, particularly if some coating operations at your facility use capture systems and add­ on control devices and others do not. In this case, you might determine usage of coatings and other materials in the controlled coating operations by some method other than total solvent purchase records. It is possible that emissions from mixing and transport of the materials prior to their use in the controlled coating operation might not be included in your usage and emission rate calculations. Emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling operations are often not routed to the control devices and would not be practicable to measure for inclusion in a determination of compliance with the emission limit. Therefore, the proposed rule would require development and implementation of an emission reduction work practice plan to assure that emissions are reduced from such operations. F. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? The proposed standards would allow you to choose among several options to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards for organic HAP: compliant materials ( i. e., coatings and other materials with low or no organic HAP); emission rate without add­ on controls option; or emission rate with add­ on controls option. Compliant Materials Option. You would be required to document the organic HAP content of all coatings ( general use, TPO, headlamp, and assembled on­ road vehicle coatings) on an as­ received basis and show that each is less than the applicable emission limit. You would also have to show that each thinner, other additive, and cleaning material on an as­ received basis contains no organic HAP. Note that `` no organic HAP'' is not intended to mean absolute zero. Materials that contain `` no organic HAP'' should be interpreted to mean materials that contain organic HAP levels below 0.1 percent by mass for OSHA­ defined carcinogens and 1.0 percent by mass for other compounds. You may use manufacturer's formulation data to demonstrate the HAP content of each material and the solids content of each coating. If you choose to use test data, you would use the following procedures on each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material in the condition it is in when it is received from its manufacturer or supplier and before any alteration. If you recycle or reclaim coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, or other additives at your facility, you do not need to demonstrate that these materials meet the emission limit, provided they were initially demonstrated to comply with the compliant material option. Method 311 is the method developed by EPA for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP in coatings and has been used in previous surface coating NESHAP. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 311 for use in the proposed standards for determining organic HAP content. Method 24 is the method developed by EPA for determining the mass fraction of volatile matter for coatings and can be used if you choose to determine the nonaqueous volatile matter content as a surrogate for organic HAP. In past standards, VOC emission control measures have been implemented in coating industries, with Method 24 as the compliance method. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 24 for use in the proposed standards. Method 24 is the method specified for determining the coating solids content of each coating. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 24 for use in the proposed standards. Emission Rate Without Add­ on Controls Option. To demonstrate initial compliance using this option, you would calculate the organic HAP emission rate for one or more coating operations in each affected source, based on the mass of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaners, and the mass of coating solids used during the compliance period. You would demonstrate that your emission rate does not exceed the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72294 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules applicable emission limit for the affected source. You would determine the HAP content from manufacturer's formulation data or by using EPA Method 24 or 311 as discussed previously. Emission Rate With Add­ on Controls Option. If you use a capture system and control device other than a solvent recovery device for which you conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance, you would be required to conduct an initial performance test of the system to determine its overall control efficiency using EPA Method 25 or 25A depending on the type of control device and the outlet concentration. You would also need to determine the capture efficiency of the capture system using EPA Methods 204 and 204A through 204F. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance, you would determine the quantity of volatile matter applied and the quantity recovered during the initial compliance period to determine its overall control efficiency. For both cases, the overall control efficiency would be combined with the monthly mass of organic HAP in the coatings and other materials used to calculate the monthly organic HAP emissions in kg ( lb) HAP emitted. The monthly amount ( kg ( lb)) of coating solids used would also be determined. These values would be combined to calculate your emission rate for the 12­ month compliance period according to equations in the proposed rule. You would demonstrate that your emission rate does not exceed the applicable emission limit for the affected source. If you conduct a performance test, you would also determine parameter operating limits during the test. The proposed test methods for the performance test have been required in many NSPS for industrial surface coating sources under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over these methods. G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements? To demonstrate continuous compliance with either the compliant materials option or the emission rate without add­ on controls option, you would need records of the data and calculations supporting your determination of the organic HAP content and solids content of each material used. You would also need records of the quantity of coatings and other materials used. For the compliant materials option, you would demonstrate compliance for each material used. For the emission rate without add­ on controls option, you would demonstrate compliance with the applicable 12­ month emission limit on a monthly basis using data from the previous 12 months of operation. If you use the emission rate with addon controls option, you would also be required to continuously monitor operating parameters of capture systems and control devices and maintain records of this monitoring. We selected the following requirements based on reasonable cost, ease of execution, and usefulness of the resulting data to both the owners or operators and EPA for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits and/ or operating limits. We are proposing that certain parameters be continuously monitored for the types of capture systems and control devices commonly used in the industry. These monitoring parameters have been used in other standards for similar industries and control devices. The values of these parameters are established during the initial or most recent performance test that demonstrates compliance. These values are your operating limits for the capture system and control device. You would be required to determine 3­ hour average values for most monitored parameters for the controlled coating operations within the affected source. We selected this averaging period to reflect operating conditions during the performance test to ensure the control system is continuously operating at the same or better control level as during a performance test demonstrating compliance with the emission limits. If you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances, you would need records of the quantity of volatile matter used and the quantity recovered by the solvent recovery system. You would demonstrate compliance with the emission limit on a monthly basis using data from the previous 12 months of operation. H. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 2 of the proposed subpart PPPP. We evaluated the General Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be the minimum notification, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to ensure compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the proposed standards, modifying them as appropriate for the plastic parts and products surface coating source category. I. How Did We Select the Compliance Date? You would be allowed 3 years to comply with the final standards for existing affected sources. This is the maximum period allowed by the CAA. We believe that 3 years for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to accommodate the variety of compliance methods that existing sources may use. Most sources in this category would need this 3­ year maximum amount of time to develop and test reformulated coatings, particularly those that may opt to comply using a different loweremitting coating technology. We want to encourage the use of these pollution prevention technologies. In addition, time would be needed to establish records management systems required for enforcement purposes. Some sources may need the time to purchase and install emission capture and control systems. In such cases, you would need to obtain permits for the use of add­ on controls, which will require time for approval from the permitting authority. The CAA requires that new or reconstructed affected sources comply with standards immediately upon startup or the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts For the purpose of assessing impacts, we assumed that all sources would convert to liquid coatings, thinners, and other additives with lower organic HAP content than those presently used and would convert to lower­ HAP or no­ HAP cleaning materials rather than using add­ on control devices, except for those already using add­ on control devices. A. What Are the Air Impacts? The 1997 nationwide baseline organic HAP emissions for the 202 major source plastic parts and products surface coating facilities of which EPA is aware are estimated to be 9,820 tpy. Implementation of the emission limitations as proposed would reduce these emissions by approximately 80 percent to 2,260 tpy. In addition, the proposed emission limitations will not result in any significant secondary air impacts. We expect that the majority of facilities will switch to low­ or noorganic HAP­ containing materials to comply with the standards rather than installing add­ on control devices. Thus, increases in electricity consumption ( which could lead to increases in emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72295 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules dioxide from electric utilities) will be minimal. B. What Are the Cost Impacts? The total capital cost ( including monitoring costs) for existing sources is estimated to be approximately $ 803,830. The nationwide annual cost ( including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs) for existing sources is approximately $ 10.7 million per year. Costs for new sources were based on an estimate of six new sources being constructed within 5 years after promulgation of the final standards. The total capital cost ( including monitoring costs) for new sources is $ 28,000. The total annual cost ( including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs) for new sources is estimated to be approximately $ 194,000 per year. Cost estimates are based on information available to the Administrator and presented in the economic analysis of this rule. The costs are calculated assuming that the majority of sources would comply by using lower HAP­ containing or non­ HAP coatings and cleaning materials because such materials are generally available, and add­ on controls would not be technically feasible for typical facilities. Waterborne coatings are a type of potentially lower­ HAP coating which could be used by facilities and may contribute to higher costs due to increased drying times or temperatures that may be needed for waterborne coatings. However, the data available in the plastic parts ICR database did not indicate any definite relationship between coating types and drying times or curing temperatures. We also assumed that facilities presently equipped with add­ on controls would continue to operate those control devices and capture systems and would perform the required performance tests and parameter monitoring. During development of the proposed emission limitations, limited information was available on the costs associated with the switch to low­ HAP or non­ HAP coatings and cleaning materials. Thus, we request comment on the assumptions and methodology used to determine these costs. Any comments should provide detailed information that includes identification of the coatings or cleaning materials ( and associated costs) currently being used and the coatings or cleaning materials ( and associated costs) that would be used to comply with the proposed emission limitations, as well as the basis for the cost information. You may refer to the Determination of Baseline Emissions and Costs and Emissions Impacts for New and Existing Sources in the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating Source Category memorandum in the docket for additional details. C. What Are the Economic Impacts? We prepared an economic impacts analysis ( EIA) to evaluate the impacts the proposed rule would have on the plastic parts and products surface coating industry, consumers, and society. Economic impacts were calculated on a facility­ specific basis, as well as on a market segment basis ( e. g., automobile manufacturing, sporting goods, electronics equipment, etc.). Economic impact indicators examined included price, output, and employment impacts. The EIA shows that the expected price increase for affected plastic parts and products would be less than 0.1 percent as a result of the proposed standards. Therefore, we do not expect any adverse impact to occur for those industries that produce or consume plastic parts and products such as home appliances, computer hardware producers, motor vehicle manufacturers, and recreational vehicle manufacturers. The distribution of costs across plastic parts and products production facilities is slanted toward the lower impact levels with many facilities incurring costs related only to annually recurring monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping activities. The EIA indicates that these regulatory costs are expected to represent only 0.25 percent of the value of coating services, which should not cause producers to cease or alter their current operations. Hence, no firms or facilities are at risk of closures because of the proposed standards. D. What Are the Non­ air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts? Based on information from the industry survey responses, we found no indication that the use of low­ organic HAP content coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials at affected sources would result in any increase or decrease in non­ air health, environmental, and energy impacts. There would be no change in the utility requirements associated with the use of these materials, so there would be no change in the amount of energy consumed as a result of the material conversion. We estimate that the proposed emission limitations will have a minimal impact on water quality because only a few facilities are expected to comply by making process modifications or by using add­ on control devices that would generate wastewater. However, because many low­ HAP and no­ HAP materials are waterborne, an increase in wastewater generation from cleaning activities may result. Although additional wastewater may be generated by facilities switching to waterborne coatings, the amount of wastewater generated by these facilities is not expected to increase significantly. We also estimate that the proposed emission limitations will result in a decrease in the amount of both solid and hazardous waste from facilities, as the majority of facilities will be using lower organic HAP­ containing materials which will result in a decrease in the amount of waste materials that would have to be disposed of as hazardous. In addition, we expect that the majority of facilities will comply by using low­ HAP or no­ organic HAP­ containing materials rather than add­ on control devices. Thus, there will be little or no increase in energy usage caused by the operation of add­ on controls. V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the 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, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a `` significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72296 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules 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.'' Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. 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. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132, it has been determined that this proposed rule does not have `` federalism implications'' because it does not meet the necessary criteria. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. 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.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, or the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or operate plastic parts and products surface coating facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA 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 considered by the Agency. The EPA interprets 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 does not establish environmental standards based on an assessment of health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, this proposed rule has been determined not to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866. E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. Affected sources are expected to comply with the proposed rule through pollution prevention rather than end­ of­ pipe controls, and therefore, there would be no increase in energy usage. 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, EPA 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 aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective 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 EPA to adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly most cost­ effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has 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. The maximum total annual cost of this proposed rule for any 1 year has been estimated to be slightly less than $ 11 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72297 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. 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 fewer than 500 or 1,000 employees, depending on the size definition for the affected NAICS Code; ( 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 forprofit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that companies in 32 NAICS codes are affected by this proposed rule, and the small business definition applied to each industry by NAICS code is that listed in the Small Business Administration size standards ( 13 CFR part 121). After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that 67 of the 130 firms, or 51 percent of the total, affected by this proposed rule may be small entities. While the number of small firms appears to be a large proportion of the total number of affected firms, the small firms only experience 21 percent of the total national compliance cost of $ 11 million ( 1997 $). Of the 67 affected small firms, only three firms are estimated to have compliance costs that exceed 1 percent of their revenues. The maximum impact on any affected small entity is a compliance cost of 1.8 percent of its sales. Finally, while there is a difference between the median compliance cost­ tosales estimates for the affected small and large firms ( 0.08 percent compared to 0.01 percent for the large firms, and 0.03 percent across all affected firms), no adverse economic impacts are expected for either small or large firms affected by the proposed rule. Therefore, the affected small firms are not disproportionately affected by this proposed rule as compared to the affected large firms. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Agency has also reached out to small entities as part of our outreach to affected industries. Representatives of small entities have participated in stakeholder meetings held during the last 3 years as well as site visits conducted by the EPA for data gathering purposes. Small entities will be afforded extensive flexibility in demonstrating compliance through pollution prevention rather than the use of add­ on control technology. We are proposing compliance options which give small entities flexibility in choosing the most cost­ effective and least burdensome alternative for their operation. For example, a facility could purchase and use low­ HAP coatings and other materials ( i. e., pollution prevention) that meet the proposed standards instead of using add­ on capture and control systems. This method of compliance can be demonstrated with minimum burden by using purchase and usage records. No testing of materials would be required, as the facility owner could show that their coatings and other materials meet the emission limits by providing formulation data supplied by the manufacturer. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed standards 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 OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request ( ICR) document has been prepared by EPA ( ICR No. 2044.01) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U. S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 566 1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information collection requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information collection 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 standards would require maintaining records of all coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials data and calculations used to determine compliance. This information includes the volume used during each compliance period, mass fraction of organic HAP, density, and mass fraction of coating solids. If an add­ on control device is used, records must be kept of the capture efficiency of the capture system, destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device, and the monitored operating parameters. In addition, records must be kept of each calculation of the affected source's emissions for each 12­ month compliance period and all data, calculations, test results, and other supporting information used to determine this value. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden in the 3rd year after the effective date of the promulgated rule is estimated to be 118,835 labor hours at a cost of $ 5.4 million for new and existing sources. This estimate includes the cost of determining and recording organic HAP content, solids content, and density, as needed, of the regulated materials, and developing a system for determining and recording the amount of each material used and performing the calculations needed for demonstrating compliance. For those affected sources using an add­ on control device to comply, the costs also include a one­ time performance test and report ( with repeat tests where needed) of the add­ on control device, one­ time purchase and installation of CPMS, one­ time submission of a SSMP, and any required startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. Total capital/ startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3­ year period of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72298 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules the ICR are estimated at $ 133,000, with operation and maintenance costs of $ 655 per year. 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 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 EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Comments are requested on the EPA'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. By U. S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460; or by courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6143, Washington DC 20460 ( 202 566 1700); and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 4, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 3, 2003. 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 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS) in its regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) 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 the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS. This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA proposes in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 24, 25, 25A, 204, 204A F, and 311. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 204, 204A F, and 311. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the docket ( Docket No. A 99 12) for this proposed rule. Six VCS: ASTM D1475 90, ASTM D2369 95, ASTM D3792 91, ASTM D4017 96a, ASTM D4457 85 ( Reapproved 91), and ASTM D5403 93 are already incorporated by reference in EPA Method 24. In addition, we are separately specifying the use of ASTM D1475 98, `` Standard Test Method for Density of Liquid Coatings, Inks, and Related Products,'' for measuring the density of individual coating components, such as organic solvents. Five VCS: ASTM D1979 91, ASTM D3432 89, ASTM D4747 87, ASTM D4827 93, and ASTM PS9 94 are incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311. The VCS ASTM D4457 85 ( Reapproved 1996), `` Standard Test Method for Determination of Dichloromethane ( Methylene chloride) and 1,1,1­ Trichloroethane ( Methyl chloroform) in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph,'' is not a complete alternative to EPA Method 311, but is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 311 for the following two HAP: ( 1) Dichloromethane ( methylene chloride) and ( 2) 1,1,1­ Trichlorethane ( methyl chloroform). Therefore, EPA will incorporate by reference ASTM D4457 into 40 CFR 63.14 in the future. In addition to the VCS EPA proposes to use in this proposed rule, the search for emission measurement procedures identified 17 other VCS. The EPA determined that 13 of these 17 standards were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking. Therefore, EPA does not propose to adopt these standards today. ( See docket A 99 12 for further information on the methods.) The following four of the 17 VCS identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of this proposed rulemaking because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/ BSR MFC 13M, `` Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 ( and possibly 1); ASME/ BSR MFC 12M, `` Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; ISO/ DIS 12039, `` Stationary Source Emissions Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A; and ISO/ PWI 17895, `` Paints and Varnishes Determination of the Volatile Organic Compound Content of Water­ based Emulsion Paints,'' for EPA Method 24. While we are not proposing to include these four VCS in today's proposal, the EPA will consider the VCS when finalized. The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements in this proposed rulemaking and specifically invites the public to identify potentially­ applicable VCS. Commentors should also explain why this proposed rule should adopt these VCS in lieu of or in addition to EPA's method. Emission test methods submitted for evaluation should be accompanied by 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 63.4541, 63.4551, 63.4561, 63.4565, and 63.4566 of the proposed standards list the EPA testing methods included in the proposed standards. Under 40 CFR 63.7( f) of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods in place of any of the EPA testing methods. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 8, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72299 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules 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 PPPP to read as follows: Subpart PPPP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products What This Subpart Covers Sec. 63.4480 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.4481 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.4482 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.4483 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emission Limitations 63.4490 What emission limits must I meet? 63.4491 What are my options for meeting the emission limits? 63.4492 What operating limits must I meet? 63.4493 What work practice standards must I meet? General Compliance Requirements 63.4500 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.4501 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.4510 What notifications must I submit? 63.4520 What reports must I submit? 63.4530 What records must I keep? 63.4531 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? Compliance Requirements for the Compliant Material Option 63.4540 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? 63.4541 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4542 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate Without Add­ On Controls Option 63.4550 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? 63.4551 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4552 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate With Add­ On Controls Option 63.4560 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.4561 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? 63.4562 [ Reserved] 63.4563 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? 63.4564 What are the general requirements for performance tests? 63.4565 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? 63.4566 How do I determine the add­ on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? 63.4567 How do I establish the emission capture system and add­ on control device operating limits during the performance test? 63.4568 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance? Other Requirements and Information 63.4580 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.4581 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart PPPP of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart PPPP of Part 63 Operating Limits if Using the Emission Rate with Add­ On Controls Option. Table 2 to Subpart PPPP of Part 63 Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart PPPP of Part 63. Table 3 to Subpart PPPP of Part 63 Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction of Solvents and Solvent Blends. Table 4 to Subpart PPPP of Part 63 Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups. Subpart PPPP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products What This Subpart Covers § 63.4480 What is the purpose of this subpart? This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for plastic parts and products surface coating facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations. § 63.4481 Am I subject to this subpart? ( a) Plastic parts and products include, but are not limited to, plastic components of the following types of products as well as the products themselves: motor vehicle parts and accessories for automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles; sporting and recreational goods; toys; business machines; laboratory and medical equipment; and household and other consumer products. Except as provided in paragraph ( c) of this section, the source category to which this subpart applies is the surface coating of any plastic part or product, as described in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section, and it includes the subcategories listed in paragraphs ( a)( 2) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) Surface coating is the application of coating to a substrate using, for example, spray guns or dip tanks, and associated activities, such as surface preparation, cleaning, mixing, and storage, etc. ( 2) The general use coating subcategory includes all coating operations that are not headlamp coating operations, thermoplastic olefin ( TPO) coating operations, or assembled on­ road vehicle coating operations. ( 3) The headlamp coating subcategory includes the surface coating of plastic components of the body of an automotive headlamp; typical coatings used are reflective argent coatings and clear topcoats. ( 4) The TPO coating subcategory includes the surface coating of TPO substrates; typical coatings used are adhesion promoters, primers, color coatings, clear coatings and topcoats. The coating of TPO substrates on fully assembled on­ road vehicles is not included in the TPO coating subcategory. ( 5) The assembled on­ road vehicle coating subcategory includes the surface coating of plastic parts on fully assembled motor vehicles and trailers intended for on­ road use, including, but not limited to, plastic parts on: automobiles and light trucks that have been repaired after a collision or otherwise repainted, fleet delivery trucks, and motor homes and other recreational vehicles ( including camping trailers and fifth wheels). The assembled on­ road vehicle coating subcategory does not include the surface coating of plastic parts prior to their attachment to an on­ road vehicle on an original equipment manufacturer's ( OEM) assembly line. The assembled on­ road vehicle coating subcategory also does not include the use of adhesives, sealants, and caulks used in assembling on­ road vehicles. ( b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source, as defined in § 63.4482, that uses 100 gallons per year, or more, of coatings in the surface coating of plastic parts and products defined in paragraph ( a) of this section; and that is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP). A major source of HAP emissions is 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 any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams ( Mg) ( 10 tons) or more per year or any VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 21: 41 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72300 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Proposed at 67 FR 20206, April 24, 2002. 2 Proposed at 67 FR 42400, June 21, 2002. 3 Proposed at 66 FR 40323, August 2, 2001. 4 Proposed at 67 FR 62780, August 13, 2002. 5 Proposed at 67 FR 52780, August 13, 2002. 6 Proposed at 67 FR 52780, August 13, 2002. combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 Mg ( 25 tons) or more per year. ( c) This subpart does not apply to surface coating that meets the criteria of paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 12) of this section. ( 1) Surface coating conducted at a source that uses only coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials that contain no organic HAP, as determined according to § 63.4541( a). ( 2) Surface coating of plastic subject to the NESHAP for aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities ( subpart GG of this part). ( 3) Surface coating of plastic and wood subject to the NESHAP for wood furniture manufacturing facilities ( subpart JJ of this part). ( 4) Surface coating of plastic and metal subject to the NESHAP for large appliance surface coating ( subpart NNNN of this part). ( 5) Surface coating of plastic and metal subject to the NESHAP for metal furniture surface coating. 1 ( 6) Surface coating of plastic and wood subject to the NESHAP for wood building products surface coating. 2 ( 7) In­ mold coating operations or gel coating operations in the manufacture of reinforced plastic composite parts subject to the NESHAP for reinforced plastics composites production. 3 ( 8) Surface coating of parts that are pre­ assembled from plastic and metal components, where greater than 50 percent of the coatings ( by volume, determined on a rolling 12­ month basis) are applied to the metal surfaces, and where the source is subject to the NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts surface coating. 4 If your source is subject to the NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts surface coating 5 and you can demonstrate that more than 50 percent of coatings are applied to metal surfaces, then compliance with the NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts surface coating 6 constitutes compliance with subpart PPPP. You must maintain records ( such as coating usage or surface area) to document that more than 50 percent of coatings are applied to metal surfaces. ( 9) Surface coating that occurs at research or laboratory facilities or is part of janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations, or hobby shops that are operated for personal rather than commercial purposes. ( 10) Surface coating of magnet wire. ( 11) Surface coating of fiberglass boats or parts of fiberglass boats where the facility is subject to the requirements for fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities in the NESHAP for boat manufacturing ( subpart VVVV of this part), except where the surface coating of the boat is a post­ mold coating operation performed on personal watercraft or parts of personal watercraft. This subpart applies to post­ mold coating operations performed on personal watercraft or parts of personal watercraft. For the purposes of this subpart, a personal watercraft is defined as a vessel ( boat) which uses an inboard motor powering a water jet pump as its primary source of motive power and which is designed to be operated by a person or persons sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel, rather than in the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside the vessel. ( 12) Operations where plastic is extruded onto the plastic part or product to form a coating. ( d) If you own or operate an affected source that is subject to this subpart and at the same affected source you also perform surface coating subject to any other NESHAP in this part, you may choose to be subject to the requirements of the more stringent of the subparts for the entire surface coating facility. If you choose to be subject to the requirements of another subpart and demonstrate that, by doing so, your facility­ wide HAP emissions in kilograms ( kg) per year ( tons per year) from surface coating operations will be less than or equal to the emissions achieved by complying separately with all applicable subparts, compliance with the more stringent NESHAP will constitute compliance with this subpart. § 63.4482 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? ( a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, and existing affected source within each of the four subcategories listed in § 63.4481( a). ( b) The affected source is the collection of all of the items listed in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section that are used for surface coating of plastic parts and products within each subcategory: ( 1) All coating operations as defined in § 63.4581; ( 2) All storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; ( 3) All manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials; and ( 4) All storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. ( c) An affected source is a new source if it meets the criteria in paragraph ( c)( 1) of this section and the criteria in either paragraph ( c)( 2) or ( 3) of this section. ( 1) You commenced the construction of the source after December 4, 2002, by installing new coating equipment. ( 2) The new coating equipment is used to coat plastic parts and products at a source where no plastic parts surface coating was previously performed. ( 3) The new coating equipment is used to perform plastic parts and products coating in a subcategory that was not previously performed. ( d) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in § 63.2. ( e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed. § 63.4483 When do I have to comply with this subpart? The date by which you must comply with this subpart is called the compliance date. The compliance date for each type of affected source is specified in paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section. The compliance date begins the initial compliance period during which you conduct the initial compliance demonstration described in § § 63.4540, 63.4550, and 63.4560. ( a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, the compliance date is the applicable date in paragraph ( a)( 1) or ( 2) of this section: ( 1) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source is before [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the compliance date is [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. ( 2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the compliance date is the date of initial startup of your affected source. ( b) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is the date 3 years after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. ( c) For an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP emissions, the compliance date is specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) For any portion of the source that becomes a new or reconstructed affected source subject to this subpart, the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72301 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules compliance date is the date of initial startup of the affected source or [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], whichever is later. ( 2) For any portion of the source that becomes an existing affected source subject to this subpart, the compliance date is the date 1 year after the area source becomes a major source or 3 years after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], whichever is later. ( d) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.4510 according to the dates specified in that section and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before the compliance dates described in paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section. Emission Limitations § 63.4490 What emission limits must I meet? ( a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, you must limit organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from the affected source to the applicable limit specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 4) of this section, determined according to the requirements in § 63.4541, § 63.4551, or § 63.4561. ( 1) For each new general use coating affected source, limit organic HAP emissions to no more than 0.16 kg ( 0.16 pound ( lb)) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used during each 12­ month compliance period. ( 2) For each new headlamp coating affected source, limit organic HAP emissions to no more than 0.26 kg ( 0.26 lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used during each 12­ month compliance period. ( 3) For each new TPO coating affected source, limit organic HAP emissions to no more than 0.17 kg ( 0.17 lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used during each 12­ month compliance period. ( 4) For each new assembled on­ road vehicle coating affected source, limit organic HAP emissions to no more than 1.34 kg ( 1.34 lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) of coating solids used during each 12­ month compliance period. ( b) For an existing affected source, you must limit organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from the affected source to the applicable limit specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section, determined according to the requirements in § 63.4541, § 63.4551, or § 63.4561. ( 1) For each existing general use coating affected source, limit organic HAP emissions to no more than 0.16 kg ( 0.16 lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used during each 12­ month compliance period. ( 2) For each existing headlamp coating affected source, limit organic HAP emissions to no more than 0.45 kg ( 0.45 lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used during each 12­ month compliance period. ( 3) For each existing TPO coating affected source, limit organic HAP emissions to no more than 0.23 kg ( 0.23 lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used during each 12­ month compliance period. ( 4) For each existing assembled onroad vehicle coating affected source, limit organic HAP emissions to no more than 1.34 kg ( 1.34 lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) of coating solids used during each 12­ month compliance period. § 63.4491 What are my options for meeting the emission limits? You must include all coatings ( as defined in § 63.4581), thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used in the affected source when determining whether the organic HAP emission rate is equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490. To make this determination, you must use at least one of the three compliance options listed in paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section. You may apply any of the compliance options to an individual coating operation, or to multiple coating operations as a group, or to the entire affected source. You may use different compliance options for different coating operations, or at different times on the same coating operation. However, you may not use different compliance options at the same time on the same coating operation. If you switch between compliance options for any coating operation or group of coating operations, you must document this switch as required by § 63.4530( c), and you must report it in the next semiannual compliance report required in § 63.4520. ( a) Compliant material option. Demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each coating used in the coating operation( s) is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, and that each thinner, other additive, and cleaning material used contains no organic HAP. You must meet all the requirements of § § 63.4540, 63.4541, and 63.4542 to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit using this option. ( b) Emission rate without add­ on controls option. Demonstrate that, based on the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation( s), the organic HAP emission rate for the coating operation( s) is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, calculated as a rolling 12­ month emission rate and determined on a monthly basis. You must meet all the requirements of § § 63.4550, 63.4551, and 63.4552 to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit using this option. ( c) Emission rate with add­ on controls option. Demonstrate that, based on the coatings, thinners and other additives, cleaning materials used in the coating operation( s), and the emissions reductions achieved by emission capture systems and add­ on controls, the organic HAP emission rate for the coating operation( s) is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, calculated as a rolling 12­ month emission rate and determined on a monthly basis. If you use this compliance option, you must also demonstrate that all emission capture systems and add­ on control devices for the coating operation( s) meet the operating limits required in § 63.4492, except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to § 63.4561( j), and that you meet the work practice standards required in § 63.4493. You must meet all the requirements of § § 63.4560 through 63.4568 to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards using this option. § 63.4492 What operating limits must I meet? ( a) For any coating operation( s) on which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate without addon controls option, you are not required to meet any operating limits. ( b) For any controlled coating operation( s) on which you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, except those for which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance according to § 63.4561( j), you must meet the operating limits specified in table 1 of this subpart. These operating limits apply to the emission capture and control systems on the coating operation( s) for which you use this option, and you must establish the operating limits during the performance test according to the requirements in § 63.4567. You must meet the operating limits at all times after you establish them. ( c) If you use an add­ on control device other than those listed in table 1 of this VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72302 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules subpart, or wish to monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a different operating limit, you must apply to the Administrator for approval of alternative monitoring under § 63.8( f). § 63.4493 What work practice standards must I meet? ( a) For any coating operation( s) on which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate without addon controls option, you are not required to meet any work practice standards. ( b) If you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, you must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, the controlled coating operation( s) for which you use this option; or you must meet an alternative standard as provided in paragraph ( c) of this section. The plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure that, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 5) of this section are implemented. ( 1) All organic­ HAP­ containing coatings, thinners and other additives, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers. ( 2) Spills of organic­ HAP­ containing coatings, thinners and other additives, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized. ( 3) Organic­ HAP­ containing coatings, thinners and other additives, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed containers or pipes. ( 4) Mixing vessels which contain organic­ HAP­ containing coatings and other materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents. ( 5) Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment. ( c) As provided in § 63.6( g), we, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), may choose to grant you permission to use an alternative to the work practice standards in this section. General Compliance Requirements § 63.4500 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? ( a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart as specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Any coating operation( s) for which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate without add­ on controls option, as specified in § 63.4491( a) and ( b), must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490 at all times. ( 2) Any coating operation( s) for which you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, as specified in § 63.4491( c), must be in compliance with the emission limitations as specified in paragraphs ( a)( 2)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) The coating operation( s) must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490 at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( ii) The coating operation( s) must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and addon control devices required by § 63.4492 at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to § 63.4561( j). ( iii) The coating operation( s) must be in compliance with the work practice standards in § 63.4493 at all times. ( b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 1)( i). ( c) If your affected source uses an emission capture system and add­ on control device, you must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3). The plan must address the startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or the add­ on control device. The plan must also address any coating operation equipment that may cause increased emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the process equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among enclosures. § 63.4501 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 2 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in § § 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. Notifications, Reports, and Records § 63.4510 What notifications must I submit? ( a) General. You must submit the notifications in § § 63.7( b) and ( c), 63.8( f)( 4), and 63.9( b) through ( e) and ( h) that apply to you by the dates specified in those sections, except as provided in paragraphs ( b) and ( c) of this section. ( b) Initial notification. You must submit the Initial Notification required by § 63.9( b) for a new or reconstructed affected source no later than 120 days after initial startup or 120 days after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], whichever is later. For an existing affected source, you must submit the Initial Notification no later than 1 year after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. ( c) Notification of compliance status. You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.9( h) no later than 30 calendar days following the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.4540, § 63.4550, or § 63.4560 that applies to your affected source. The Notification of Compliance Status must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 9) of this section and in § 63.9( h). ( 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. ( 3) Date of the report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. The reporting period is the initial compliance period described in § 63.4540, § 63.4550, or § 63.4560 that applies to your affected source. ( 4) Identification of the compliance option or options specified in § 63.4491 that you used on each coating operation in the affected source during the initial compliance period. ( 5) Statement of whether or not the affected source achieved the emission limitations for the initial compliance period. ( 6) If you had a deviation, include the information in paragraphs ( c)( 6)( i) and ( ii) of this section. ( i) A description and statement of the cause of the deviation. ( ii) If you failed to meet the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, include all the calculations you used to determine the kg ( lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. You do not need to submit information provided by the materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. ( 7) For each of the data items listed in paragraphs ( c)( 7)( i) through ( iv) of this section that is required by the compliance option( s) you used to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit, include an example of how you determined the value, including calculations and supporting data. Supporting data can include a copy of the information provided by the supplier or manufacturer of the example coating or material, or a summary of the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72303 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules results of testing conducted according to § 63.4541( a), ( b), or ( c). You do not need to submit copies of any test reports. ( i) Mass fraction of organic HAP for one coating, for one thinner or other additive, and for one cleaning material. ( ii) Mass fraction of coating solids for one coating. ( iii) Density for one coating, one thinner or other additive, and one cleaning material, except that if you use the compliant material option, only the example coating density is required. ( iv) The amount of waste materials and the mass of organic HAP contained in the waste materials for which you are claiming an allowance in Equation 1 of § 63.4551. ( 8) The calculation of kg ( lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used for the compliance option( s) you used, as specified in paragraphs ( c)( 8)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) For the compliant material option, provide an example calculation of the organic HAP content for one coating, using Equation 1 of § 63.4541. ( ii) For the emission rate without addon controls option, provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for each month; the calculation of the total mass of coating solids used each month; and the calculation of the 12­ month organic HAP emission rate, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C, 2, and 3, respectively, of § 63.4551. ( iii) For the emission rate with add­ on controls option, provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used each month, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of § 63.4551; the calculation of the total mass of coating solids used each month using Equation 2 of § 63.4551; the mass of organic HAP emission reduction each month by emission capture systems and add­ on control devices, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1D of § 63.4561 and Equations 2, 3, and 3A through 3C of § 63.4561, as applicable; the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions each month, using Equation 4 of § 63.4561; and the calculation of the 12­ month organic HAP emission rate, using Equation 5 of § 63.4561. ( 9) For the emission rate with add­ on controls option, you must include the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 9)( i) through ( iv) of this section, except that the requirements in paragraphs ( c)( 9)( i) through ( iii) of this section do not apply to solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.4561( j). ( i) For each emission capture system, a summary of the data and copies of the calculations supporting the determination that the emission capture system is a permanent total enclosure ( PTE) or a measurement of the emission capture system efficiency. Include a description of the protocol followed for measuring capture efficiency, summaries of any capture efficiency tests conducted, and any calculations supporting the capture efficiency determination. If you use the data quality objective ( DQO) or lower confidence limit ( LCL) approach, you must also include the statistical calculations to show you meet the DQO or LCL criteria in appendix A to subpart KK of this part. You do not need to submit complete test reports. ( ii) A summary of the results of each add­ on control device performance test. You do not need to submit complete test reports. ( iii) A list of each emission capture system's and add­ on control device's operating limits and a summary of the data used to calculate those limits. ( iv) A statement of whether or not you developed and implemented the work practice plan required by § 63.4493. § 63.4520 What reports must I submit? ( a) Semiannual compliance reports. You must submit semiannual compliance reports for each affected source according to the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 7) of this section. The semiannual compliance reporting requirements may be satisfied by reports required under other parts of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), as specified in paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section. ( 1) Dates. Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10( a), you must prepare and submit each semiannual compliance report according to the dates specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1)( i) through ( iv) of this section. Note that the information reported for each of the months in the reporting period will be based on the last 12 months of data prior to the date of each monthly calculation. ( i) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the first semiannual reporting period which begins the day after the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.4540, § 63.4550, or § 63.4560 that applies to your affected source and ends on June 30 or December 31, whichever occurs first following the end of the initial compliance period. ( ii) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must cover the subsequent semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. ( iii) Each 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. ( iv) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the date specified in paragraph ( a)( 1)( iii) of this section. ( 2) Inclusion with title V report. Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A). If an affected source submits a semiannual compliance report pursuant to this section along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), and the semiannual compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation in this subpart, its submission will be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a semiannual compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. ( 3) General requirements. The semiannual compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( a)( 3)( i) through ( v) of this section, and the information specified in paragraphs ( a)( 4) through ( 7) and ( c)( 1) of this section that is applicable to your affected source. ( i) Company name and address. ( ii) 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. ( iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. The reporting period is the 6­ month period ending on June 30 or December 31. Note that the information reported for each of the 6 months in the reporting period will be based on the last 12 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72304 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules months of data prior to the date of each monthly calculation. ( iv) Identification of the compliance option or options specified in § 63.4491 that you used on each coating operation during the reporting period. If you switched between compliance options during the reporting period, you must report the beginning and ending dates you used each option. ( v) If you used the emission rate without add­ on controls or the emission rate with add­ on controls compliance option ( § 63.4491( b) or ( c)), the calculation results for each rolling 12­ month organic HAP emission rate during the 6­ month reporting period. ( 4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission limitations in § § 63.4490, 63.4492, and 63.4493 that apply to you, the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If you used the emission rate with add­ on controls option and there were no periods during which the continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS) were out­ ofcontrol as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS were out­ of­ control during the reporting period. ( 5) Deviations: Compliant material option. If you used the compliant material option and there was a deviation from the applicable HAP content requirements in § 63.4490, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 5)( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) Identification of each coating used that deviated from the applicable emission limit, and each thinner, other additive, and cleaning material used that contained organic HAP, and the dates and time periods each was used. ( ii) The calculation of the organic HAP content ( using Equation 1 of § 63.4541) for each coating identified in paragraph ( a)( 5)( i) of this section. You do not need to submit background data supporting this calculation ( e. g., information provided by coating suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports). ( iii) The determination of mass fraction of organic HAP for each thinner, other additive, and cleaning material identified in paragraph ( a)( 5)( i) of this section. You do not need to submit background data supporting this calculation ( e. g., information provided by material suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports). ( iv) A statement of the cause of each deviation. ( 6) Deviations: Emission rate without add­ on controls option. If you used the emission rate without add­ on controls option and there was a deviation from the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 6)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) The beginning and ending dates of each compliance period during which the 12­ month organic HAP emission rate exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490. ( ii) The calculations used to determine the 12­ month organic HAP emission rate for the compliance period in which the deviation occurred. You must submit the calculations for Equations 1, 1A through 1C, 2, and 3 of § 63.4551; and if applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in waste materials according to § 63.4551( e)( 4). You do not need to submit background data supporting these calculations ( e. g., information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports). ( iii) A statement of the cause of each deviation. ( 7) Deviations: Emission rate with add­ on controls option. If you used the emission rate with add­ on controls option and there was a deviation from an emission limitation ( including any periods when emissions bypassed the add­ on control device and were diverted to the atmosphere), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 7)( i) through ( xiv) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction during which deviations occurred. ( i) The beginning and ending dates of each compliance period during which the 12­ month organic HAP emission rate exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490. ( ii) The calculations used to determine the 12­ month organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period in which a deviation occurred. You must provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used each month, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of § 63.4551; and, if applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in waste materials according to § 63.4551( e)( 4); the calculation of the total mass of coating solids used each month, using Equation 2 of § 63.4551; the calculation of the mass of organic HAP emission reduction each month by emission capture systems and add­ on control devices, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1D of § 63.4561, and Equations 2, 3, and 3A through 3C of § 63.4561, as applicable; the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions each month, using Equation 4 of § 63.4561; and the calculation of the 12­ month organic HAP emission rate, using Equation 5 of § 63.4561. You do not need to submit the background data supporting these calculations ( e. g., information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports). ( iii) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped. ( iv) A brief description of the CPMS. ( v) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit. ( vi) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero ( low­ level) and high­ level checks. ( vii) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out­ of­ control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). ( viii) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 of this subpart; date and time period of any bypass of the add­ on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. ( ix) A summary of the total duration of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 of this subpart and each bypass of the add­ on control device during the semiannual reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period. ( x) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the operating limits in Table 1 of this subpart and bypasses of the add­ on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( xi) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the semiannual reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period. ( xii) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation, emission capture system, or add­ on control device since the last semiannual reporting period. ( xiii) For each deviation from the work practice standards, a description of the deviation, the date and time period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72305 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( xiv) A statement of the cause of each deviation. ( b) Performance test reports. If you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, you must submit reports of performance test results for emission capture systems and add­ on control devices no later than 60 days after completing the tests as specified in § 63.10( d)( 2). ( c) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. If you used the emission rate with add­ on controls option and you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) If your actions were consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must include the information specified in § 63.10( d) in the semiannual compliance report required by paragraph ( a) of this section. ( 2) If your actions were not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report as described in paragraph ( c)( 2)( i) and ( ii) of this section. ( i) You must describe the actions taken during the event in a report delivered by facsimile, telephone, or other means to the Administrator within 2 working days after starting actions that are inconsistent with the plan. ( ii) You must submit a letter to the Administrator within 7 working days after the end of the event, unless you have made alternative arrangements with the Administrator as specified in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). The letter must contain the information specified in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). § 63.4530 What records must I keep? You must collect and keep records of the data and information specified in this section. Failure to collect and keep these records is a deviation from the applicable standard. ( a) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, and the documentation supporting each notification and report. ( b) A current copy of information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, such as manufacturer's formulation data, or test data used to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP and density for each coating, thinner or other additive and cleaning material, and the mass fraction of coating solids for each coating. If you conducted testing to determine mass fraction of organic HAP, density, or mass fraction of coating solids, you must keep a copy of the complete test report. If you use information provided to you by the manufacturer or supplier of the material that was based on testing, you must keep the summary sheet of results provided to you by the manufacturer or supplier. You are not required to obtain the test report or other supporting documentation from the manufacturer or supplier. ( c) For each compliance period, the records specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) A record of the coating operations on which you used each compliance option and the time periods ( beginning and ending dates and times) you used each option. ( 2) For the compliant material option, a record of the calculation of the organic HAP content for each coating, using Equation 1 of § 63.4541. ( 3) For the emission rate without addon controls option, a record of the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used each month, using Equations 1, 1A through 1C, and 2 of § 63.4551 and, if applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in waste materials according to § 63.4551( e)( 4); the calculation of the total mass of coating solids used each month using Equation 2 of § 63.4551; and the calculation of each 12­ month organic HAP emission rate, using Equation 3 of § 63.4551. ( 4) For the emission rate with add­ on controls option, records of the calculations specified in paragraphs ( c)( 4)( i) through ( v) of this section. ( i) The calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used each month, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of § 63.4551; and if applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in waste materials according to § 63.4551( e)( 4); ( ii) The calculation of the total mass of coating solids used each month, using Equation 2 of § 63.4551; ( iii) The calculation of the mass of organic HAP emission reduction by emission capture systems and add­ on control devices, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1D of § 63.4561 and Equations 2, 3, and 3A through 3C of § 63.4561, as applicable; ( iv) The calculation of each month's organic HAP emission rate, using Equation 4 of § 63.4561; and ( v) The calculation of each 12­ month organic HAP emission rate, using Equation 5 of § 63.4561. ( d) A record of the name and volume of each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used during each compliance period. If you are using the compliant material option for all coatings at the source, you may maintain purchase records for each material used rather than a record of the volume used. ( e) A record of the mass fraction of organic HAP for each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used during each compliance period. ( f) A record of the mass fraction of coating solids for each coating used during each compliance period. ( g) If you use either the emission rate without add­ on controls or the emission rate with add­ on controls compliance option, the density for each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used during each compliance period. ( h) If you use an allowance in Equation 1 of § 63.4551 for organic HAP contained in waste materials sent to or designated for shipment to a treatment, storage, and disposal facility ( TSDF) according to § 63.4551( e)( 4), you must keep records of the information specified in paragraphs ( h)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) The name and address of each TSDF to which you sent waste materials for which you use an allowance in Equation 1 of § 63.4551, a statement of which subparts under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, and 266 apply to the facility, and the date of each shipment. ( 2) Identification of the coating operations producing waste materials included in each shipment and the month or months in which you used the allowance for these materials in Equation 1 of § 63.4551. ( 3) The methodology used in accordance with § 63.4551( e)( 4) to determine the total amount of waste materials sent to or the amount collected, stored, and designated for transport to a TSDF each month; and the methodology to determine the mass of organic HAP contained in these waste materials. This must include the sources for all data used in the determination, methods used to generate the data, frequency of testing or monitoring, and supporting calculations and documentation, including the waste manifest for each shipment. ( i) [ Reserved] ( j) You must keep records of the date, time, and duration of each deviation. ( k) If you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs ( k)( 1) through ( 8) of this section. ( 1) For each deviation, a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72306 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 2) The records in § 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through ( v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( 3) The records required to show continuous compliance with each operating limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart that applies to you. ( 4) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and documentation you used to support a determination that the capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent, as specified in § 63.4565( a). ( 5) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the requirements specified in § § 63.4564 and 63.4565( b) through ( e), including the records specified in paragraphs ( k)( 5)( i) through ( iii) of this section that apply to you. ( i) Records for a liquid­ to­ uncaptured gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. Records of the mass of total volatile hydrocarbon ( TVH) as measured by Method 204A or F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for each material used in the coating operation, and the total TVH for all materials used during each capture efficiency test run, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. ( ii) Records for a gas­ to­ gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. Records of the mass of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture system as measured by Method 204B or C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 at the inlet to the add­ on control device, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. ( iii) Records for an alternative protocol. Records needed to document a capture efficiency determination using an alternative method or protocol as specified in § 63.4565( e), if applicable. ( 6) The records specified in paragraphs ( k)( 6)( i) and ( ii) of this section for each add­ on control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency determination as specified in § 63.4566. ( i) Records of each add­ on control device performance test conducted according to § § 63.4564 and 63.4566. ( ii) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add­ on control device performance test showing that the performance test was conducted under representative operating conditions. ( 7) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the emission capture and add­ on control device operating limits as specified in § 63.4567 and to document compliance with the operating limits as specified in Table 1 of this subpart. ( 8) A record of the work practice plan required by § 63.4493 and documentation that you are implementing the plan on a continuous basis. § 63.4531 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? ( a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). Where appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets or as a database. ( b) As specified in § 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 keep each record on site for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). You may keep the records off site for the remaining 3 years. Compliance Requirements for the Compliant Material Option § 63.4540 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements in § 63.4541. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483 and ends on the last day of the 12th month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through that month plus the next 12 months. The initial compliance demonstration includes the calculations according to § 63.4541 and supporting documentation showing that during the initial compliance period, you used no coating with an organic HAP content that exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, and that you used no thinners, other additives, or cleaning materials that contained organic HAP as determined according to § 63.4541( a). § 63.4541 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? You may use the compliant material option for any individual coating operation, for any group of coating operations in the affected source, or for all the coating operations in the affected source. You must use either the emission rate without add­ on controls option or the emission rate with add­ on controls option for any coating operation in the affected source for which you do not use this option. To demonstrate initial compliance using the compliant material option, the coating operation or group of coating operations must use no coating with an organic HAP content that exceeds the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490 and must use no thinner or other additive, or cleaning material that contains organic HAP as determined according to this section. Any coating operation for which you use the compliant material option is not required to meet the operating limits or work practice standards required in § § 63.4492 and 63.4493, respectively. You must conduct a separate initial compliance demonstration for each general use coating, TPO coating, headlamp coating, and assembled onroad vehicle coating affected source. You must meet all the requirements of this section. Use the procedures in this section on each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material in the condition it is in when it is received from its manufacturer or supplier and prior to any alteration. You do not need to redetermine the HAP content of coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials that are reclaimed onsite and reused in the coating operation for which you use the compliant material option, provided these materials in their condition as received were demonstrated to comply with the compliant material option. ( a) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material used. You must determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used during the compliance period by VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72307 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules using one of the options in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) Method 311 ( appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). You may use Method 311 for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP. Use the procedures specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1)( i) and ( ii) of this section when performing a Method 311 test. ( i) Count each organic HAP that is measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA)­ defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4) and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene ( not an OSHA carcinogen) is measured to be 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four places after the decimal point ( e. g., 0.3791). ( ii) Calculate the total mass fraction of organic HAP in the test material by adding up the individual organic HAP mass fractions and truncating the result to three places after the decimal point ( e. g., 0.763). ( 2) Method 24 ( appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic HAP. ( 3) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP once the Administrator has approved it. You must follow the procedure in § 63.7( f) to submit an alternative test method for approval. ( 4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the test methods specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 3) of this section, such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHAdefined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4) and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene ( not an OSHA carcinogen) is 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. If there is a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted according to paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 3) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence. ( 5) Solvent blends. Solvent blends may be listed as single components for some materials in data provided by manufacturers or suppliers. Solvent blends may contain organic HAP which must be counted toward the total organic HAP mass fraction of the materials. When test data and manufacturer's data for solvent blends are not available, you may use the default values for the mass fraction of organic HAP in these solvent blends listed in Table 3 or 4 of this subpart. If you use the tables, you must use the values in Table 3 for all solvent blends that match Table 3 entries, and you may only use Table 4 if the solvent blends in the materials you use do not match any of the solvent blends in Table 3 and you only know whether the blend is aliphatic or aromatic. However, if the results of a Method 311 test indicate higher values than those listed on Table 3 or 4 of this subpart, the Method 311 results will take precedence. ( b) Determine the mass fraction of coating solids for each coating. You must determine the mass fraction of coating solids ( pounds of coating solids per pound of coating) for each coating used during the compliance period by a test or by information provided by the supplier or the manufacturer of the material, as specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. If test results obtained according to paragraph ( b)( 1) or ( 2) of this section do not agree with the information obtained under paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section, the test results will take precedence. ( 1) Method 24 ( appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). You may use Method 24 for determining the mass fraction of solids of coatings. ( 2) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for determining the solids content of each coating once the Administrator has approved it. You must follow the procedure in § 63.7( f) to submit an alternative test method for approval. ( 3) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may obtain the mass fraction of coating solids for each coating from the supplier or manufacturer. If there is disagreement between such information and the test method results, then the test method results will take precedence. ( c) Calculate the organic HAP content of each coating. Calculate the organic HAP content, kg ( lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used, of each coating used during the compliance period, using Equation 1 of this section: H W S Eq c c c = ( . 1) Where: Hc = organic HAP content of the coating, kg ( lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. Wc = mass fraction of organic HAP in the coating, lb organic HAP per lb coating, determined according to paragraph ( a) of this section. Sc = mass fraction of coating solids, lb coating solids per lb coating, determined according to paragraph ( b) of this section. ( d) Compliance demonstration. The calculated organic HAP content for each coating used during the initial compliance period must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490; and each thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used during the initial compliance period must contain no organic HAP, determined according to paragraph ( a) of this section. You must keep all records required by § § 63.4530 and 63.4531. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required in § 63.4510, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the compliant material option and submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was ( were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because you used no coatings for which the organic HAP content exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, and you used no thinners, other additives, or cleaning materials that contained organic HAP, determined according to the procedures in paragraph ( a) of this section. § 63.4542 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? ( a) For each compliance period to demonstrate continuous compliance, you must use no coating for which the organic HAP content ( determined using Equation 1 of § 63.4541) exceeds the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, and use no thinner or other additive, or cleaning material that contains organic HAP, determined according to § 63.4541( a). A compliance period consists of 12 months. Each month, after the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.4540, is the end of a compliance period consisting of that month and the preceding 11 months. ( b) If you choose to comply with the emission limitations by using the compliant material option, the use of any coating, thinner or other additive, or cleaning material that does not meet the criteria specified in paragraph ( a) of this section is a deviation from the emission limitations that must be reported as specified in § § 63.4510( c)( 6) and 63.4520( a)( 5). ( c) As part of each semiannual compliance report required by § 63.4520, you must identify the coating VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 EP04DE02.001</ MATH> 72308 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules operation( s) for which you used the compliant material option. If there were no deviations from the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was ( were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period because you used no coatings for which the organic HAP content exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, and you used no thinner or other additive, or cleaning material that contained organic HAP, determined according to § 63.4541( a). ( d) You must maintain records as specified in § § 63.4530 and 63.4531. Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate Without Add­ On Controls Option § 63.4550 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.4551. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483 and ends on the last day of the 12th month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next 12 months. You must determine the mass of organic HAP emissions and mass of coating solids used each month and then calculate a 12­ month organic HAP emission rate at the end of the initial 12­ month compliance period. The initial compliance demonstration includes the calculations according to § 63.4551 and supporting documentation showing that during the initial compliance period the organic HAP emission rate was equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490. § 63.4551 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? You may use the emission rate without add­ on controls option for any individual coating operation, for any group of coating operations in the affected source, or for all the coating operations in the affected source. You must use either the compliant material option or the emission rate with add­ on controls option for any coating operation in the affected source for which you do not use this option. To demonstrate initial compliance using the emission rate without add­ on controls option, the coating operation or group of coating operations must meet the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, but is not required to meet the operating limits or work practice standards in § § 63.4492 and 63.4493, respectively. You must conduct a separate initial compliance demonstration for each general use coating, TPO coating, headlamp coating, and assembled on­ road vehicle coating affected source. You must meet all the requirements of this section. When calculating the organic HAP emission rate according to this section, do not include any coatings, thinners or other additives, or cleaning materials used on coating operations for which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate with add­ on controls option or coating operations in a different affected source in a different subcategory. You do not need to redetermine the mass of organic HAP in coatings, thinners and other additives, or cleaning materials that have been reclaimed onsite and reused in the coating operation for which you use the emission rate without add­ on controls option. ( a) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material. Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used during each month according to the requirements in § 63.4541( a). ( b) Determine the mass fraction of coating solids. Determine the mass fraction of coating solids ( pounds of solids per pound of coating) for each coating used during each month according to the requirements in § 63.4541( b). ( c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density of each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used during each month from test results using ASTM Method D1475 98, information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475 98 test results and other such information sources, the test results will take precedence. ( d) Determine the volume of each material used. Determine the volume ( gallons) of each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used during each month by measurement or usage records. ( e) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emissions. The mass of organic HAP emissions is the combined mass of organic HAP contained in all coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used during each month minus the organic HAP in certain waste materials. Calculate the mass of organic HAP emissions using Equation 1 of this section. H A B C R Eq e w = + + ( . 1) Where: He = total mass of organic HAP emissions during the month, lb. A = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month, lb, as calculated in Equation 1A of this section. B = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners and other additives used during the month, lb, as calculated in Equation 1B of this section. C = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used during the month, lb, as calculated in Equation 1C of this section. Rw = total mass of organic HAP in waste materials sent or designated for shipment to a hazardous waste TSDF for treatment or disposal during the month, lb, determined according to paragraph ( e)( 4) of this section. ( You may assign a value of zero to Rw if you do not wish to use this allowance.) ( 1) Calculate the lb organic HAP in the coatings used during the month using Equation 1A of this section: A Vol D W Eq c i i m c i c i = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 1A) Where: A = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month, lb. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month, gallons. Dc, i = density of coating, i, lb coating per gallon coating. Wc, i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, lb organic HAP per lb coating. m = number of different coatings used during the month. ( 2) Calculate the lb of organic HAP in the thinners and other additives used VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 EP04DE02.002</ MATH> EP04DE02.003</ MATH> 72309 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules during the month using Equation 1B of this section: B Vol D W Eq t j j n t j t j = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 1B) Where: B = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners and other additives used during the month, lb. Volt, j = total volume of thinner or other additive, j, used during the month, gallons. Dt, j = density of thinner or other additive, j, lb per gallon. Wt, j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner or other additive, j, lb organic HAP per lb thinner. n = number of different thinners or other additives used during the month. ( 3) Calculate the lb organic HAP in the cleaning materials used during the month using Equation 1C of this section: C Vol D W Eq s k k p s k s k = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 1C) Where: C = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used during the month, lb. Vols, k = total volume of cleaning material, k, used during the month, gallons. Ds, k = density of cleaning material, k, lb per gallon. Ws, k = mass fraction of organic HAP in cleaning material, k, lb organic HAP per lb material. p = number of different cleaning materials used during the month. ( 4) If you choose to account for the mass of organic HAP contained in waste materials sent or designated for shipment to a hazardous waste TSDF in Equation 1 of this section, then you must determine it according to paragraphs ( e)( 4)( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) You may include in the determination only waste materials that are generated by coating operations in the affected source for which you use Equation 1 of this section and that will be treated or disposed of by a facility that is regulated as a TSDF under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. The TSDF may be either off­ site or on­ site. You may not include organic HAP contained in wastewater. ( ii) You must determine either the amount of the waste materials sent to a TSDF during the month or the amount collected and stored during the month and designated for future transport to a TSDF. Do not include in your determination any waste materials sent to a TSDF during a month if you have already included them in the amount collected and stored during that month or a previous month. ( iii) Determine the total mass of organic HAP contained in the waste materials specified in paragraph ( e)( 4)( ii) of this section. ( iv) You must document the methodology you use to determine the amount of waste materials and the total mass of organic HAP they contain, as required in § 63.4530( h). To the extent that waste manifests include this, they may be used as part of the documentation of the amount of waste materials and mass of organic HAP contained in them. ( f) Calculate the total mass of coating solids used. Determine the total mass of coating solids used, lb, which is the combined mass of coating solids for all coatings used during each month using Equation 2 of this section: M Vol D M Eq st c i i m c i s i = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 2) Where: Mst = total mass of coating solids used during the month, lb. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month, gallons. Dc, i = density of coating, i, lbs per gallon coating, determined according to 63.4551( c). Ms, i = mass fraction of coating solids for coating, i, lbs solids per lb coating, determined according to § 63.4541( b). m = number of coatings used during the month. ( g) Calculate the organic HAP emission rate for the 12­ month compliance period, kg ( lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used, using Equation 3 of this section: H H M Eq yr e y st y = = = 1 12 1 12 ( . 3) Where: Hyr = average organic HAP emission rate for the 12­ month compliance period, kg ( lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used. He = total mass of organic HAP emissions from all materials used during month, y, lb, as calculated by Equation 1 of this section. Mst = total mass of coating solids used during month, y, lb, as calculated by Equation 2 of this section. y = identifier for months. ( h) Compliance demonstration. The organic HAP emission rate for the initial 12­ month compliance period must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490. You must keep all records as required by § § 63.4530 and 63.4531. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.4510, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the emission rate without add­ on controls option and submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was ( were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, determined according to the procedures in this section. § 63.4552 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? ( a) To demonstrate continuous compliance, the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period, determined according to § 63.4551( a) through ( g), must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490. A compliance period consists of 12 months. Each month after the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.4550 is the end of a compliance period consisting of that month and the preceding 11 months. You must perform the calculations in § 63.4551( a) through ( g) on a monthly basis using data from the previous 12 months of operation. ( b) If the organic HAP emission rate for any 12­ month compliance period exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, this is a deviation from the emission limitation for that compliance period and must be reported as specified in § § 63.4510( c)( 6) and 63.4520( a)( 6). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 EP04DE02.004</ MATH> EP04DE02.005</ MATH> EP04DE02.006</ MATH> EP04DE02.007</ MATH> 72310 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( c) As part of each semiannual compliance report required by § 63.4520, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the emission rate without add­ on controls option. If there were no deviations from the emission limitations, you must submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was ( were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, determined according to § 63.4551( a) through ( g). ( d) You must maintain records as specified in § § 63.4530 and 63.4531. Compliance Requirements for the Emission Rate With Add­ On Controls Option § 63.4560 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? ( a) New and reconstructed affected sources. For a new or reconstructed affected source, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483. Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.4561( j), you must conduct a performance test of each capture system and add­ on control device according to § § 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.4492 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to § 63.4561( j), you must initiate the first material balance no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483. ( 2) You must develop and begin implementing the work practice plan required by § 63.4493 no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.4483. ( 3) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.4561. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483 and ends on the last day of the 12th month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next 12 months. You must determine the mass of organic HAP emissions and mass of coatings solids used each month and then calculate a 12­ month organic HAP emission rate at the end of the initial 12­ month compliance period. The initial compliance demonstration includes the results of emission capture system and add­ on control device performance tests conducted according to § § 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566; results of liquidliquid material balances conducted according to § 63.4561( j); calculations according to § 63.4561 and supporting documentation showing that during the initial compliance period the organic HAP emission rate was equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490; the operating limits established during the performance tests and the results of the continuous parameter monitoring required by § 63.4568; and documentation of whether you developed and implemented the work practice plan required by § 63.4493. ( 4) You do not need to comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and add­ on control device required by § 63.4492 until after you have completed the performance tests specified in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add­ on control device, and continuous parameter monitors during the period between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin complying with the operating limits for your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests specified in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. The requirements in this paragraph do not apply to solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to the requirements in § 63.4561( j). ( b) Existing affected sources. For an existing affected source, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483. Except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances according to § 63.4561( j), you must conduct a performance test of each capture system and add­ on control device according to the procedures in § § 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.4492 no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.4483. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to § 63.4561( j), you must initiate the first material balance no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.4483. ( 2) You must develop and begin implementing the work practice plan required by § 63.4493 no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.4483. ( 3) You must complete the compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.4561. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.4483 and ends on the last day of the 12th month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next 12 months. You must determine the mass of organic HAP emissions and mass of coatings solids used each month and then calculate a 12­ month organic HAP emission rate at the end of the initial 12­ month compliance period. The initial compliance demonstration includes the results of emission capture system and add­ on control device performance tests conducted according to § § 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566; results of liquidliquid material balances conducted according to § 63.4561( j); calculations according to § 63.4561 and supporting documentation showing that during the initial compliance period the organic HAP emission rate was equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490; the operating limits established during the performance tests and the results of the continuous parameter monitoring required by § 63.4568; and documentation of whether you developed and implemented the work practice plan required by § 63.4493. § 63.4561 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? ( a) You may use the emission rate with add­ on controls option for any coating operation, for any group of coating operations in the affected source, or for all of the coating operations in the affected source. You may include both controlled and uncontrolled coating operations in a group for which you use this option. You must use either the compliant material option or the emission rate without add­ on controls option for any coating operation in the affected source for which you do not use the emission rate with add­ on controls option. To demonstrate initial compliance, the coating operation( s) for which you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option must meet the applicable emission limitations in § § 63.4490, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72311 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules 63.4492, and 63.4493. You must conduct a separate initial compliance demonstration for each general use coating, TPO coating, headlamp coating and assembled on­ road vehicle coating affected source. You must meet all the requirements of this section. When calculating the organic HAP emission rate according to this section, do not include any coatings, thinners and other additives, or cleaning materials used on coating operations for which you use the compliant material option or the emission rate without add­ on controls option or coating operations in a different affected source in a different subcategory. You do not need to redetermine the mass of organic HAP in coatings, thinners and other additives, or cleaning materials that have been reclaimed onsite and reused in the coatings operation( s) for which you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option. ( b) Compliance with operating limits. Except as provided in § 63.4560( a)( 4), and except for solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances according to the requirements of paragraph ( j) of this section, you must establish and demonstrate continuous compliance during the initial compliance period with the operating limits required by § 63.4492, using the procedures specified in § § 63.4567 and 63.4568. ( c) Compliance with work practice requirements. You must develop, implement, and document your implementation of the work practice plan required by § 63.4493 during the initial compliance period, as specified in § 63.4530. ( d) Compliance with emission limits. You must follow the procedures in paragraphs ( e) through ( n) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490 for each affected source in each subcategory. ( e) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP, density, volume used, and mass fraction of coating solids. Follow the procedures specified in § 63.4551( a) through ( d) to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP, density, and volume of each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used during each month; and the mass fraction of coating solids for each coating used during each month. ( f) Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before add­ on controls. Using Equation 1 of § 63.4551, calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before add­ on controls from all coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used during each month in the coating operation or group of coating operations for which you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option. ( g) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation. Determine the mass of organic HAP emissions reduced for each controlled coating operation during each month. The emission reduction determination quantifies the total organic HAP emissions that pass through the emission capture system and are destroyed or removed by the add­ on control device. Use the procedures in paragraph ( h) of this section to calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation using an emission capture system and add­ on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances. For each controlled coating operation using a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance, use the procedures in paragraph ( j) of this section to calculate the organic HAP emission reduction. ( h) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation not using liquid­ liquid material balance. For each controlled coating operation using an emission capture system and add­ on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances, calculate the organic HAP emission reduction, using Equation 1 of this section. The calculation applies the emission capture system efficiency and add­ on control device efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials that are used in the coating operation served by the emission capture system and add­ on control device during each month. For any period of time a deviation specified in § 63.4563( c) or ( d) occurs in the controlled coating operation, including a deviation during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, then you must assume zero efficiency for the emission capture system and add­ on control device. Equation 1 of this section treats the materials used during such a deviation as if they were used on an uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the deviation. H A B C H CE DRE Eq C C C C UNC = + + ( ) × 100 100 ( . 1) Where: HC = mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the controlled coating operation during the month, lb. AC = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the controlled coating operation during the month, lb, as calculated in Equation 1A of this section. BC = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners and other additives used in the controlled coating operation during the month, lb, as calculated in Equation 1B of this section. CC = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used in the controlled coating operation during the month, lb, as calculated in Equation 1C of this section. HUNC = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used during all deviations specified in § 63.4563( c) and ( d) that occurred during the month in the controlled coating operation, lb, as calculated in Equation 1D of this section. CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the add­ on control device, percent. Use the test methods and procedures specified in § § 63.4564 and 63.4565 to measure and record capture efficiency. DRE = organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device, percent. Use the test methods and procedures in § § 63.4564 and 63.4566 to measure and record the organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency. ( 1) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the controlled coating operation, lb, using Equation 1A of this section: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 EP04DE02.008</ MATH> 72312 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules A Vol D W Eq C ci i m c i c i = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 1A) Where: AC = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the controlled coating operation during the month, lb. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month, gallons. Dc, i = density of coating, i, lb per gallon. Wc, i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, lb per lb. m = number of different coatings used. ( 2) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the thinners and other additives used in the controlled coating operation, lb using Equation 1B of this section. B Vol D W Eq C tj j n t j t j = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 1B) Where: BC = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners and other additives used in the controlled coating operation during the month, lb. Volt, j = total volume of thinner or other additive, j, used during the month, gallons. Dt, j = density of thinner or other additive, j, lb per gallon. Wt, j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner or other additive, j, lb per lb. n = number of different thinners and other additives used. ( 3) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used in the controlled coating operation during the month, lb, using Equation 1C of this section. C Vol D W Eq C sk k p s k s k = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 1C) Where: CC = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used in the controlled coating operation during the month, lb. Vols, k = total volume of cleaning material, k, used during the month, gallons. Ds, k = density of cleaning material, k, lb per gallon. Ws, k = mass fraction of organic HAP in cleaning material, k, lb per lb. p = number of different cleaning materials used. ( 4) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used in the controlled coating operation during deviations specified in § 63.4563( c) and ( d), using Equation 1D of this section. H Vol D W Eq UNC h h q h h = ( )( )( ) = 1 ( . 1D) Where: HUNC = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used during all deviations specified in § 63.4563( c) and ( d) that occurred during the month in the controlled coating operation, lb. Volh = total volume of coating, thinner or other additive, or cleaning material, h, used in the controlled coating operation during deviations, gallons. Dh = density of coating, thinner or other additive, or cleaning material, h, lb per gallon. Wh = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, thinner or other additive, or cleaning material, h, lb organic HAP per lb coating. q = number of different coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used. ( i) [ Reserved] ( j) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation using liquid­ liquid material balances. For each controlled coating operation using a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances, calculate the organic HAP emission reduction by applying the volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials that are used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during each month. Perform a liquid­ liquid material balance for each month as specified in paragraphs ( j)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. Calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction by the solvent recovery system as specified in paragraph ( j)( 7) of this section. ( 1) For each solvent recovery system, install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications, a device that indicates the cumulative amount of volatile organic matter recovered by the solvent recovery system each month. The device must be initially certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to within ± 2.0 percent of the mass of volatile organic matter recovered. ( 2) For each solvent recovery system, determine the mass of volatile organic matter recovered for the month, based on measurement with the device required in paragraph ( j)( 1) of this section. ( 3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used in the coating operation VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 EP04DE02.009</ GPH> EP04DE02.010</ MATH> EP04DE02.011</ MATH> EP04DE02.012</ MATH> 72313 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, lb volatile organic matter per lb coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or an EPA approved alternative method, or you may use information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or an approved alternative method, the test method results will govern. ( 4) Determine the density of each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, lb per gallon, according to § 63.4551( c). ( 5) Measure the volume of each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, gallons. ( 6) Each month, calculate the solvent recovery system's volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency, using Equation 2 of this section: R M Vol D WV Vol D WV Vol D WV Eq v VR i i ci j j t j j n k k sk k p i m = + + = = = 100 1 1 1 , , , ( . 2) Where: RV = volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency of the solvent recovery system during the month, percent. MVR = mass of volatile organic matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month, lb. Voli = volume of coating, i, used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, gallons. Di = density of coating, i, lb per gallon. WVc, i = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for coating, i, lb volatile organic matter per lb coating. Volj = volume of thinner or other additive, j, used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, gallons. Dj = density of thinner or other additive, j, lb per gallon. WVt, j = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for thinner or other additive, j, lb volatile organic matter per lb thinner or other additive. Volk = volume of cleaning material, k, used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, gallons. Dk = density of cleaning material, k, lb per gallon. WVs, k = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for cleaning material, k, lb volatile organic matter per lb cleaning material. m = number of different coatings used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month. n = number of different thinners and other additives used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month. p = number of different cleaning materials used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month. ( 7) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, using Equation 3 of this section and according to paragraphs ( j)( 7)( i) through ( iii) of this section: H A B C R Eq CSR CSR CSR CSR V = + + ( ) 100 ( . 3) Where: HCSR = mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system using a liquid­ liquid material balance during the month, lb. ACSR = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, lb, calculated using Equation 3A of this section. BCSR = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners and other additives used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, lb, calculated using Equation 3B of this section. CCSR = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, lb, calculated using Equation 3C of this section. RV = volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency of the solvent recovery system, percent, from Equation 2 of this section. ( i) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, lb, using Equation 3A of this section: A = Vol D W ( Eq. 3A) CSR c, i c, i c, i i= 1 m ( )( )( ) Where: ACSR = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, lb. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, gallons. Dc, i = density of coating, i, lb per gallon. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 22: 11 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 EP04DE02.013</ MATH> EP04DE02.014</ MATH> EP04DE02.015</ MATH> 72314 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules Wc, i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, lb organic HAP per lb coating. m = number of different coatings used. ( ii) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the thinners and other additives used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, lb, using Equation 3B of this section: B Vol D W Eq CSR t j t j t j j n = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 3B) 1 Where: BCSR = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners and other additives used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, lb. Volt, j = total volume of thinner or other additive, j, used during the month in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, gallons. Dt, j = density of thinner or other additive, j, lb per gallon. Wt, j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner or other additive, j, lb organic HAP per lb thinner or other additive. n = number of different thinners and other additives used. ( iii) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, lb, using Equation 3C of this section. C = Vol D W ( Eq. 3C) CSR s, k s, k s, k k= 1 p ( )( )( ) Where: CCSR = total mass of organic HAP in the cleaning materials used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, lb. Vols, k = total volume of cleaning material, k, used during the month in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, gallons. Ds, k = density of cleaning material, k, lb per gallon. Ws, k = mass fraction of organic HAP in cleaning material, k, lb organic HAP per lb cleaning material. p = number of different cleaning materials used. ( k) Calculate the total mass of coating solids used. Determine the total mass of coating solids used, pounds, which is the combined mass of coating solids for all the coatings used during each month in the coating operation or group of coating operations for which you use the emission rate with add­ on controls option, using Equation 2 of § 63.4551. ( l) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emissions for each month. Determine the mass of organic HAP emissions, lb, during each month, using Equation 4 of this section: H H H H Eq HAP e C i i q CSR j j r = ( ) ( ) = = , , ( . 1 1 4) Where: HHAP = total mass of organic HAP emissions for the month, lb. He = total mass of organic HAP emissions before add­ on controls from all the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used during the month, lb, determined according to paragraph ( f) of this section. HC, i = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction for controlled coating operation, i, not using a liquid­ liquid material balance, during the month, lb, from Equation 1 of this section. HCSR, j = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction for coating operation, j, controlled by a solvent recovery system using a liquidliquid material balance, during the month, lb, from Equation 3 of this section. q = Number of controlled coating operations not using a liquid­ liquid material balance. r = Number of coating operations controlled by a solvent recovery system using a liquid­ liquid material balance. ( m) Calculate the organic HAP emission rate for the 12­ month compliance period. Determine the organic HAP emission rate for the 12­ month compliance period, kg ( lb) of organic HAP emitted per kg ( lb) coating solids used, using Equation 5 of this section: H H M Eq annual HAP y y st y y = = = , , ( . 1 12 1 12 5) Where: Hannual = organic HAP emission rate for the 12­ month compliance period, kg of organic HAP emitted per kg coating solids used ( lb organic HAP emitted per lb coating solids used). HHAP, y = organic HAP emission rate for month, y, determined according to Equation 4 of this section. Mst, y = total mass of coating solids used during month, y, lb, from Equation 2 of § 63.4551. y = identifier for months. ( n) Compliance demonstration. To demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limit, calculated using Equation 5 of this section, must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit for each subcategory in § 63.4490. You must keep all records as required by § § 63.4530 and 63.4531. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.4510, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the emission rate with add­ on controls option and submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was ( were) in compliance with the emission VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 22: 11 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 EP04DE02.016</ MATH> EP04DE02.017</ MATH> EP04DE02.018</ MATH> EP04DE02.019</ MATH> 72315 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules limitations during the initial compliance period because the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, and you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.4492 and the work practice standards required by § 63.4493. § 63.4562 [ Reserved.] § 63.4563 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? ( a) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period, determined according to the procedures in § 63.4561, must be equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490 for that subcategory. A compliance period consists of 12 months. Each month after the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.4560 is the end of a compliance period consisting of that month and the preceding 11 months. You must perform the calculations in § 63.4561 on a monthly basis using data from the previous 12 months of operation. ( b) If the organic HAP emission rate for any 12­ month compliance period exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, this is a deviation from the emission limitation for that compliance period and must be reported as specified in § § 63.4510( b)( 6) and 63.4520( a)( 7). ( c) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit required by § 63.4492 that applies to you, as specified in Table 1 of this subpart. ( 1) If an operating parameter is out of the allowed range specified in Table 1 of this subpart, this is a deviation from the operating limit that must be reported as specified in § § 63.4510( b)( 6) and 63.4520( a)( 7). ( 2) If an operating parameter deviates from the operating limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart, then you must assume that the emission capture system and add­ on control device were achieving zero efficiency during the time period of the deviation. For the purposes of completing the compliance calculations specified in § § 63.4561( h), you must treat the materials used during a deviation on a controlled coating operation as if they were used on an uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the deviation as indicated in Equation 1 of § 63.4561. ( d) You must meet the requirements for bypass lines in § 63.4568( b) for controlled coating operations for which you do not conduct liquid­ liquid material balances. If any bypass line is opened and emissions are diverted to the atmosphere when the coating operation is running, this is a deviation that must be reported as specified in § § 63.4510( b)( 6) and 63.4520( a)( 7). For the purposes of completing the compliance calculations specified in § § 63.4561( h), you must treat the materials used during a deviation on a controlled coating operation as if they were used on an uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the deviation as indicated in Equation 1 of § 63.4561. ( e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standards in § 63.4493. If you did not develop a work practice plan, or you did not implement the plan, or you did not keep the records required by § 63.4530( k)( 8), this is a deviation from the work practice standards that must be reported as specified in § § 63.4510( c)( 6) and 63.4520( a)( 7). ( f) As part of each semiannual compliance report required in § 63.4520, you must identify the coating operation( s) for which you used the emission rate with add­ on controls option. If there were no deviations from the emission limitations, submit a statement that you were in compliance with the emission limitations during the reporting period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.4490, and you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.4492 and the work practice standards required by § 63.4493 during each compliance period. ( g) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system, add­ on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency, you must operate in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by § 63.4500( c). ( h) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system, add­ on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e). ( i) [ Reserved] ( j) You must maintain records as specified in § § 63.4530 and 63.4531. § 63.4564 What are the general requirements for performance tests? ( a) You must conduct each performance test required by § 63.4560 according to the requirements in § 63.7( e)( 1) and under the conditions in this section, unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7( h). ( 1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction and during periods of nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. ( 2) Representative emission capture system and add­ on control device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when the emission capture system and add­ on control device are operating at a representative flow rate, and the add­ on control device is operating at a representative inlet concentration. You must record information that is necessary to document emission capture system and add­ on control device operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. ( b) You must conduct each performance test of an emission capture system according to the requirements in § 63.4565. You must conduct each performance test of an add­ on control device according to the requirements in § 63.4566. § 63.4565 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine capture efficiency as part of the performance test required by § 63.4560. ( a) Assuming 100 percent capture efficiency. You may assume the capture system efficiency is 100 percent if both of the conditions in paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section are met: ( 1) The capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and directs all the exhaust gases from the enclosure to an add­ on control device. ( 2) All coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation are applied within the capture system; coating VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72316 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules solvent flash­ off, curing, and drying occurs within the capture system; and the removal or evaporation of cleaning materials from the surfaces they are applied to occurs within the capture system. For example, this criterion is not met if parts enter the open shop environment when being moved between a spray booth and a curing oven. ( b) Measuring capture efficiency. If the capture system does not meet both of the criteria in paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section, then you must use one of the three protocols described in paragraphs ( c), ( d), and ( e) of this section to measure capture efficiency. The capture efficiency measurements use TVH capture efficiency as a surrogate for organic HAP capture efficiency. For the protocols in paragraphs ( c) and ( d) of this section, the capture efficiency measurement must consist of three test runs. Each test run must be at least 3 hours duration or the length of a production run, whichever is longer, up to 8 hours. For the purposes of this test, a production run means the time required for a single part to go from the beginning to the end of the production, which includes surface preparation activities and drying and curing time. ( c) Liquid­ to­ uncaptured­ gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. The liquid­ touncaptured gas protocol compares the mass of liquid TVH in materials used in the coating operation to the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the emission capture system. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure and the procedures in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 6) of this section to measure emission capture system efficiency using the liquid­ touncaptured gas protocol. ( 1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure around the coating operation where coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials are applied, and all areas where emissions from these applied coatings and materials subsequently occur, such as flash­ off, curing, and drying areas. The areas of the coating operation where capture devices collect emissions for routing to an add­ on control device, such as the entrance and exit areas of an oven or spray booth, must also be inside the enclosure. The enclosure must meet the applicable definition of a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. ( 2) Use Method 204A or 204F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to determine the mass fraction of TVH liquid input from each coating, thinner and other additive, and cleaning material used in the coating operation during each capture efficiency test run. To make the determination, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term volatile organic compounds ( VOC) in the methods. ( 3) Use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the total mass of TVH liquid input from all the coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation during each capture efficiency test run: TVH TVH Vol D Eq used i i n i i = ( )( )( ) = 1 ( . 1) Where: TVHused = Mass of liquid TVH in materials used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, lb. TVHi = mass fraction of TVH in coating, thinner or other additive, or cleaning material, i, that is used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, lb TVH per lb material. Voli = total volume of coating, thinner or other additive, or cleaning material, i, used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, gallons. Di = density of coating, thinner or other additive, or cleaning material, i, lb material per gallon material. n = number of different coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run. ( 4) Use Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure the total mass, lb, of TVH emissions that are not captured by the emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods. ( i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total enclosure. ( ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure. During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined, must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally. ( 5) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent capture efficiency of the emission capture system using Equation 2 of this section: CE TVH TVH TVH used uncaptured used = ( ) × 100 ( Eq. 2) Where: CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the add­ on control device, percent. TVHused = total mass of TVH liquid input used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, lb. TVHuncaptured = total mass of TVH that is not captured by the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test run, lb. ( 6) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test runs. ( d) Gas­ to­ gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. The gas­ to­ gas protocol compares the mass of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture system to the mass of TVH emissions not captured. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure and the procedures in paragraphs ( d)( 1) through ( 5) of this section to measure emission capture system efficiency using the gas­ to­ gas protocol. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 EP04DE02.020</ GPH> EP04DE02.021</ GPH> 72317 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure around the coating operation where coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials are applied, and all areas where emissions from these applied coatings and materials subsequently occur, such as flash­ off, curing, and drying areas. The areas of the coating operation where capture devices collect emissions generated by the coating operation for routing to an add­ on control device, such as the entrance and exit areas of an oven or a spray booth, must also be inside the enclosure. The enclosure must meet the applicable definition of a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. ( 2) Use Method 204B or 204C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure the total mass, lb, of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture system during each capture efficiency test run as measured at the inlet to the add­ on control device. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods. ( i) The sampling points for the Method 204B or 204C measurement must be upstream from the add­ on control device and must represent total emissions routed from the capture system and entering the add­ on control device. ( ii) If multiple emission streams from the capture system enter the add­ on control device without a single common duct, then the emissions entering the add­ on control device must be simultaneously measured in each duct and the total emissions entering the add­ on control device must be determined. ( 3) Use Method 204D or 204E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure the total mass, lb, of TVH emissions that are not captured by the emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods. ( i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total enclosure. ( ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure. During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined, must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally. ( 4) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent capture efficiency of the emission capture system using Equation 3 of this section: CE TVH TVH TVH captured captured uncaptured = + ( ) × 100 ( Eq. 3) Where: CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the add­ on control device, percent. TVHcaptured = total mass of TVH captured by the emission capture system as measured at the inlet to the add­ on control device during the emission capture efficiency test run, lb. TVHuncaptured = total mass of TVH that is not captured by the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test run, lb. ( 5) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test runs. ( e) Alternative capture efficiency protocol. As an alternative to the procedures specified in paragraphs ( c) and ( d) of this section, you may determine capture efficiency using any other capture efficiency protocol and test methods that satisfy the criteria of either the DQO or LCL approach as described in appendix A to subpart KK of this part. § 63.4566 How do I determine the add­ on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine the add­ on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency as part of the performance test required by § 63.4560. You must conduct three test runs as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3) and each test run must last at least 1 hour. ( a) For all types of add­ on control devices, use the test methods specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points. ( 2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate. ( 3) Use Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. ( 4) Use Method 4 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, to determine stack gas moisture. ( 5) Methods for determining gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during each test run. ( b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the inlet and outlet of the add­ on control device simultaneously, using either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. ( 1) Use Method 25 if the add­ on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million ( ppm) at the control device outlet. ( 2) Use Method 25A if the add­ on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device outlet. ( 3) Use Method 25A if the add­ on control device is not an oxidizer. ( c) If two or more add­ on control devices are used for the same emission stream, then you must measure emissions at the outlet to the atmosphere of each device. For example, if one add­ on control device is a concentrator with an outlet to the atmosphere for the high­ volume, dilute stream that has been treated by the concentrator, and a second add­ on control device is an oxidizer with an outlet to the atmosphere for the lowvolume concentrated stream that is treated with the oxidizer, you must measure emissions at the outlet of the oxidizer and the high volume dilute stream outlet of the concentrator. ( d) For each test run, determine the total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rates for the inlet and the outlet of the add­ on control device, using Equation 1 of this section. If there is more than one inlet or outlet to the addon control device, you must calculate the total gaseous organic mass flow rate using Equation 1 of this section for each inlet and each outlet and then total all of the inlet emissions and total all of the outlet emissions: Mf = Qsd Cc ( 12) ( 0.0416) ( 10 ¥ 6) ( Eq. 1) VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 21: 41 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 EP04DE02.022</ GPH> 72318 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules Where: Mf = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate, kg/ per hour ( h). Cc = concentration of organic compounds as carbon in the vent gas, as determined by Method 25 or Method 25A, parts per million by volume ( ppmv), dry basis. Qsd = volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting the add­ on control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, dry standard cubic meters/ hour ( dscm/ h). 0.0416 = conversion factor for molar volume, kg­ moles per cubic meter ( mol/ m3) (@ 293 Kelvin ( K) and 760 millimeters of mercury ( mmHg)). ( e) For each test run, determine the add­ on control device organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency, using Equation 2 of this section: DRE= M M M ( Eq. 2) fi fo fi ­ · 100 Where: DRE = organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device, percent. Mfi = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at the inlet( s) to the add­ on control device, using Equation 1 of this section, kg/ h. Mfo = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at the outlet( s) of the add­ on control device, using Equation 1 of this section, kg/ h. ( f) Determine the emission destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device as the average of the efficiencies determined in the three test runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this section. § 63.4567 How do I establish the emission capture system and add­ on control device operating limits during the performance test? During the performance test required by § 63.4560 and described in § § 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566, you must establish the operating limits required by § 63.4492 according to this section, unless you have received approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits under § 63.8( f) as specified in § 63.4492. ( a) Thermal oxidizers. If your add­ on control device is a thermal oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. ( 2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test. This average combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal oxidizer. ( b) Catalytic oxidizers. If your add­ on control device is a catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to either paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( 2) or paragraphs ( b)( 3) and ( 4) of this section. ( 1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. ( 2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. These are the minimum operating limits for your catalytic oxidizer. ( 3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and implement a site­ specific inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph ( b)( 4) of this section. During the performance test, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer. ( 4) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer( s) for which you elect to monitor according to paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section. The plan must address, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs ( b)( 4)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) Annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity ( i. e, conversion efficiency) following the manufacturer's or catalyst supplier's recommended procedures. ( ii) Monthly inspection of the oxidizer system, including the burner assembly and fuel supply lines for problems and, as necessary, adjust the equipment to assure proper air­ to­ fuel mixtures. ( iii) Annual internal and monthly external visual inspection of the catalyst bed to check for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If problems are found, you must take corrective action consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations and conduct a new performance test to determine destruction efficiency according to § 63.4566. ( c) Carbon adsorbers. If your add­ on control device is a carbon adsorber, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) You must monitor and record the total regeneration desorbing gas ( e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle, and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon bed regeneration and cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either immediately preceding or immediately following the performance test. ( 2) The operating limits for your carbon adsorber are the minimum total desorbing gas mass flow recorded during the regeneration cycle and the maximum carbon bed temperature recorded after the cooling cycle. ( d) Condensers. If your add­ on control device is a condenser, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs ( d)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the condenser outlet ( product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. ( 2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet ( product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating limit for your condenser. ( e) Concentrator. If your add­ on control device includes a concentrator, you must establish operating limits for the concentrator according to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 58 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 e:\ pickup\ EP04DE02.024</ GPH> 72319 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules paragraphs ( e)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. ( 2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This is the minimum operating limit for the desorption concentrate gas stream temperature. ( 3) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. ( 4) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average pressure drop. This is the maximum operating limit for the dilute stream across the concentrator. ( f) Emission capture system. For each capture device that is not part of a PTE that meets the criteria of § 63.4565( a), establish an operating limit for either the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure, as specified in paragraphs ( f)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. The operating limit for a PTE is specified in Table 1 of this subpart. ( 1) During the capture efficiency determination required by § 63.4560 and described in § § 63.4564 and 63.4565, you must monitor and record either the gas volumetric flow rate or the duct static pressure for each separate capture device in your emission capture system at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs at a point in the duct between the capture device and the add­ on control device inlet. ( 2) Calculate and record the average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for the three test runs for each capture device. This average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure is the minimum operating limit for that specific capture device. § 63.4568 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance? ( a) General. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraphs ( c), ( e), ( f), and ( g) of this section according to paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraphs ( b) and ( d) of this section according to paragraphs ( a)( 3) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15­ minute period. You must have a minimum of four equally spaced successive cycles of CPMS operation in 1 hour. ( 2) You must determine the average of all recorded readings for each successive 3­ hour period of the emission capture system and add­ on control device operation. ( 3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check of the CPMS. ( 4) You must maintain the CPMS at all times and have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. ( 5) You must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add­ on control device parameter data at all times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities ( including, if applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). ( 6) You must not use emission capture system or add­ on control device parameter data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out­ of­ control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities when calculating data averages. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in calculating the data averages for determining compliance with the emission capture system and add­ on control device operating limits. ( 7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS 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 is a deviation from the monitoring requirements. ( b) Capture system bypass line. You must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( 2) of this section for each emission capture system that contains bypass lines that could divert emissions away from the add­ on control device to the atmosphere. ( 1) You must monitor or secure the valve or closure mechanism controlling the bypass line in a nondiverting position in such a way that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be opened without creating a record that the valve was opened. The method used to monitor or secure the valve or closure mechanism must meet one of the requirements specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1)( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) Flow control position indicator. Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications a flow control position indicator that takes a reading at least once every 15 minutes and provides a record indicating whether the emissions are directed to the add­ on control device or diverted from the add­ on control device. The time of occurrence and flow control position must be recorded, as well as every time the flow direction is changed. The flow control position indicator must be installed at the entrance to any bypass line that could divert the emissions away from the addon control device to the atmosphere. ( ii) Car­ seal or lock­ and­ key valve closures. Secure any bypass line valve in the closed position with a car­ seal or a lock­ and­ key type configuration. You must visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position, and the emissions are not diverted away from the add­ on control device to the atmosphere. ( iii) Valve closure monitoring. Ensure that any bypass line valve is in the closed ( nondiverting) position through monitoring of valve position at least once every 15 minutes. You must inspect the monitoring system at least once every month to verify that the monitor will indicate valve position. ( iv) Automatic shutdown system. Use an automatic shutdown system in which the coating operation is stopped when flow is diverted by the bypass line away from the add­ on control device to the atmosphere when the coating operation is running. You must inspect the automatic shutdown system at least once every month to verify that it will detect diversions of flow and shut down the coating operation. ( 2) If any bypass line is opened, you must include a description of why the bypass line was opened and the length of time it remained open in the semiannual compliance reports required in § 63.4520. ( c) Thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers. If you are using a thermal oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer as an addon control device ( including those used with concentrators or with carbon adsorbers to treat desorbed concentrate streams), you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 3) of this section: ( 1) For a thermal oxidizer, install a gas temperature monitor in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. ( 2) For a catalytic oxidizer, install gas temperature monitors both upstream and downstream of the catalyst bed. The temperature monitors must be in the gas stream immediately before and after the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72320 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules catalyst bed to measure the temperature difference across the bed. ( 3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a) and ( c)( 3)( i) through ( vii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. ( i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a representative temperature. ( ii) Use a temperature sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 4 degrees Fahrenheit or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger. ( iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic interference and chemical contaminants. ( iv) If a gas temperature chart recorder is used, it must have a measurement sensitivity in the minor division of at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit. ( v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading within 30 degrees Fahrenheit of the process temperature sensor reading. ( vi) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor. ( vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity and electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion. ( d) Carbon adsorbers. If you are using a carbon adsorber as an add­ on control device, you must monitor the total regeneration desorbing gas ( e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle, the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and cooling cycle, and comply with paragraphs ( a)( 3) through ( 5) and ( d)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) The regeneration desorbing gas mass flow monitor must be an integrating device having a measurement sensitivity of plus or minus 10 percent capable of recording the total regeneration desorbing gas mass flow for each regeneration cycle. ( 2) The carbon bed temperature monitor must have a measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater, and must be capable of recording the temperature within 15 minutes of completing any carbon bed cooling cycle. ( e) Condensers. If you are using a condenser, you must monitor the condenser outlet ( product side) gas temperature and comply with paragraphs ( a) and ( e)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) The gas temperature monitor must have a measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. ( 2) The temperature monitor must provide a gas temperature record at least once every 15 minutes. ( f) Concentrator. If you are using a concentrator, such as a zeolite wheel or rotary carbon bed concentrator, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs ( f)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) You must install a temperature monitor in the desorption gas stream. The temperature monitor must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a) and ( c)( 3) of this section. ( 2) You must install a device to monitor pressure drop across the zeolite wheel or rotary carbon bed. The pressure monitoring device must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a) and ( f)( 2)( i) through ( vii) of this section. ( i) Locate the pressure sensor( s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure. ( ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. ( iii) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range. ( iv) Check the pressure tap daily. ( v) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. ( vi) Conduct calibration checks anytime the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. ( vii) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. ( g) Emission capture systems. The capture system monitoring system must comply with the applicable requirements in paragraphs ( g)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a) and ( g)( 1)( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) Locate a flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flow measurement in the duct from each capture device in the emission capture system to the add­ on control device. ( ii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. ( iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually. ( iv) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for leakage. ( 2) For each pressure drop measurement device, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs ( a) and ( g)( 2)( i) through ( vi) of this section. ( i) Locate the pressure sensor( s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure drop across each opening you are monitoring. ( ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. ( iii) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. ( iv) Using an inclined manometer with a measurement sensitivity of 0.0002 inch water, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. ( v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. ( vi) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for leakage. Other Requirements and Information § 63.4580 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 Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency ( as well as the EPA) has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your 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 subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph ( c) of this section are retained by the Administrator and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency. ( c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 4) of this section: ( 1) Approval of alternatives to the work practice standards in § 63.4493 under § 63.6( g). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72321 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under § 63.7( e)( 2)( ii) and ( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under § 63.8( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10( f) and as defined in § 63.90. § 63.4581 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this section as follows: Additive means a material that is added to a coating after purchase from a supplier ( e. g., catalysts, activators, accelerators). Add­ on control means an air pollution control device, such as a thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorber, that reduces pollution in an air stream by destruction or removal before discharge to the atmosphere. Adhesive, adhesive coating means any chemical substance that is applied for the purpose of bonding two surfaces together. Assembled on­ road vehicle coating means any coating operation in which coating is applied to the surface of some plastic component or plastic surface of a fully assembled motor vehicle or trailer intended for on­ road use, including, but not limited to, plastic components or surfaces on: automobiles and light trucks that have been repaired after a collision or otherwise repainted, fleet delivery trucks, and motor homes and other recreational vehicles ( including camping trailers and fifth wheels). Assembled on­ road vehicle coating does not include the surface coating of plastic parts prior to their attachment to an on­ road vehicle on an original equipment manufacturer's ( OEM) assembly line. Assembled onroad vehicle coating also does not include the use of adhesives, sealants, and caulks used in assembling on­ road vehicles. Capture device means a hood, enclosure, room, floor sweep, or other means of containing or collecting emissions and directing those emissions into an add­ on air pollution control device. Capture efficiency or capture system efficiency means the portion ( expressed as a percentage) of the pollutants from an emission source that is delivered to an add­ on control device. Capture system means one or more capture devices intended to collect emissions generated by a coating operation in the use of coatings or cleaning materials, both at the point of application and at subsequent points where emissions from the coatings and cleaning materials occur, such as flashoff, drying, or curing. As used in this subpart, multiple capture devices that collect emissions generated by a coating operation are considered a single capture system. Cleaning material means a solvent used to remove contaminants and other materials, such as dirt, grease, oil, and dried or wet coating ( e. g., depainting), from a substrate before or after coating application or from equipment associated with a coating operation, such as spray booths, spray guns, racks, tanks, and hangers. Thus, it includes any cleaning material used on substrates or equipment or both. Coating means a material applied to a substrate for decorative, protective, or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints, sealants, liquid plastic coatings, caulks, inks, adhesives, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist only of protective oils for metal, acids, bases, or any combination of these substances are not considered coatings for the purposes of this subpart. Coating operation means equipment used to apply cleaning materials to a substrate to prepare it for coating application ( surface preparation) or to remove dried coating; to apply coating to a substrate ( coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after application; or to clean coating operation equipment ( equipment cleaning). A single coating operation may include any combination of these types of equipment, but always includes at least the point at which a coating or cleaning material is applied and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic HAP emissions from that coating or cleaning material occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating application with handheld, nonrefillable aerosol containers, touchup markers, or marking pens is not a coating operation for the purposes of this subpart. Coatings solids means the nonvolatile portion of the coating that makes up the dry film. Continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) means the total equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and availability requirements of this subpart, used to sample, condition ( if applicable), analyze, and provide a record of coating operation, or capture system, or add­ on control device parameters. Controlled coating operation means a coating operation from which some or all of the organic HAP emissions are routed through an emission capture system and add­ on control device. 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 limit or operating limit, or work practice standard; ( 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 ( 3) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. Emission limitation means an emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard. Enclosure means a structure that surrounds a source of emissions and captures and directs the emissions to an add­ on control device. Exempt compound means a specific compound that is not considered a VOC due to negligible photochemical reactivity. The exempt compounds are listed in 40 CFR 51.100( s). Facility maintenance means the routine repair or renovation ( including the surface coating) of the tools, equipment, machinery, and structures that comprise the infrastructure of the affected facility and that are necessary for the facility to function in its intended capacity. General­ use coating means any coating operation that is not a headlamp, TPO, or assembled on­ road vehicle coating operation. Headlamp coating means any coating operation in which coating is applied to the surface of some component of the body of an automotive headlamp, including the application of reflective argent coatings and clear topcoats. Headlamp coating does not include any coating operation performed on an assembled on­ road vehicle. Hobby shop means any surface coating operation, located at an affected source, that is used exclusively for personal, noncommercial purposes by the affected source's employees or assigned personnel. Liquid plastic coating means a coating made from fine, particle­ size polyvinyl chloride ( PVC) in solution ( also referred to as plastisol). Manufacturer's formulation data means data on a material ( such as a VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72322 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules coating) that are supplied by the material manufacturer based on knowledge of the ingredients used to manufacture that material, rather than based on testing of the material with the test methods specified in § 63.4541. Manufacturer's formulation data may include, but are not limited to, information on density, organic HAP content, volatile organic matter content, and coating solids content. Mass fraction of coating solids means the ratio of the mass of solids ( also known as the mass of nonvolatiles) to the mass of a coating in which it is contained; lb of coating solids per lb of coating. Mass fraction of organic HAP means the ratio of the mass of organic HAP to the mass of a material in which it is contained, expressed as lb of organic HAP per lb of material. Month means a calendar month or a pre­ specified period of 28 days to 35 days to allow for flexibility in recordkeeping when data are based on a business accounting period. Organic HAP content means the mass of organic HAP per mass of coating solids for a coating calculated using Equation 1 of § 63.4541. The organic HAP content is determined for the coating in the condition it is in when received from its manufacturer or supplier and does not account for any alteration after receipt. Permanent total enclosure ( PTE) means a permanently installed enclosure that meets the criteria of Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and that directs all the exhaust gases from the enclosure to an add­ on control device. Personal Watercraft means a vessel ( boat) which uses an inboard motor powering a water jet pump as its primary source of motive power and which is designed to be operated by a person or persons sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel, rather than in the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside the vessel. Plastic part and product means any piece or combination of pieces of which at least one has been formed from one or more resins. Such pieces may be solid, porous, flexible or rigid. Protective oil means an organic material that is applied to metal for the purpose of providing lubrication or protection from corrosion without forming a solid film. This definition of protective oil includes, but is not limited to, lubricating oils, evaporative oils ( including those that evaporate completely), and extrusion oils. Research or laboratory facility means a facility whose primary purpose is for research and development of new processes and products, that is conducted under the close supervision of technically trained personnel, and is not engaged in the manufacture of final or intermediate products for commercial purposes, except in a de minimis manner. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Startup, initial means the first time equipment is brought online in a facility. Surface preparation means use of a cleaning material on a portion of or all of a substrate. This includes use of a cleaning material to remove dried coating, which is sometimes called `` depainting.'' Temporary total enclosure means an enclosure constructed for the purpose of measuring the capture efficiency of pollutants emitted from a given source as defined in Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR part 51. Thermoplastic olefin ( TPO) coating means any coating operation in which the coatings are components of a system of coatings applied to a TPO substrate, including adhesion promoters, primers, color coatings, clear coatings and topcoats. Thermoplastic olefin coating does not include the coating of TPO substrates on assembled on­ road vehicles. Thinner means an organic solvent that is added to a coating after the coating is received from the supplier. Total volatile hydrocarbon ( TVH) means the total amount of nonaqueous volatile organic matter determined according to Methods 204 and 204A through 204F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 and substituting the term TVH each place in the methods where the term VOC is used. The TVH includes both VOC and non­ VOC. Uncontrolled coating operation means a coating operation from which none of the organic HAP emissions are routed through an emission capture system and add­ on control device. Volatile organic compound ( VOC) means any compound defined as VOC in 40 CFR 51.100( s). Wastewater means water that is generated in a coating operation and is collected, stored, or treated prior to being discarded or discharged. If you are required to comply with operating limits by § 63.4491( c), you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following table: TABLE 1. TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63 OPERATING LIMITS IF USING THE EMISSION RATE WITH ADD­ ON CONTROLS OPTION For the following device you must meet the following operating limit . . . and you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit by . . . 1. thermal oxidizer ............... a. the average combustion temperature in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the combustion temperature limit established according to § 63.4567( a). i. collecting the combustion temperature data according to § 63.4568( c); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average combustion temperature at or above the temperature limit. 2. catalytic oxidizer .............. a. the average temperature measured just before the catalyst bed in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the limit established according to § 63.4567( b); and either. i. collecting the temperature data according to § 63.4568( c); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average temperature before the catalyst bed at or above the temperature limit. b. ensure that the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed in any 3­ hour period does not fall below the temperature difference limit established according to § 63.4567( b)( 2); or i. collecting the temperature data according to § 63.4568( c), reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages and maintaining the 3­ hour average temperature difference at or above the temperature difference limit; or VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 21: 41 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72323 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1. TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63 OPERATING LIMITS IF USING THE EMISSION RATE WITH ADD­ ON CONTROLS OPTION Continued For the following device you must meet the following operating limit . . . and you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit by . . . c. develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan according to § 63.4567( b)( 4). i. maintaining an up­ to­ date inspection and maintenance plan, records of annual catalyst activity checks, records of monthly inspections of the oxidizer system, and records of the annual internal inspections of the catalyst bed. If a problem is discovered during a monthly or annual inspection required by § 63.4567( b)( 4), you must take corrective action as soon as practicable consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations. 3. carbon adsorber ............... a. the total regeneration desorbing gas ( e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each carbon bed regeneration cycle must not fall below the total regeneration desorbing gas mass flow limit established according to § 63.4567( c). i. measuring the total regeneration desorbing gas ( e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle according to § 63.4568( d); and ii. maintaining the total regeneration desorbing gas mass flow at or above the mass flow limit. b. the temperature of the carbon bed, after completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle, must not exceed the carbon bed temperature limit established according to § 63.4567( c). i. measuring the temperature of the carbon bed after completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle according to § 63.4568( d); and ii. operating the carbon beds such that each carbon bed is not returned to service until completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle until the recorded temperature of the carbon bed is at or below the temperature limit. 4. condenser ........................ a. the average condenser outlet ( product side) gas temperature in any 3­ hour period must not exceed the temperature limit established according to § 63.4567( d). i. collecting the condenser outlet ( product side) gas temperature according to § 63.4568( e); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average gas temperature at the outlet at or below the temperature limit. 5. concentrators, including zeolite wheels and rotary carbon adsorbers. a. the average gas temperature of the desorption concentrate stream in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the limit established according to § 63.4567( e). i. collecting the temperature data according to 63.4568( f); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average temperature at or above the temperature limit. b. the average pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the limit established according to § 63.4567( e). i. collecting the pressure drop data according to 63.4568( f); and ii. reducing the pressure drop data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average pressure drop at or above the pressure drop limit. 6. emission capture system that is a PTE according to § 63.4565( a). a. the direction of the air flow at all times must be into the enclosure; and either b. the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings in the enclosure must be at least 200 feet per minute; or. c. the pressure drop across the enclosure must be at least 0.007 inch H2O, as established in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. i. collecting the direction of air flow, and either the facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings according to § 63.4568( g)( 1) or the pressure drop across the enclosure according to § 63.4568( g)( 2); and ii. maintaining the facial velocity of air flow through all natural draft or the pressure drop openings at or above the facial velocity limit or pressure drop limit, and maintaining the direction of air flow into the enclosure at all times. 7. emission capture system that is not a PTE according to § 63.4565( a). a. the average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure in each duct between a capture device and add­ on control device inlet in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure limit established for that capture device according to § 63.4567( f). i. collecting the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each capture device according to § 63.4568( g); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each capture device at or above the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure limit. You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 22: 11 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72324 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63 Citation Subject Applicable to subpart PPPP Explanation § 63.1( a)( 1) ( 14) ............................... General Applicability ............................... Yes. § 63.1( b)( 1) ( 3) ................................. Initial Applicability Determination ............ Yes ............................... Applicability to subpart PPPP is also specified in § 63.4481. § 63.1( c)( 1) ....................................... Applicability After Standard Established Yes. § 63.1( c)( 2) ( 3) ................................. Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources. No ................................. Area sources are not subject to subpart PPPP. § 63.1( c)( 4) ( 5) ................................. Extensions and Notifications ................... Yes. § 63.1( e) ........................................... Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant Standard is Set. Yes. § 63.2 ................................................ Definitions ............................................... Yes ............................... Additional definitions are specified in § 63.4581. § 63.3( a) ( c) ..................................... Units and Abbreviations .......................... Yes. § 63.4( a)( 1) ( 5) ................................. Prohibited Activities ................................. Yes. § 63.4( b) ( c) ..................................... Circumvention/ Severability ...................... Yes. § 63.5( a) ........................................... Construction/ Reconstruction ................... Yes. § 63.5( b)( 1) ( 6) ................................. Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed and Reconstructed Sources. Yes. § 63.5( d) ........................................... Application for Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction. Yes. § 63.5( e) ........................................... Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction Yes. § 63.5( f) ............................................ Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction Based on Prior State Review. Yes. § 63.6( a) ........................................... Compliance With Standards and Maintenance Requirements Applicability. Yes. § 63.6( b)( 1) ( 7) ................................. Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Yes ............................... § 63.4483 specifies the compliance dates. § 63.6( c)( 1) ( 5) ................................. Compliance Dates for Existing Sources Yes ............................... § 63.4483 specifies the compliance dates. § 63.6( e)( 1) ( 2) ................................. Operation and Maintenance ................... Yes. § 63.6( e)( 3) ....................................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan. Yes ............................... Only sources using an add­ on control device to comply with the standard must complete startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans. § 63.6( f)( 1) ........................................ Compliance Except During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. Yes ............................... Applies only to sources using an add­ on control device to comply with the standard. § 63.6( f)( 2) ( 3) .................................. Methods for Determining Compliance .... Yes. § 63.6( g)( 1) ( 3) ................................. Use of an Alternative Standard .............. Yes. § 63.6( h) ........................................... Compliance With Opacity/ Visible Emission Standards. No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not establish opacity standards and does not require continuous opacity monitoring systems ( COMS). § 63.6( i)( 1) ( 16) ................................ Extension of Compliance ........................ Yes. § 63.6( j) ............................................. Presidential Compliance Exemption ....... Yes. § 63.7( a)( 1) ....................................... Performance Test Requirements Applicability Yes ............................... Applies to all affected sources. Additional requirements for performance testing are specified in § § 63.4564, 63.4565, and 63.4566. § 63.7( a)( 2) ....................................... Performance Test Requirements Dates Yes ............................... Applies only to performance tests for capture system and control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard Section 63.4560 specifies the schedule for performance test requirements that are earlier than those specified in § 63.7( a)( 2). § 63.7( a)( 3) ....................................... Performance Tests Required By the Administrator Yes. § 63.7( b) ( e) ..................................... Performance Test Requirements Notification Quality Assurance, Facilities Necessary for Safe Testing, Conditions During Test. Yes ............................... Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. § 63.7( f) ............................................ Performance Test Requirements Use of Alternative Test Method. Yes ............................... Applies to all test methods except those used to determine capture system efficiency. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72325 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63 Continued Citation Subject Applicable to subpart PPPP Explanation § 63.7( g) ( h) ..................................... Performance Test Requirements Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, Reporting, Waiver of Test. Yes ............................... Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard. § 63.8( a)( 1) ( 3) ................................. Monitoring Requirements Applicability Yes ............................... Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in § 63.4568. § 63.8( a)( 4) ....................................... Additional Monitoring Requirements ....... No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not have monitoring requirements for flares. § 63.8( b) ........................................... Conduct of Monitoring ............................. Yes. § 63.8( c)( 1) ( 3) ................................. Continuous Monitoring Sysem ( CMS) Operation and Maintenance. Yes ............................... Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard Additional requirements for CMS operations and maintenance are specified in § 63.4568. § 63.8( c)( 4) ....................................... CMS ........................................................ No ................................. § 63.4568 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add­ on control devices at sources using these to comply. § 63.8( c)( 5) ....................................... COMS ..................................................... No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not have opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.8( c)( 6) ....................................... CMS Requirements ................................. No ................................. § 63.4568 specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems and add­ on control devices at sources using these to comply. § 63.8( c)( 7) ....................................... CMS Out­ of­ Control Periods ................... Yes. § 63.8( c)( 8) ....................................... CMS Out­ of­ Control Periods and Reporting No ................................. § 63.4520 requires reporting of CMS out of control periods. § 63.8( d) ( e) ..................................... Quality Control Program and CMS Performance Evaluation. No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.8( f)( 1) ( 5) .................................. Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method Yes. § 63.8( f)( 6) ........................................ Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test ..... No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.8( g)( 1) ( 5) ................................. Data Reduction ....................................... No ................................. § § 63.4567 and 63.4568 specify monitoring data reduction. § 63.9( a) ( d) ..................................... Notification Requirements ....................... Yes. § 63.9( e) ........................................... Notification of Performance Test ............ Yes ............................... Applies only to capture system and add­ on control device performance tests at sources using these to comply with the standard. § 63.9( f) ............................................ Notification of Visible Emissions/ Opacity Test. No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not have opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.9( g)( 1) ( 3) ................................. Additional Notifications When Using CMS. No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.9( h) ........................................... Notification of Compliance Status ........... Yes ............................... § 63.4510 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status. § 63.9( i) ............................................. Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines ......... Yes. § 63.9( j) ............................................. Change in Previous Information ............. Yes. § 63.10( a) ......................................... Recordkeeping/ Reporting Applicability and General Information. Yes. § 63.10( b)( 1) ..................................... General Recordkeeping Requirements .. Yes ............................... Additional requirements are specified in § § 63.4530 and 63.4531. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72326 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63 Continued Citation Subject Applicable to subpart PPPP Explanation § 63.10( b)( 2)( i) ( v) ............................ Recordkeeping Relevant to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Periods and CMS. Yes ............................... Requirements for Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction records only apply to add­ on control devices used to comply with the standard. § 63.10( b)( 2)( vi) ( xi) ......................... ................................................................. Yes. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xii) ............................... Records ................................................... Yes. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiii) ............................... ................................................................. No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv) .............................. ................................................................. Yes. § 63.10( b)( 3) ..................................... Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations. Yes. § 63.10( c)( 1) ( 6) ............................... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Yes. § 63.10( c)( 7) ( 8) ............................... ................................................................. No ................................. The same records are required in § 63.4520( a)( 7). § 63.10( c)( 9) ( 15) ............................. ................................................................. Yes. § 63.10( d)( 1) ..................................... General Reporting Requirements ........... Yes ............................... Additional requirements are specified in § 63.4520. § 63.10( d)( 2) ..................................... Report of Performance Test Results ...... Yes ............................... Additional requirements are specified in § 63.4520( b). § 63.10( d)( 3) ..................................... Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations. No ................................. Subpart PPPP or does not require opacity or visible emissions observations § 63.10( d)( 4) ..................................... Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance Extensions. Yes. § 63.10( d)( 5) ..................................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports Yes ............................... Applies only to add­ on control devices at sources using these to comply withthe standard. § 63.10( e)( 1) ( 2) ............................... Additional CMS Reports ......................... No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.10( e)( 3) ..................................... Excess Emissinos/ CMS Performance Reports. No ................................. § 63.4520( b) specifies the contents of periodic compliance reports. § 63.10( e)( 4) ..................................... COMS Data Reports ............................... No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not specify requirements for opacity or COMS. § 63.10( f) .......................................... Recordkeeping/ Reporting Waiver ........... Yes. § 63.11 .............................................. Control Device Requirements/ Flares ...... No ................................. Subpart PPPP does not specify use of flares for compliance. § 63.12 .............................................. State Authority and Delegations ............. Yes. § 63.13 .............................................. Addresses ............................................... Yes. § 63.14 .............................................. Incorporation by Reference .................... Yes. § 63.15 .............................................. Availability of Information/ Confidentiality Yes. You may use the mass fraction values in the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test data or manufacturer's formulation data. TABLE 3 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63. DEFAULT ORGANIC HAP MASS FRACTION FOR SOLVENTS AND SOLVENT BLENDS Solvent/ solvent blend CAS No. Average organic HAP mass fraction Typical organic HAP, percent by mass 1. Toluene .............................................................................. 108 88 3 1.0 Toluene 2. Xylene( s) ........................................................................... 1330 20 7 1.0 Xylenes, ethylbenzene 3. Hexane .............................................................................. 110 54 3 0.5 n­ hexane 4. n­ Hexane ........................................................................... 110 54 3 1.0 n­ hexane 5. Ethylbenzene ..................................................................... 100 41 4 1.0 Ethylbenzene 6. Aliphatic 140 ...................................................................... .............................. 0 None 7. Aromatic 100 ..................................................................... .............................. 0.02 1% xylene, 1% cumene 8. Aromatic 150 ..................................................................... .............................. 0.09 Naphthalene 9. Aromatic naphtha .............................................................. 64742 95 6 0.02 1% xylene, 1% cumene 10. Aromatic solvent .............................................................. 64742 94 5 0.1 Naphthalene 11. Exempt mineral spirits ..................................................... 8032 32 4 0 None VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 54 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2 72327 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63. DEFAULT ORGANIC HAP MASS FRACTION FOR SOLVENTS AND SOLVENT BLENDS Continued Solvent/ solvent blend CAS No. Average organic HAP mass fraction Typical organic HAP, percent by mass 12. Ligroines ( VM & P) .......................................................... 8032 32 4 0 None 13. Lactol spirits .................................................................... 64742 89 6 0.15 Toluene 14. Low aromatic white spirit ................................................. 64742 82 1 0 None 15. Mineral spirits .................................................................. 64742 88 7 0.01 Xylenes 16. Hydrotreated naphtha ...................................................... 64742 48 9 0 None 17. Hydrotreated light distillate .............................................. 64742 47 8 0.001 Toluene 18. Stoddard solvent ............................................................. 8052 41 3 0.01 Xylenes 19. Super high­ flash naphtha ................................................ 64742 95 6 0.05 Xylenes 20. Varsol solvent ............................................................... 8052 49 3 0.01 0.5% xylenes, 0.5% ethylbenzene 21. VM & P naphtha .............................................................. 64742 89 8 0.06 3% toluene, 3% xylene 22. Petroleum distillate mixture ............................................. 68477 31 6 0.08 4% naphthalene, 4% biphenyl You may use the mass fraction values in the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test data or manufacturer's formulation data: TABLE 4 TO SUBPART PPPP OF PART 63. DEFAULT ORGANIC HAP MASS FRACTION FOR PETROLEUM SOLVENT GROUPS a Solvent type Average organic HAP mass fraction Typical organic HAP percent by mass Aliphatic b ................................................................................. 0.03 1% Xylene, 1% Toluene, and 1% Ethylbenzene Aromatic c ................................................................................. 0.06 4% Xylene, 1% Toluene, and 1% Ethylbenzene a Use this table only if the solvent blend does not match any of the solvent blends in Table 3 to this subpart and you only know whether the blend is aliphatic or aromatic. b Mineral Spirits 135, Mineral Spirits 150 EC, Naphtha, Mixed Hydrocarbon, Aliphatic Hydrocarbon, Aliphatic Naphtha, Naphthol Spirits, Petroleum Spirits, Petroleum Oil, Petroleum Naphtha, Solvent Naphtha, Solvent Blend. c Medium­ flash Naphtha, High­ flash Naphtha, Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Aromatic Hydrocarbons Light Aromatic Solvent. [ FR Doc. 02 29073 Filed 12 3 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 22: 11 Dec 03, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 04DEP2. SGM 04DEP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.605919

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0033

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.647631

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0037

Supporting & Related Material

Attachment C. Demonstration that the SO, Milestones Provide Greater Reasonable Progress than BART A. BackFround On July 1, 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) published regulations to address regional haze visibility impairment. The new regulations require States to address Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) requirements for regional haze visibility impairment. The nine Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region States have the option to address this requirement as part of an overall strategy of emission reductions developed by the Grand Canyon Commission, including the establishment of regional sulfur dioxide ( S02) milestones. § 309( f)( l)( I) of the regional haze rule establishes the requirements for regional milestones to meet the stationary source obligations for the first long­ term planning period. The rule states, The emission reduction milestones must be shown to provide for greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of best available retrofit technology ( BART) pursuant to section 51.308( e)( 2) and would be approvable in lieu of BART. The requirements for BART are described in greater detail in section 51.308( e)( 2) as follows: A State may opt to implement an emissions trading program or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. To do so, the State must demonstrate that this emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. To make this demonstration, the State must submit an implementation plan containing the following plan elements and include documentation for all required analyses: ( I) A demonstration that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted fiom the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the State. This demonstration must be based on the following: ( A) A list of all BART­ eligible sources within the State. ( B) An analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each source within the State subject to BART. In this analysis, the State must take into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, and the remaining useful life of the source. The best system of continuous emission control technology and the above factors may be determined on a source category basis. The State may elect to consider both source­ specific and category­ wide information, as appropriate, in conducting its analysis. ( C) An analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would be achieved in each mandatory Class I Federal area as a result of the emission reductions achievable fkom all such sources subject to BART located within the region that contributes to visibility impairment in the Class I area, based on the analysis conducted under section 51.308( e)( 2)( I)( B). In order to address these BART requirements, the WRAP used the following process: Develop a list of BART­ eligible sources for the region. 0 Estimate emission reductions that could be made by BART­ eligible sources through appropriate retrofit technology . # Estimate baseline emissions in the year 2018. a Evaluate the visibility improvement that could occur in the region if the appropriate retrofit technology emission reductions were implemented. # Evaluate additional factors that would contribute to greater reasonable progress than regional haze BART 0 Establish 2018 SO, emissions milestone Each of these steps is addressed in greater detail in the following sections of this report. This process was developed through the best efforts of the WRAP through a stakeholder based process and is based on the WRAP Sreading of the regional haze rule language and preamble. It is important to note that EPA guidance for determining regional haze BART is under development and so the WRAP had to make a number of assumptions about the analysis. B. List of BART­ eligible sources. Each of the nine Transport Region States developed a preliminary list of BART­ eligible sources for SO,. EPA identified BART­ eligible sources on tribal lands. EPA guidance for regional haze BART is still under development which leaves many unanswered applicability questions. The WRAP developed a draft methodology that was used to identify all of the BART­ eligible sources in the region. When final guidance is issued, the Transport Region States and Tribes recognize that changes to their initial lists of BART­ eligible sources may be necessary, however the WRAP believes that all sources that emit significant levels of SO, have been identified. The preliminary list compiled by the states is included as Attachment D to the Annex. The draft methodology used the following assumptions: 0 Where appropriate, BART­ eligible sources were identified on a unit­ by­ unit basis. Only individual units that met the BART criteria were included on the list. For e­ 2 ? a. ? i Q 01 r;] l some sources, such as copper smelters, this approach did not work because the units were so inter­ related. In those cases the entire source was examined to determine if it was BART­ eligible. Pollutants were treated independently. Therefore, only units that qualified as BART­ eligible for SO, were included on the list. Modifications during the 15­ yearBART wiqdow were not considered, unless the modification qualified as reconstruction for that unit. Units were not considered BART­ eligible if the only modification that was made during the 15­ year window was the installation of pollution control equipment. BART­ eligible sources that had, were in the process of, or were slated to have­ new emissions controls installed ( Navajo Generating Station, Page, Arizona; Hayden Generating Station, Hayden, Colorado; Mojave Generating Station, Laughlin, Nevada) were not included in the spreadsheet that was used to calculate the BART level emission reductions. In addition, BART­ eligible sources that will be controlled as part of the voluntary reductions for the Front Range power plants in Colorado were not included in the spreadsheet ( Cherokee Generating Station in Denver and Valmont Generating Station in Boulder). Emission reductions fiom these sources were treated as downward adjustments to the baseline. B C. Appropriate Retrofit Technology Estimates The next step in the process was the identification of appropriate retrofit technologies for the BART­ eligible sources. BART has traditionally been developed through a case­ by­ case analysis that considers the unique situation of the source, including costs and the impacts that the source has on a particular mandatory Class I area. As provided in the following passage, the regional haze rule provides flexibility to states in developing, for comparative purposes, a method for calculating the emission reductions that would result fkom the installation of source­ specific BART: To compare the emissions reductions and visibility improvement that would result fkom the application of source specific BART to that resulting from implementation of alternative measures, such as a regional emissions trading program, the state must estimate the emissions reductions that would result from the use of BART­ level controls. To do this, the states could undertake a source specific review of the sources in the state subject to BART or it could use a modified approach that simplifies analysis... the states accordinglyhave flexibilityin developing a method to determine the emissions reductions that could be achieved through the application of BART.' The WRAP recognized that a case­ by­ case analysis of potential controls for each of the BART­ eligible sources in the region would be very resource intensive and require more time than allotted for the development of the Annex. Because the goal was to use these estimates to 1 40 CFR part 51, page 35742 ( July 1,1999). c­ 3 \ establish a regional emission cap, the individual BART reductions were less important than the overall regional number. The WRAP therefore approached the analysis at the regional level, using a more simplified analysis, as provided for in the regional haze rule. The WRAP used the following assumptions to estimate the regional emission reductions due to appropriate retrofit controls on the BART­ eligible sources in the region. It should be noted that the WRAP methodology was only used to obtain a regional estimate for BART­ level emission reductions to calculate the 2018 milestone. It was not intended to be a source­ by­ source BART analysis. c] r Appropriate retrofit technologies were estimated for source categories rather than individual sources. a Emission reductions were estimated at the regional level. a All estimates of the level of control constitute an assumed average for that industry sector in the WRAP region. a The BART factors, including cost, energy and non­ air environmental impact, existing pollution controls, and remaining usell life were addressed in a broad way through the identification of technologies that were currently being used as retrofits in the region. Some consideration of the techmcal feasibility of installing control equipment at particular sources ( site constraints, special conditions, etc.) was considered. However, a comprehensive analysis was not completed for individual sources. Instead, the MTF looked at ranges of potential retrofit controls and established a level that was expected to be valid as a regional average. Table 1 outlines the estimated appropriate retrofit technology for specific source categories in the region. c­ 4 Source Category Copper Smelters Refineries Lime Plants and Cement Kilns Utility Boilers Industrial Boilers Pulp and Paper TABLE 1 Retrofit Technologies or Percentage Reduction Due to the uniqueness of the existing smelters, retrofit technology analysis must be performed on a smelter­ by­ smelter basis. Currently, the Hidalgo smelter is the only BART­ eligible source on the list in this category. A double­ contact acid plat will be considered the appropriateretrofit control equipment ( all smeltersin the region are currently equipped with double­ contact acid plants). On August 2 1,2000 New Mexico completed anengineeringanalysis that verified earlier determinations by the MTF that the fhgitive SO, capture system at Hidalgo satisfiesBART at 96% overall capture. There are three sources of SO, emissions at the refiery level: Descriution Assumed Average Control Level SRU ( pollution control for fuel 98% control or the equivalent of 3­ stage Claus gas combustion units) units ( most already have th~ sin place). Catalytic crackers 90% control. States will query these sources as to whether or not they have had to comply with subpart J with low sulh catalyst or hydro­ treating, which would amount to 90% control. If not already subject to part J, then 90% control will be required. Flares no additionalcontrols 0 ( Approximately 70% of refinery emissions come from Claus unit, 25% from cat crackers if uncontrolled, and remaining 5% from all other sources) No additional reduction. Approximately 50% control inherent in the process. Additional SO, controls are not typically applied tO these kinds of sources. Technology determination dependent upon current level of control. Descrintion Assumed Average Level of Control Uncontrolled units 85% Units controlled at less than 70% Treat as uncontrolled( see above). Units controlled between 70430% Increase reductionsby 5% ( i. e., if a unit is at 72%, would be assumed to control to 77%). Units controlled greater than 80% No additionalreductions. Same as utility boilers. Sulk sources are recovery furnaces and boilers. Boiler discussions covered with industrial boilers. Recovery furnaces: No additional reduction. Low emissionscoupled withlack of more than one example of scrubbing. c­ 5 The technology assumptions listed above were incorporated into a spreadsheet ( Allstat7. xls) to estimate the regional emission reductions due to appropriate retrofit technologies. The spreadsheet used the following assumptions: # Existing utility generating units operating at an average capacity factor of less than 85% of nameplate capacity during 1999were assumed to increase their capacity factor to a maximum level of 85% of nameplate capacity by 2018. Utility units operating at a capacity factor higher than 85% during 1999 were assumed to continue operating at that level. # All other source categories were assumed to continue operating at their current level of actual emissions, based on an average of 1996­ 1998 emissions. # The BART­ eligible units were assumed to reduce actual emissions by the applying the control efficiency listed in Table 1 for each specific source category. c1 The total emission reductions were then added to obtain a regional estimate. The individual source estimates were only calculated as part of the regional estimate, and are not intended to be used as a BART estimate for those individual sources. The analysis described above led to an estimated emission reduction of 168,176 tons SO, due to the application of appropriate control technologies. For the purposes of this discussion, this number will be rounded to 168,000 tons. D. Baseline Inventory for 2018 As part of the process of developing the end­ point for this program, an inventory of expected actual emissions in 2018 was estimatec!. The baseline inventory was calculated separately for utilities and non­ utilities using the following methods and assumptions: 1. Utilities. 1999 emissions data that were submitted to EPA for the acid rain program were used as the base inventory for the utility projections to 2018. In addition, data for several small power plants that were not in the acid rain data base were added to the inventory list. The 1999 inventory was then grown to account for increased capacity utilization as described below. Known emission reductions that have already been agreed to by the Public Service Company of Colorado ( a number of power plants along the Front Range that will be controlled in 2003) and by the Mojave Generating Station in Nevada ( controls will be installed by 2006) were subtracted from the emission projections. a. Capacity Factor. Western utilities are increasing their utilization to meet increasing electricity demand. In addition, deregulation of the power industry is expected to further increase utilization of existing plants because it will be more cost­ effective to achieve peak performance from existing plants than to expend the capital to build new plants. Even though utilization is increasing, it is not C­ 6 realistic to estimate that plants will consistently operate at 100% capacity because units will require maintenance throughout the year. In addition, power demand fluctuatesthroughout the year, and full utilization may not be needed every day of the year. The WRAP has assumed that all coal fired power plants in the west will be operating at an average of 85% of nameplate capacity in the year 2018. Any new growth in demand, beyond this capacity factor assumption, is assumed to be met by new power generation at an approximate control efficiencyof 98% for SO,. b. Retirement Adjustment for Colorado Front Range Power Plants. Public Service Company of Colorado ( PSCO) has made a voluntary agreement with the State of Colorado to control a number of Front Range power plants by the year 2003. Several of the plants that will install controls are assumed to retire before the year 2018 according to the assumptions of the model. It is no longer realistic to assume that these plants will retire, because the capital investment in the plants will extend their lifetime. Therefore, a 4,000 ton adjustment was made to the inventory to account or the continued operation of these plants. 2. Co­ generation Facilities. 1998 inventory data provided by the nine transport region states were used as the base inventory for future year projections. It was assumed that emissions from these sources would remain constant through the year 2018 ( no growth or retirements would occur). 3. Smelters. 1998inventory data provided by the nine transport region states were used as the base inventory for fbture year projections. There are two smelters that were operating in 1998 that have temporarily suspended operations due to economic conditions. For this reason, the inventory was projected both with these smelters in operation, and without. The milestones developed by the WRAP contain provisions for an automatic adjustment if one or both of the smelters come back on line. The 2018 inventory for smelters in the region if neither smelter resumes operation is assumed to be 48,000 tons. This inventory number assumes that emissions fkom smelters would remain constant ( no growth or retirements would occur). The 2018 inventory if both smelters resume operation is assumed to be 78,000 tons. This estimate assumes that there will be additional retirement of emissions fkom the smelter sector, equivalent to the estimates made by the Integrated Assessment System ( IAS) used by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission for the year 2020. 4. Olther sources. 1998 inventory data provided by the nine transport region states were used as the base inventory for kture year projections. The growth and retirement assumptions developed for the IASwere used to project these emissions to the year 2018. The IAS did not assume any increase in capacity for existing sources, instead, their emissions were retired at a set percentage per year. Any increase in demand for the c­ 7 ­­ % hr­*& &+&' hLfl+ A d$& a,.&* sector's product, as predicted by the REMI economic model, was assumed to be met by new sources, operatbg at a controlled emission rate. The growth and retirement rates, as well as the control efficiency for new sources, vary between sectors. 5. 2018 Baseline Inventory of Projected Actual Emissions ( rounded to nearest 1,000) ? ? &. AN ­ a\ 4 Jh ' i LJ=­ Utility Emissions 421,000* r+ L Front Range Retirement Adjustment 4,000 + iLJ& L'i@* imp Co­ Gen Units 8,000 4L. M~ dJ \ rc ,4n­'"\~ Smelter Emissions 48,000 , a\* JdVI bd* Other Source Emissions 141.000 622,000 n/ sJz : e G­­­ lD. 2018 Inventory with Estimated Emission Reductions. The emission reductions estimated i for appropriate control technologies applied to BART­ eligible sources were then subtracted from 5@ the 2018 baseline. 1. CEMs Bias. The federal acid rain program requires coal­ fired utilities to monitor SO, emissions using continuous emission monitors ( CEMs). These monitors measure SO, concentration at a point in the stack, and also measure the volume of the gas stream passing through the stack. The combination of the two measurements provides total mass emissions from the stack in tondyear. Prior to the use of CEMs, utilities calculated their emissions using a mass­ balance methodology. The sulfur content of the coal was measured, and then total SO, emissions were determined by tracking the amount of coal burned. Two sources of bias result in 8n over­ estimation of emissions as compared to a mass­ balance estimation. a If two­ dimensional probes are used to measure the volume of gas passing through the stack, gas volume will, on average, be over­ estimated. 4. # If a CEMS malfunctions, the rules require the use of a high­ bias estimate in the place of missing data. The bias varies from plant to plant depending on the specific configuration of the stack, and other variables. : In mid­ 1999, EPA published a new flow measurement technique that could be used for CEMs under the acid rain program. This new technique is voluntary, and it is not known how many sources will install the equipment ( it is significantly more expensive than the existing equipment). The new flow measurement technique is expected to reduce the CEM bias, but bias will never be completely eliminated because of the way emissions are I­ C­ s ? required to be counted when data are missing. The WRAP recognized that current CEM measurements are biased high, and that compliance measurements to future milestones will be made with CEMs that have less bias than those that were in use in the 1999 base inventory that was used for projecting future utility emissions. However, it is difficult to estimate how many sources will install the new measurement devices, and how much CEM bias will still remain after these changes. Utility emissions in the yeas 2018 are predicted to be approximately 269,000 tons ( afier the emission reductions due to appropriate control technology applied to BART­ eligible sources). Therefore the WRAP assumed an adjustment of 10,000 tons to account for the CEMs bias. The WRAP also acknowledges thatCEMs are the gold standard for determining compliance with the federal Acid Rain Program requirements. A protocol will be developed to make appropriate adjustments to the operation of this component of the regional haze program for participating states and Tribes as improvements in CEMs technology and procedures are implemented. This protocol is necessary to prevent a system of dual book­ keeping and to maintain the integrity of compliance with both the federal Acid Rain Program and this proposed backstop cap­ and­ trade program. The CEPvIs adjustment protocol is discussed in more detail in the Annex. 2. Operational headroom and uncertainty. The GCVTC agreements and recommendations contain two tenets that have uniquely informed the establishment of operational headroom and uncertainty under the market trading program. First, the Commission recommended that the market trading program contain specific provisions to encourage and reward early emission reductions, including reductions achieved before 2000. 2 The GCVTC committed to achieve a 13% reduction in SO2 emissions fiom stationary sources by the year 2000. The GCVTC also recognized that there was a good possibility that actual emission reductions would be greater than this 13% goal. A general plan was derived to give some early reductions credit to the region and some to the environment. The emission reductions that were greater than 13% were to be split, with ? 4going to the environment ( through the establishment of milestones) and the other ? 4prloviding headr~ om.~ The WRAP currently expects that emissions in the region will show greater reductions than the 13% commitment of the GCVTC. The WRAP has sought to preserve the Comission s approach to early reductions by setting aside as headroom some intermediate portion of the expected reductions in excess of 13%. Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas at 33 ( June 1996) ( emphasis added). c­ 9 I Second, the Commission recommended allocations to tribes that are of practical benefit.' This recognized the concern that " tribes, by and large, have not contributed to the visibility problem in the region" and that "[ tlribal economies are much less developed than those of states, and tribes must have the opportunity to progress to reach some degree of parity with states in this regard.' I5 The tribes specifically recommended that if an emission trading strategy is adopted to achieve SO2 reductions fi­ om stationary sources that allocations be based on considerations of equity rather than historical emissions: Credits should not be based on historical emissions, but should be based on equitable factors, including the need to preserve opportunities for economic development on tribal lands. In general, these lands are currently lacking in economic bases and have not contributed to the visibility problems. 6 Accordingly, the market trading program proposed by the WRAP contains a 20,000 allocation to tribes. These two considerations ­ to reward emission reductions occurring between 1990 and 2000, and to provide an equitable allocation to the tribes ­ originate from the GCVTC recommendations. They reff ect distinct policy concerns of the Commission that are unique to the program under section 309 of the regional haze rule incorporating the Commission's recommendations. In addition, because the baseline emissions inventory is a projection of actual emissions, uncertainty exists in the projection method including, for example, fluctuations in weather and changing economic conditions. There are inherent uncertainties in the inventory calculation that need to be recognized. Inherent measurement uncertainties. CEMs are calibrated daily to a relative accuracy of 20% using calibration gases. Fluctuations in measurements can occur due to the measurement techniques that are not indicative of actual changes in emissions. Pluses and minuses will cancel out to a certain degree, but some consideration of these fluctuations is needed. Projections. Projections of future " actual" emissions are based on the best information available, but are inherently uncertain. This uncertainty increases further out in time. Growth rates may be underestimated, impacts of new ' Id. at 35. 51d. at 66­ 67. ' Id. at 71. 3 c­ 10 technologies or regulatory requirements may have unexpected effects, etc. The WRAP recognizes that there are some competing uncertainties that the future " actual" emissions may be over­ predicted. However, in light of the Commission's specific recommendation to reward early reductions occurring between 1990 and 2000, the WRAP specifically set aside 15,000tons in 2018 for uncertaintyheadroom in addition to the allocation described above for tribes. The 15,000 tons represents 2% of the current SO2 emissions inventory ( 652,000 tons)^ encompassedwithin the trading program. The WRAP also believes the likelihood exists that the hll complement of emissions set aside for uncertainty and headroom will not be utilized. All sources in the region operate below their allowable emissions to ensure that they are in compliance with emission limits. The regional milestones are comparable to allowable emissions because an exceedance of the milestone will trigger regulatory consequences. Individual sources will be tracking their emissions, as well as the overall regional emissions, and the possibility of avoiding a regulatory program will provide a powerful incentive for sources to keep emissions below the cap, This will also provide a disincentive for keeping regional emissions close to the cap, because that will increase the risk that an unexpected event ( such as increased production fkom one sector) will trigger the regulatory program. The incentive to operate below the cap should be especially powerful in 2018 when individual sources will face penalties if the cap is exceeded and a source has emitted SO2 in excess of its allowances. 3. 2018 SO, Milestone Calculation 2018 Baseline 622,000 Appropriate Technology Emission Reductions ­ 168,000 CEM Bias adjustment ­ 10,000 Uncertainty/ Headroom 35.000 Total 479,000 = 480,000 In thie event the suspended smelters commence operation or the production from those facilities is shifted to other smelters, as much as 30,000 tons may be added to this milestone. c­ 11 1 E. Visibility Improvement Section 169A of the Clean Air Act lists a number of factors that must be considered as part of the BART determination. These factors are addressed in the regronal haze rule in a two­ step process. First, an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available is performed, considering the statutory factors of cost of compliance, the energy and non­ air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, and the remaining useful life of the source. Second, an analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would be achieved in each mandatory Class I federal area as a result of the emission reductions achievable from all sources subject to BART located within the region. The preamble to the regional haze rule indicates that the visibility analysis should be conducted using the cumulative emission reductions fkom all BART­ eligible sources in the transport region, not the impact of individual sources. The preamble also indicates that the States and Tribes should use this estimated degree of visibility improvement in determining the appropriate BART emission limitations for specific sou~ ces.~ When defining the visibility impact, the regional haze rule identifies the deciview metric as the appropriate measure of visibility impairment, and improvement. The regional haze rule preamble discusses the value of measuring visibility using a metric that takes into account both measurement of physical changes ( i. e., changes in air quality) and human perception.' A one deciview change in haziness is a small but noticeable change in haziness under most circumstances when viewing scenes in Mandatory Class I areas. g The preamble also recognizes that in some cases a visibility change of less than one deciview is perceptible, while under other conditions a change of more than one deciview might be required in order for the change to be perceptible. lo The Regional Haze Rule requires the assessment of reasonable progress in terms of average annual visibility improvement overall, and for each of the 20% of the days in a year with the best and the worst visibility ( the first and last quintiles). Regional haze is the product of a wide variety of sources, generally associated with area sources and long­ range transport of emissions. Regional haze is, therefore, best assessed using averages, and addressed by strategies that reduce emissions on a region­ wide scale. In keeping with this requirement, the WRAP conducted modeling of the degree of visibility improvement that would occur on average and for the 20% best and worst visibility days. The 64 FR 35741 ' 64 FR 35726 64 FR 35725 lo 64 FR 35726­ 35727 ' 3 .. i c­ 12 WRAP used the transfer coefficients developed as part of the Integrated Assessment System ( US) and used by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. This modeling has 1imitation. swhich must be considered when interpreting the results. The IAS models were designed to assess regional transport of emissions, and therefore only offers limited insight into the impact of local emission sources. The models are best at demonstrating the relative effects of changes in regional emissions on visibility. One other important limitation involves the number of receptors where pollution data were available. The GCVTC c. ollecteddata from only six receptors, and ultimately scaled its modeling for only four of these: Hopi Point, Mesa Verde, Canyonlands, and Bryce Canyon. The most detailed information came fiom one receptor, Hopi Point in Grand Canyon National Park. Although the IAS has limitations, it was the only tool that could realistically be used in the short time frame that was provided to develop an Annex to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission report. Prior to the development of the IAS, little was understood about the contribution of various emission sources to regional haze. The GCVTC expended considerable time and energy developing the tools that are used today to evaluate the sources of regional haze. The WRAP intends to keep refining and improving the technical tools that are available to better inform policy decisions. The visibility modeling measured the degree of visibility improvement that would occur at each of the 16 Class I areas due to four different emission reduction scenarios and in comparison to the absence of any regional haze program ( i. e., as compared to the baseline emissions inventory). The four scenarios were developed to show the changes in visibility that would occur due to increasingky stringent emission reductions. Table 2 presents the visibility improvements for the scenario that best matches the original WRAP estimate of SO, reductions associated with the application of controls on BART­ eligible sources, at 155,000 tons, as modeled by ICF intheir economic impacts study. When comparing the results of the visibility analysis for the Command and Control scenario to the MTF scenario, it is important to recognize the following facts: a The emission inventory for the Command and Control scenaSio was developed as part of the economic impacts study by ICF to compare the cost of achieving various levels of emission reduction using a market approach with the cost of achieving similar reductions using a source­ specific command and control program. Both the Command and Control and MTF scenarios started with the same baseline emissions inventory for 2018 ( 648,000 tons) . Note that the baseline inventory used by ICF is different from that used by the MTF. This is an artifact of the way the economic model was implemented. The important consideratioin is that the same baseline is used to assess the differences among the options. For C­ 13 For the Command and Control scenario, ICF applied the MTF BART assumptions to this inventory and calculated 139,000 tons of emissions reductions in 2018. These reductions were subtracted from the baseline, yielding an inventory of 509,000 tons. For the MTF scenario, ICF subtracted the MTF s best estimate of BART reductions at the time ( 155,000 tons) and added back 35,000 tons for headrooduncertainty, consistent with the GCVTC recommendations discussed in section D. 2., above. This yielded an inventory of 528,000 tons. Rounding to the nearest tenth of a deciview ­­ a level of accuracy beyond which the results cannot be compared with any confidence ­­ the average visibility benefit of the MTF scenario equals that of the Command and Control scenario ­­ 0.1 dv. The use of the Command and Control scenario as a surrogate for comparing the visibility benefits of the Annex to a true BART scenario is limited because it does not recognize the overall air quality benefits of the emissions caps. Some of the air quality benefits of the emissions caps as compared to a source­ by­ sourceBART approach are described in SectionF, beginning on page D­ 17. These benefits include setting caps that limit increased utilization and emission rates at BART and non­ BART sources, setting caps based on the assumption that 47,000 tons of emissions from existing non­ utilityhon­ smelter sources will be retired between 1998 and 2018, and setting caps based on the assumption that new source growth will be limited to 27,000 tons between 2003 and 2018. While the Command and Control scenario used for the visibility modeling has these same assumptions included, in actuality these benefits would not accrue to a BART program under Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule. For these reasons , the use of the COWXUI~ and Control scenario as a surrogate for comparing the benefits of the Annex to a true BART scenario is of limited value. As can be seen, the maximum visibility improvement expected f? om installation of appropriate control technology for SO, on BART­ eligible sources in the Western United States, amounts to about one third of a deciview, which is not perceptible to the average person. Table 3 provides the results of the visibility modeling for an approximation of the four 2018 milestones offered for public comment in May 2000. The modeling distinguishes among the milestones based on the estimated BART level emissions reductions. These visibility results show that, even under the most aggressive emissions reduction scenario, no perceptible change in visibility will accrue. Further, the visibility improvements of all of the different approaches would be indistinguishable for regional haze purposes. This is not intended to imply that the lack ofperceptible visibility improvement is ajustification for taking no details, refer to the ICF final report, Economic Impacts of Implementing a ReGonal SO, Emissions Cap for Stationarv Sources in the Western United States ( September 2000). C­ 14 ­­ action to < reduceSO, emissionsfrom stationary sources. To the contrary, it emphasizes the need to develop a comprehensive plan that reduces visibility impairing emissions from all types of sources if the goals of Subpart C of Title I of the Clean Air Act are to be achieved in the West. Table 2 Modeled Visibility Improvement in 2018: Command and Control Scenario Deciview Improvement Class I Area Davs Davs Average Arches National Park 0.17 0.28 0.22 Brvce Canvon 0.02 0.16 0.08 Black Canyon of the Gunnison 0.08 0.08 0.10 l~ GG& Ezj Canyonlands Cmitol Reef Flat Tops tHopi Point Maroon Bells t Mesa Verde National Park Mt. Baldy Petrified Forest SanPedro Parks Sycamore Canyon Wleminuche Wilderness West Elk Zion National Park 0.16 0.26 0.21 0.06 0.21 0.13 0.09 0.23 ­ 0.16 0.03 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.35 0.19 0.04 0.20 0.12 0.07 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.32 0.21 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.34 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.06 Averacre 0.08 0.19 0.13 Min 0.02 0.07 0.06 Max 0.17 0.35 0.22 1 C­ 15 F. Other Considerations There are a number of other considerations that must be taken into account in the overall determination as to whether or not the 2018 milestone developed by the WRAP achieves greater ' reasonable progress than would be achieved by the application of BART. 1. Remedy and Prevention. When Congress established the visibility program in 1977 it declared as a national goal " the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing" anthropogenic visibility impairment in mandatory class I federal areas. l2 BART is an emission limitation established at a specific source and is designed as a remedy to impairment at specificmandatory Class I areas. By contrast, the market trading program proposed by the WRAP serves the dual purpose of remedying existing impairment and preventing future impairment by requirin issions reductions and ­­­_­__­ mpphgsmissions for stationary sources. is prevented by capping emissions growth fiom sources not eligible under the BART requirements, from BART sources that are expected to significantly increase utilization, and from entirely new sources in the region. 2. Additional Sources Included. The backstop trading program designed by the WRAP will include all stationary sources with emissions higher than 100 tondyear of SO,. The W'XP designed this program as part of an overall strategy to address all sources of visibility impairing pollutants, rather than focusing on a subset of stationary sources. 2018 SO, Number of Sources Emissions" BART­ Eligible 47 201,615 Other Stationary Sources 157 4 246,570 " Note: The 2018 Emission estimate does not include 2 shut down smelters, or a CEM's bias adjustment. The estimate includes an emission reduction estimate of 168,000Ji. om BART­ eligible sources. The inclusion of all major SO, sources in the progrqn is necessary to create a viable trading program, and also sewes a broader purpose to ensure that growth inemissions from non­ BART­ eligible sources does not undermine the progress that has been achieved. BART applied on a case­ by­ case basis would not affect these sources, and there would be no limitation on their future operations under their existing permit conditions. Because the milestones will cap these sources at actual emissions ( which are less than current allowable emissions), the overall effect of their inclusion is to provide greater reasonable $? ogress* would have been acheved if only BART­ eligible sources were included in the program. l2 CAA 0 169A( a)( l). C­ 17 3. Cap on New Source Growth. The milestones designed by the WRAP will cap the growth of SO, emissions in the west. These milestones include estimates for growth, but then lock these estimates in as an enforceable emission cap. The WRAP strategy is consistent with the statutory goal of preventing any hture visibility impairment that results fkom man­ made air pollution. The entire region is experiencing rapid growth which could erode the progress that has been achieved in the last two decades towards improving visibility. BART applied on a case­ by­ case basis would have no impact on future growth, and in the long run would not achieve the regional emission reductions that are guaranteed by the program. 4. Actual vs. Allowable Emissions. The baseline emission projections, and assumed reductions due to the application of appropriate retrofit controls to BART­ eligible sources, are all based on actual emissions, using either 1998 or 1999 as the baseline. The use of actual emissions has an effect in several ways. If the BART process was applied on a case­ by­ case basis to individual soukes, emission limitations would be established based on the maximum level of operation of the unit. The allowable emissions are typically higher than actual emissions, because sources do not always rununder full load conditions, over the Eull year s available time. In addition, the allowable emissions would account for variations in the sulk content of fuel and alternative operating scenarios. The differencebetween actual emissions and allowable emissions is particularly large when a source is permitted to burn two different fuel types, such as oil and natural gas, or when the source is part of a cyclical industry where production varies fi­ om year to year due to the changing demand for their product. The WRAP S method of emission projections allows for some increase in capacity for the electric utility industry which will partially address this difference between actual and allowable emissions. Even in this case, the utilities are assumed to operate at an average of 85% of nameplate capacity, even though they are permitted to operate at 100% capacity. Non­ utility sources, on the other hand, are assumed to retire at a certain percentage rate each year with no provision for emission growth from existing sources. Any growth that is projected for those industries ( refineries, pulp and paper, cement, etc.) is assumed to be met by new sources at highly controlled emission rates. In addition to the cap on growth of actual emissions, the difference between an emission projection for future years, and a regional emission cap must also be considered. The milestones will act as a regulatory trigger that will be converted into an enforceable emission cap if the milestones are not met. This essentially creates a regional allowable emission level. When sources are managing their operations they have a large incentive to maintain headroom under any enforceable limit to ensure that they stay in compliance. This process is expected to happen on a voluntary basis prior to the program trigger, and will be strengthened if the milestones become enforceable emission caps. The net effect is that compliancewith the milestones should lead to actual emissions that are below the milestone. The difference between actual emissions and allowable emissions is commonly referred to as headroom. ., C­ 18 5. Mass­ based Cap vs. Rate­ Based Emission Limits for BART. Emission limitations folr stationary sources ( including BART limits) are typically expressed as emission rates ( Ibs/ how or IbsflMMBtu), while the WRAP milestones are expressed as total mass during a given year ( tons/ year). One effect of this difference is that rate­ based limits can lead to higher emissions when production is increased or when higher sulfbr he1 is used, as explained in the discussion of actual vs. allowable emissions above. Another difference is that mass­ based limits will include excess emissions that may occur due to malfunctions or during the start­ up or shut­ down of emission units. A good example of this difference is the requirement in the acid rain program that emissions must be assumed to be the highest value recorded from the past year during the time period that continuous emission monitors are not functioning on a stack. These higher emissions are calculated as part of the overall tonsfyear, and must be accounted for under the mass­ based cap for the acid rain program. 6. 1990 as a baseline for Section 309 Regional Haze Plans. The regional haze rule rec( ognizedthe significant work that had been completed by the Grand Canyon Commission, and section 309 ofthe rule was therefore designed to incorporatethe Coinmission recommendations. A key element of this section of the rule is the use of 1990 as a baseline for measuring progress. There have been significant emission reductions in the west since 1990, and this improvement needs to be considered when measuring the overall effects of the Commission's strategies. The Commission established a goal of a 13% reduction from 1990 emissions. It is anticipated that the actual emission reductions in the region will be closer to 20%. Emission reductions due to the application of appropriate retrofit technology on BART­ eligible sources between 1990 and 2018 are estimated to be 28' 7,176tons of SO, ( See Table 4). This estimate includes a reduction of 119,000 tons of SO, & om BART­ eligible sources that have occurred or have been legally committed to between 1990and 2000 ( assuming that these plants are operating at 85% of nameplate capacity). The 2018 milestone of 510,000 represents a regional emission reduction of around 321,000 tons of SO, & omthe 1990 baseline emissions of 831,000 tons. This overall reduction due to the milestones is approximately 35,000 tons greater than what has been estimated due to the application of appropriate retrofit technology to BART­ eligible sources, C­ 19 Table 4 Calculation of BART­ Level Emissions Reductions from the 1990 Baseline Emissions 1990 1990 1990 level Emissions at Level of after Emissions Facility and Unit Emissions Capacity of control 85% capacity control Controls Reductions Navajo # 1 20,497 62% 0% 27,952 90% 2,050 18,447 Navajo # 2 26,101 81% 0% 27,252 90% 2,610 23,491 Navajo # 3 29,621 90% 36% 29,62 1 90% 2,962 26,659 Hayden # 1 4,857 77% 0% 5,344 85% 729 4,128 Hayden # 2 6,420 78% 0% 7,039 85% 963 5,457 Cherokee # 4 4,689 55% 38% 7,298 85% 703 3,986 Valmont # 5 3,007 65% 0% 3,924 85% 451 2,556 Mojave # 1 21,605 56% 0% 32,834, 85% 3,241 18,364­ Mojave # 2 18,720 68% 0% 23,2971 85% 2,808 15,912 Total Effected and Planned Emission Reductions fiomBART­ eligible sources 119,000 WRAP Calculated BART­ level reductions ( rounded to nearest 1,000. from allstat7. xls) 168.000 I TOTAL I 287,0001 7. Commission Strategies are a Total Package. The GCVTC recommendations go well beyond stationary sources, and include strategies to address mobile sources, prescribed fire, pollution prevention, and emissions in and near Mandatory Class I areas. The reductions from these additional strategies have not yet been quantified, but are expected to be significant. The stationary source strategies need to be viewed as part of this overall package. Visibility impairment in the west is caused by multiple sources and pollutants, and a narrow focus on stationary sources may not achieve the same results as a broad­ based program. The WRAP is in the process of quantifLingthe effect of the rest of the Commission s strategies, and the entire package will be included in the State and Tribal Implementation Plans in 2003. G. Comparison of Trading vs Command and Control BARTRequirements. One additional issue that must be considered when determining if the 2018 milestone achieves greater reasonable progress than BART is the geographic location where emission reductions will occur. For example, if all of the emission reductions under a trading program scenario are concentrated . in one small part of the region, the visibility improvement may be less than what would be achieved if reductions occurred at specific locations under a command and control approach. To address this question, the WRAP modeled the improvement in visibility impairment that would occur under two different scenarios: a command­ and­ control scenario where the emission reductions due to the application of appropriate retrofit controls on BART­ eligible sources were assumed to occur at locations, and a second scenario where least­ cost modeling was used to identify where these same emission reductions would occw under a trading program. The visibility transfer coefficients and control cost assumptions developed as part of the Integrated Assessment System were used for this analysis. Tables 2 and 3 provide the data for the comparison of the visibility improvement associated with these two approaches c­ 20 The results of this analysis showed that there would be an imperceptible improvement in visibility , impairmentunder the command­ and­ control scenario. The maximum difference between the two scenarios at any of the 16 Class I areas was only 0.1 deciview. c­ 21

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.650299

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0038

Supporting & Related Material

Attachment D. Preliminary List of BART­ Eligible Sources in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region Mote: Thefollowing list of BART­ Eligible sources is still preliminary. EPA guidance regarding BART applicability is still under development, and thefinal guidance may add or remove individual unitsfrom this list. Public review may result in additional changes to'this draft list. The summay for each state was drawnporn a number of sources, primarily the Excel spreadsheets that wereprepared by the states to estimate BART emission reductions in the region. Arizona AEPCO Apache ­ Unit 2 AEPCO Apache ­ Unit 3 Arizona Public Senice, Cholla ­ Unit 2 Arizona Public Service, Cholla ­ Unit 3 Arizona Public Service, Cholla ­ Unit 4 Chemical Lime ­ Nelson: & ln 1 Chemical Lime ­ Nelson: Kiln 2 Chemical Lime ­ Douglas: KiIn 4 Chemical Lime ­ Douglas: Kiln 5 Chemical Lime ­ Douglas: Kiln 6 SRP ­ Coronado u91 SRP ­ Coronado UB2 Abitibi Consolidated Sales Corporation, Snowflake Division; # 1 power boiler Abitibi Consolidated Sales Corporation, Snowflake Division; # 2 power boiler Abitibi Consolidated Sales Corporation, SnowflakeDivision; # 2 recovery boiler California , NoBART­ eligible sources have been identified in California Colorado Public Service CO ­ Cherokee # 4 Conoco Inc ­ Denver; FCC Unit Regenerator Conoco Inc ­ Denver; Public Service CO ­ Valmont # 5 SouthwesternPortland Cement Colorado Springs Utilities ­ Drake # 5 Colorado Springs Utilities ­ Drake # 6 Colorado Springs Utilities ­ Drake # 7 Colorado Springs Utilities ­ Nixon # 1 Holnam Portland Cement # 3 Tristate Generation ­ Craig # 1 Tristate Generation ­ Craig # 2 Public Service CO ­ Comanche # 1 Public Service CO ­ Comanche # 2 Public Service CO ­ Hayden # 1 Public Service CO ­ Hayden # 2 Tri­ Gen Energy ­# 4 Tri­ Gen Energy ­# 5 __ _____ ~ Idaho No BART­ Eligible sources have been identified in Idaho Nevada Nevada Cement Co., Fernley Plant, Kiln# 1 Nevada Cement Co., Fernley Plant, Kiln# 2 Nevada Power Co., Reid Gardner Station, Unit # 1 Nevada Power Co., Reid Gardner Station, Unit # 2 Nevada Power Co., Reid Gardner Station, Unit # 3 Southern California Edison, Mojave Station, Unit # 1 Southern California Edison, Mojave Station, Unit # 2 New Mexico PNM, San Juan, Boiler # 1 PNM, San Juan, Boiler # 2 PNM, San Jum; Boiler # 3 PNM, San Juan, Boiler # 4 Phelps Dodge, Hidalgo Smelter Giant Industries, Bloomfield Refinery, 1FCCP ESP stack Giant Refining, Ciniza Refinery, 4 B& W CO boiler Raton Public Service, Raton Pwr. Plt., 1 Erie El Paso Electric, Rio Grande Gen. Sta., 3 2 Oregon Fort James Operating Company, PR808 Recovery Furnace, ESP Outlet Fort James Operating Company, PR831Power Boiler, Conventional ­ 6 Burner Boise Cascade Corporation, No. 2 Recovery Furnace Boise Cascade Corporation, No. 3 Recovery Furnace Boise Cascade Corporation, Power Boiler 6­ 9 Portland General Electric ­ Beaver, Six combustion turbines for electric power generation International Paper ­ Gardner, P U3047 Power Boiler Stack International Paper ­ Gardner, PRB 048 Combined Recovery Boilers Stack Collins Products LLC, Boiler 7 Collins Proiducts LLC, Boiler 8 Willamette Industries, Inc. ­ Albany, Recovery Boiler # 4Black Liquor Solids Wah Chang, Boilers 1­ 3 Pope & Talbot, Inc., Power Boiler 1 Oil Use Amalgamated Sugar Co. ­ Nyssa, S­ B3, Foster ­ Wheeler Boiler ( coal­ fired) Amalgamated Sugar Co. ­ Nyssa, S­ B2, Foster Riley Boiler ( coal­ fired) Portland General Electric Company ­ Boarban, Main Boiler Reynolds Metals Co., Potrooms Rimary Collection System Utah PacifiCorp­ Huntington Plant Unit# l PacifiCorp­ HuntingtonUnit # 2 PacifiCorp­ Hunter Unit # I PacifiCorp­ Hunter Unit # 2 Wyoming Pacificorp Wyodak Coal Power Plant ( Ul) Black Hills Neil Simpson Coal Power Plant ( Ul) Pacificorp Naughton Coal Power Plant PI) Pacificorp Ndughton Coal Power Plant ( U2) Pacificorp Naughton Coal Power Plant ( u3) Pacificorp Dave Johnston Coal Power Plant ( U3) Pacificorp Dave Johnston Coal Power Plant ( U4) Pacificorp Jim Bridger Coal Power Plant ( Ul) Pacificorp Jim Bridger Coal Power Plant ( U2) Pacificorp Jinn Bridger Coal Power Plant ( U3) Pacificorp Jim Bridger Coal Power Plant ( U4) Basin Electric: Laramie River Coal Power Plant ( Ul) 3 Basin Electric Laramie River Coal Power Plant ( UZ) Basin Electric Laramie River Coal Power Plant ( U3) Wyoming Refining TCC Feed Heater ( H­ 03) Wyoming Refining TCC Plume Burner ( H­ 05) Little America Oil Refinery # 7 Boiler ( BL­ 1415) FMC Corp. Trona Plant NS­ 1A Coal Boiler FMC Corp. Trona Plant NS­ 1B Coal Boiler General Chemical Trona Plant GR­ 2­ L Coal Boiler General Chemical Trona Plant GR­ 3­ W Coal Boiler FMC ­ Granger ( Tg) Trona Plant # 1 Coal Boiler ( 14) FMC ­ Granger ( Tg) Trona Plant # 2 Coal Boiler ( 15) Navajo Nation Arizona Public Service, 4­ Comers, Unit # 1 Arizona Public Service, 4­ ComersyUnit # 2 Arizona Public Service, 4­ Corners, Unit # 3 Arizona Public Service, 4­ CornersyUnit # 4 Arizona Public Service, 4­ CornersYUnit # 5 .4 r .1 4

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.664563

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0039

Supporting & Related Material

ATTACHMENT E PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF STATE AREA ALLOCATIONS The following table is a preliminary estimate of how the allocations for existing sources may be distributed among the state areas, including sources located within Indian Nations ( e. g., Navajo Generating Station is within the Navajo Nation and the geographic boundaries of Arizona) for the purposes of providing an indication of the impact of jurisdictions opting in or out of the backstop cap­ and­ trade program. This is not intended to presume or prescribe assignment of allocations to states. The actual distribution will be based upon the location of sources according to1 the state or tribe havingjurisdiction over those sources. Final distribution of allocations by state and tribal jurisdiction will be determined based on the final allocations to existing sources, as submitted in the section 309 SIP revisions. Note that this includes the smelter set­ aside. How those emissions will be distributed if one or both of the two suspended smelters close will be dependent on if or how the other smelters absorb the production from the closed ones, as described in the body of the Annex. In addition, with the exception of the emissions reductions at the Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada, known reductions expected to occur beyond 2003, such as the 20,000 ton reduction from the Colorado front range power plants, are not included.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.667885

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0040

Supporting & Related Material

Attachment F: Conceptual Proposal For Re­ Allocation of the Tribal Set­ Aside The hex provides that, upon the implementation of the trading program, 20,000 tons per year will be established as a general tribal allocation, to be distributed as determined by the tribes in the region. In order to insure that all tribes in the region have a fair and meaningful opportunity to take part in this determination, it must be done in the context of government­ togovernment consultationbetween EPA and the tribes, during the rule making process to amend Regional HaLe Rule 5 309. This Attachment describes the parameters governing the tribal reallocation ( distribution), and presents a preliminary conceptual proposal, in order to facilitate tribal comment. This Is not a consensus document. In general terms, the members and participants in the WRAP have agreed that the re­ allocation of the tribal set­ aside is a matter internal to the tribes. However, to the extent the methodology affects other aspects of the program, other members and participants reserve their right to comment. I. Parameters and Principles Governing Re­ Allocation Methodology A. Provision for Late ( Post 2003) Opt­ in by Tribes The re­ allocation scheme should provide for the possibility that some tribes will opt to participate in the program after the 2003 deadline applicable to states for their SIPS. 1. Policy Rationale Several factors point to the need to allow tribes to make the decision to participate in the program after the 2003 deadline applicable to states. The more than 200 tribes in the GCVTC region will ace a formidable task in deciding whether to opt in to 6 309 over the next three years. The backstop emission trading program described in the Annex is in many ways an innovative and even experimental program. The program marks the first time tribes will be integrated into a multi­ state regional trading scheme, raising new issues regarding tribal sovereignty, federalism, and relationships to states. Additionally, a fhdamental difference between it and existing emission trading programs is the concept that voluntary measures will initially be relied on to meet emissions goals, with the actual trading program serving as a contingency measure. By design, it is structured to minimize , thelikelihood of triggering the trading program until well after 2003. Because most tribes will likely not be affected until the actual trading program is triggered, the relevance of the program to a particular tribe may be hard to gauge in 2003. F­ I To these complicating regulatory factors are added the inherent uncertainty of future trends in technology, energy use, and economic development, both within the region as a whole and on particular tribal lands. In this regard, tribes face a different situation than states. States comprise larger geographic areas, which lessens the need for accuracy in predicting exactly where economic development may occm ­ simpliflmg assumptions, averaging, and other smoothing functions can be used. Moreover, tribes will more often than states have a proprietary interest in development projects within their jurisdiction, and thus have more at stake in insuring that the regulatory strategy they employ is complementaryto their development strategy. Finally, tribes are faced with these decisions at a time when most tribes are in the early stages of establishing air programs through such activities as creating emissions inventories, implementing ambient monitoring programs, and adopting basic air quality codes. Tribal government resources are generally not available for dedication to the type of economidair quality policy analysis required to assess prospectively the ultimate implications of the decision whether to opt into 5 309. Allowing tribes to opt into the program after 2003 will not compromise the environmental goals. of the program. In fact, it would be environmentallybeneficial to encourage the inclusion of new tribal sources in the program, in order to insure the integrity of the regional cap. If tribes lose the option of opting into the program after 2003, new sources on tribal lands would be regulated under $ 308 of the haze rule. This means they would be subject to control requirements, but their emissions would not be mitigated by corresponding reductions elsewhere, as would occur under the trading program. ( A different analysis may apply to tribes with existing sources. As noted below, EPA has the authority to utilize federal implementation where necessary to ensure reasonable progress with respect to such sources). 2. Legal Rationale For the reasons explained below, allowing tribes to opt­ in to the trading program after 2003 is consistent with the framework provided by the Clean Air Act and implementing regulations. a. Tribes are expressly exempt from visibility implementation deadlines under the Tribal Authority Rule. The Tribal Authority Rule ( TAR), 40 CFR $ 49.1 ­ 49.11, delineates the CAA sections for which it is appropriate to treat tribes in the same manner as states. Under the general approach of the TAR, tribes which meet certain eligibility criteria may apply for and receive treatment in the same manner states for all CAA provisions except those specifically identified as inappropriate. Among provisions identified as inappropriate for tribes are [ s] pecific visibility implementation plan submittal deadlines established under 169A of the Act. 40 CFR 0 49.4( e). , .. F­ 2 This exemption applies to the deadlines contained in the RHR sections 308 and 309. Although the Regional Haze Rule originated from a process prescribed in CAA 0 169B, 4 169B requires that IEPA respond to reports fiom Visibility Transport Commissions by carrying out its regulatory duties under 169A. See 42 U. S. C. 07492( e). Therefore the deadlines in the RHR are established under 9 169A of the Act and are not applicable to tribes under the TAR. EPA recognized this in the preamble to the RHR: Section 49.4( f) of the TAR provides that deadlines related to SIP submittals under section 169( B)( e)( 2) do not apply to Tribes. 64 Fed. Reg. 35 714, 35759. July 1, 1999. b. Nothing in the structure or language of the TAR or RHR suggests that the RHR 0309 option would disappear for tribes upon the passing of the state­ applicable deadline. The provisions of the TAR firmly establish that the RHR implementation deadlines are not applicable to tribes. Nevertheless, an argument could be made that a tribes failure to submit a TIP by the : statedeadline of December 31,2003 would preclude a tribe from submitting a 0309 TIP at a later date, even though the date is not a deadline in the sense that failure to meet it would invoke sanctions. Such a reading would be counter to the spirit of the TAR and the RHR. The MtR itself is silent on this question. The only language addressing tribal implementation of 3 309 is found in 9 309( d)( 12): Tribal implementation. Consistent with 40 CFR Part 49, tribes within the Transport Region may implement the required visibility programs for the 16 Class I areas, inthe same manner as States, regardless of whether such tribes have participated as members of a visibility transport commission. One might argue that phrase in the same manner as States implies that the tribes are also subject to the same restrictions as states. However, the preamble discussion of ths language makes it clear that the purpose of this language is to emphasize the tribes independence from states. In fact, the preamble erroneously states that this provision is not included in the final rule because it would be superfluous in light of the TAR: The WGA called for EPA s final rule topermit tribes within the GCVTC Transport Region to implement visibilityprograms, or reasonably severable elements, in the same manner as States, regardless of whether such tribes have participated as members of a visibility transport GCVTC [ sic]. The EPA has not included the WGA s recommended rule provision in today s action because the necessary authority for tribal organizationshas already been provided in a previ. ous EPA rulemaking . FN133 The EPA does, however, agree with the position expressed in the WGA recommendation. The EPA wishes to clarify that F­ 3 tribes may directly implement the requirements of this section of the regional haze rule in the same manner as States. The Tribal Authority Rule provides for this, as discussed further in unit V of today s notice. The independence of tribes means that a tribal visibility program is not dependent on strategies selected by the State or States in whch the tribe is located. 64 Fed. Reg. At 35756 ( emphasis added). Section 309( d)( 12) was in fact included in the final rule, notwithstanding the explanation in the preimble of why it was not. In any case, it is clear that EPA interpreted the language of 3 309( d)( 12) to be merely redundant to the provisions of the TAR, and not in any way limiting the options available to tribes under the TAR. Moreover, elsewhere in the preamble, the non­ applicability of visibility implementation plan deadlines to tribes is discussed at some length, concluding with the following paragraph: In order to encourage tribes to develop self­ sufficient programs, the TAR provides tribes with the flexibilityof submitting programs as they are developed, rather than in accordance with statutory deadlines. 27zis means that tribes that choose to develop programs, where necessavy may take additional time to submit implementationplansfor regional haze over and above the deadlines in the TEA21 legislation as codfled in today S rule. . . . We encourage tribes choosing to develop implementation plans to make every effort to submit by the deadlines to ensure that the plans are integrated with and coordinated with regional planning efforts. In the interim, EPA will work with the States and tribes to ensure that achlevement of reasonable progress is not delayed. 64 Fed. Re?. 35714,35759, Julv 1. 1999. ( Emphasis added). Significantly, the discussion makes no distinctionbetween development of tribal implementation plans under RHR 55 308 and 309. Also significantly, nowhere in the quoted passage or the entire discussion of tribal implementation of the RHR is any mention made of consequences to tribes of failing to submit TIPs by the state deadlines. The integration and coordination of state and tribal planning efforts is cited as a positive incentive for early development of visibility TIPs, but nowhere is the possibility of any negative consequences discussed. If EPA had intended the state 309 deadline to serve as a cut off point for tribal implementation of 8 309, it is reasonable to expect that it would have written such a provision into the rule that or at least discussed in the preamble the rationale for such an effect. Taken together, EPA s assurances that tribes may choose between 5 308 and $ 309 independently of state decisions, and that tribes where necessary may take additional time to submit implementation plans, create a strong implication that tribes may submit implementation plans under 0 309 after the state implementation plan deadline for that section. c. Loss of the 5 309 option upon failure to meet the 2003 deadline would effectively constitute a sanction to tribes and thus run F­ 4 T I counter to the spirit of the TAR. In explaining the rationale for not subjecting tribes to SIP submittal deadlines, EPA in the preamble to the TAR noted among other things that: [ Slince .. . tribal authority for establishing CAA programs was expressly addressed for the first time in the 1990 CAA Amendments, in comparison to states, tribes in general are in the early stages of developing air planning and implementation expertise. Accordingly, EPA determined that it would be infeasible and inappropriate to subject tribes to the mandatory submittal deadlines imposed by the Act on states, and to the related federal oversight mechanisms in the Act which are triggered when EPA makes a finding that states have failed to meet required deadlines or acts to disapprove a plan submittal. 63. Fed. Reg;. at 7265. The federal oversight mechanism referred to is implementation of a federal implementation plan ( FIP) pursuant to CAA 0 1lO( c)( l). Id.( providing for FIPs within 2 years of state s failure to submit SIP or SIP revision) The preamble goes on to explain that 0 1lO( c)( 1) is therefore among those listed in the TAR as inappropriate for application to tribes, although EP. A retains its obligation to promulgate FIPs in Indian country as necessary and appropriate. Id. Enforcement of a FIP against a state is commonly perceived as a sanction against the state, as it represents an assertion of federal supremacy over considerations of state sovereignty. Furthermore, CAA 110 provides for additional sanctions in the event of a state s failure to submit a complete and timely SIP, in the form of withheld highway funding and emission offfset requirements. See 42 U. S. C. 6 7410( m) and 67509. EPA correctly determined that, given the relative inexperience of tribes in air regulation, and the recentness of Congressional authorization of tribal CAA implementation, it is inappropriate to subject tribes to deadlines and sanctions. For similar reasons, and for the reasons related to future uncertainty discussed in part LA. 1 above, tribes should not be punished for failure to1 meet the 2003 deadline by losing the option to implement 0 309. Therefore, the methodology should accommodate post­ 2003 entry into the market by tribes. B. Accommodation of the Multiple Purposes of the Tribal Set Aside Tribal participants in the WRAP cited several potential uses for the tribal set aside, including retirement for the benefit of the environment, use to attract development, and sale for revenue. The allocation methodology should provide for all these needs to some degree. Naturally, there is a tension between these purposes, given the fact that there are many tribes who may have differing priorities. There are many ways of striking a balance between uses, of which the proposed methodology is but one. For example, the proposed methodology would utilize the allowances for revenue until needed for development ( with individual tribes able to retire a F­ 5 portion at their discretion). An alternative method would be to effectivelyretire the allowances until needed for development or sale. The former method is put forth here under the assumption that the monetary benefit to tribes outweighs the marginal environmental benefit of retiring this small portion of the total emissions. C. Flexibility to Allow for Changes If the New Source Set Aside Is Exhausted or in Accordance with Market Prices. The tribal set aside is designed to help insure equitable treatment for tribal economies and to prevent barriers to economic development. It is not the only source of allowances for tribes, as tribal sources also have access to allowances under the general existing and new source provisions. The new source set­ aside is intended to be sufficient to cover all new sources in the region, whether they are tribal or non­ tribal. The reallocation concept presented here is based on the assumption that the new source set aside is adequate. However, if for unanticipated reasons SO2 new source growth exceeds projections, the use of the tribal set aside should be subject to change. Similarly, the methodology should be flexible to allow changes in strategy based upon the market price of credits. For example, if credits become very valuable, tribes who have retired allowances may wish to reconsider the option of selling. Provisions for flexibilitymust be consistent with the general allocation methodology of the program, which provides certainty in allocations for 5 year increments. D. Maximization of Benefit to Tribes in the Aggregate. The methodology should be structured so that the maximum benefit is gained from the allowances, and they are not so distributed as to be of no practical use to any one tribe. For this reason, a simple pro­ rata distribution is not proposed. That would result in approximately 95 tondyear per tribe, not quite enough to construct a major source ( 100 tpy). It is felt that better use can be made of the allowances by pooling them and using the revenue for a common good, with the pool being dipped into as needed for individual tribal projects. Again, however, the calculus may change according to according to market prices for credits. II Proposed Conceptual Methodology The conceptual framework put forth here for comment is quite simple. Essentially, it consists of the following: ( 1) Initially the allowances would be pooled and sold, with revenue used for the benefit of common tribal interests, ( 2) Individual tribes could draw from the pool for the purpose of ( A) SO2 emitting development projects, and ( B) retirement of allowances for the environment. The allocation scheme would be subject to change at the 5 year check points built into the program, in response to changed conditions. These concepts are described in more detail below: ­ 1. Unclaimed allowances administered as pool for shared revenue F­ 6 i ' ., .. I This provision is intended to insure that the tribal allowance is used in a manner which will provide benefits to tribes, regardless of whether individual tribes have decided to apply for an allocation of allowances. Upon the commencement of the trading program, those tribal allowances whch have not been allocated to individual tribes according to the procedures below would be sold on the open market, at a fair market price. The proceeds would be transferred to a trustee, who would use the funds for a purpose determined after consultation With the tribes in the region. The use to which funds are put should be logically grounded in the rationale for creating the set aside. For example, they could be used to fund tribal environmental programs, to partially compensate for the fact that the benefits of energy and industrial development have not been proportional. ly shared with tribes. This could be accomplished by using the monies to supply tribes with rnatching funds in order to meet federal grant requirements ( e. g. under sections 103 or 105 of the CIAA), to help tribes acquire monitoring or other equipment, or to assist tribes in establishing tribal, non­ federal programs. Another promising idea which has been suggested is the establishment of a scholarship fund to encourage the development of tribal environmental professionals. There are several fundamental issues to be resolved regarded the pooled approach, including: the mechanism by whch tribal allocations would be sold on the market ( e. g., by the program administrator) and the identity or method of selecting the trustee to administer revenues fiom sales. 2. Allowances distributed to individual tribes via application process A p~ imarypurpose of the tribal set aside is to ensure that barriers to development on tribal land are not created, where such development is desired by tribes. Many tribal participants also insisted that tribes should be able to retire credits, at their discretion. In order to accomplish these objectives, there must be means for individual tribes to acquire a quantity of credits over which the tribe has sole control. A method for doing this is proposed below: A. Retirement quota Tribes would be able to apply for a quota of allowances for the express purpose of retiring them. The # quotacould be either a flat, pro rata amount for every federally recognized tribe in the region, ( e. g., 20,000 tpy/ 211 tribes = 94.8 tpy/ tribe), or it could be adjusted on a tribe­ specific basis, such as tribal population. A flat amount would reflect the equality of all federally recognized tribes as sovereign domestic nations, while a population based allocation would perhaps better reflect the amount of development a tribe is willing to forego, by retiring the credits. F­ 7 Some questions raised by this provision are whether tribes that retire credits should be excluded from receiving benefits from the revenue generated by the sale of the remainder of credits, and whether, tribes who retire credits would be able to pursue SO2 emitting development outside of the trading program? ( E. g., under RHR 308). 3. Formula for allowances to tribal projects A central feature of the tribal allocation scheme is the methodology for allocating allowances to tribes for the purpose of energy or economic development, so tribal development can be included in the regional cap without creating an extra economic burden on tribes. This use is supplemental to the use . ofallowances from the new source set aside which is available for any new sources in the region, whether tribal or not. Under this provision, at the time a proposed new major SO2 source on tribal land applies for applicable permits ( Prevention of Significant Deterioration, New Source Review, Title V, etc.), it would also apply for a share of the tribal allowances. These allowances would be in addition to the allowances the source would receive fiom the general new source provisions, and would comprise an additional percentage of credits needed to operate. For example, the source would receive 100% of credits needed to operate under applicable control requirements from the new source set aside, and an additional 10% ( a purely hypothetical number) from the tribal set aside. The extra allowances could not be used to circumvent applicable control requirements or permit conditions. They could be banked according to the general banking provisions of the program to provide the source with additional flexibility, or sold, in effect creating a small economic subsidy to the source, in order to encourage its location on tribal land. ( Of course, this provision would only be utilized when a tribe desired to attract development). 3. New distribution Methodology if new source set­ aside exhausted Under the WEB provisions, allowances would be allocated to sources for 5 year periods, in order to provide sufficient certainty for fbture planning. This periodic system of allocations affords anopportunity to change the tribal allocation scheme in response to changed conditions. Specifically, if the new source set aside is exhausted, use of the tribal set aside could be shifted from retirements or revenue towards tribal new source allocations, in order to ensure economic barriers are not created. By tying decisions to change the tribal methodology to the five year ­ cycle, all parties would know how many tribal credits would be in play and how many will be retired for each five year period. i 1 ! F­ 8

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.671415

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0060

Supporting & Related Material

February 23,2001 MEMORANDUM WESTERN TO: Staff Council GOVERNORS' State Environmental Directors ' ­­­~ ,_.. . li­ Ix ;*' , , ASSOCIATION State Air Directors LA& *: p:~ FROM: Jim Souby Dirk Kempthorne SUBJECT: Energy and Air Quality Issues Governor of Idaho Chairman As many of you are aware, recent events related to energy supply problems in the West have led to questions regarding the impact of Jane Dee Hull various environmental policies. One of the questions that has come up is Governor of Arizona whether or not the sulfur dioxide ( S02) emission reduction milestones Vice Chairman recently proposed by the Western Regional Air Partnership ( WRAP) will present unreasonable obstacles to the construction of new coal­ fired power plants in the West. These concerns were highlighted in a February 1 letter to the Governors from the Western Regional Council ( WRC). In the last couple of weeks, WGA staff participated in a constructive James M. Souby meeting with members of WRC's Energy and Clean Air Committees. We Executive Director have also completed an analysis of the SO2 milestones and their impact on the construction of new coal­ fired plants. A copy of this analysis is attached. The conclusion is that the sulfur dioxide emission reduction milestones Headquarters: should in no way impede the construction of new coal­ fired power plants 15 15 Cleveland Place in the West as long as we continue to make progress in reducing SO2 Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202­ 5114 emissions from the existing units, as called for by the Governors in the final recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 303­ 623­ 9378 Commission and required by the federal regional haze rules. Fax 303­ 534­ 7309 Washington, D. C. Office: Please do not hesitate to contact me or Patrick Cummins with any 400 N. Capitol Street, N. W. questions. Suite 388 Washington, D. C. 20001 202­ 624­ 5402 : ax 202­ 624­ 7707 www. westgov. org February 22,200 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Souby, Executive Director Western Governors Association FROM: Patrick Cummins Air Quality Program Manager SUBJECT: Energy and Air Quality Issues Concerns about meeting increased energy demand in the West have led to questions about the Western Regional Air Partnership s ( WRAP) Voluntary Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Reduction Program and Backstop Market Trading Program, which was submitted to EPA in October 2000. This program was submitted as an Annex to the 1996 final report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, in accordance with the requirements of the federal regional haze rules. The specific question that has arisen is whether the sulfur dioxide emission reduction milestones contained in the Annex will prohibit the construction of new coal­ fired power plants in the West. I have conducted an analysis of this question and the results are presented in the attached Technical Memorandum. The conclusions of the analysis are as follows: 0 With an SO2 emission control rate of between 77% and 85% on existing power plants subject to the Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) requirements of the Clean Air Act, it is possible to build approximately 7,000 megawatts of new coal­ fired gheration at any time between now and 2018 without exceeding the milestones. This is the level of control assumed by the WRAP in the Annex. Recent information indicates that there are about 5,000 MW of potential new coal­ fired power plants under discussion in the nine­ state region covered by the milestones. 0 Based on discussions with representatives of the coal industry, we have also evaluated a scenario where the total SO2 control level at existing plants is increased to 85%. Under this scenario, it is possible to build 11,000 megawatts of new coal­ fired generation between now and 2012, and another 8,000 megawatts after 2012, for a total of 19,000 megawatts without exceeding the milestones. This analysis suggests that the sulfur dioxide emission reduction milestones contained in the Annex should in no way impede the construction of new coal­ fired power plants in the West as long as we continue to make progress in reducing SO2 emissions fiom the existing units. I would be happy to answer any questions or provide additional information on this topic. I can be reached at ( 303) 623­ 5635 ext. 112 or pcummins@ westgov. org. February 22,2001 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ANALYSIS OF NEW COAL­ FIRED POWER PLANTS UNDER THE PROPOSED SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION REDUCTION MILESTONES FOR THE NINE­ STATE GRAND CANYON VISIBILITY TRANSPORT REGION BACKGROUND In accordance with the recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission and the requirements of EPA s Regional Haze Rules, the Western Regional Air Partnership ( WRAP) submitted a set of sulfur dioxide emission reduction milestones to EPA in October 2000. EPA will go through a formal rule­ making process this year to incorporate this voluntary, market­ based program into section 309 of the Regional Haze Rules. Nine Western states ( Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona) have the option of satisfying their Best Available Retrofit Technology Requirements ( BART) for sulfur dioxide under the Regional Haze Rules by participating in this voluntary, market­ based program, which was prepared as an Annex to the original report of the Grand Canyon Commission. These states may also choose not to participate in the program, in which case they must apply BART through the traditional source­ by­ source approach for regulating industrial source emissions. The milestones contained in the Annex cover sources of SO2 with emissions of more than 100 tons per year. Compliance with the milestones is to be achieved through voluntary emission reductions, with a backstop market trading program that will take effect if any of the milestones are exceeded. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the amount of new coal­ fired electric generating capacity that can be added in these states while remaining under the milestones. SCENARIOS Two scenarios have been evaluated in order to provide a range of estimates for the amount of new coal­ fired plants that could be built while remaining under the milestones ( see attached charts). Scenario 1: WRAP Annex Scenario ­ This scenario uses the assumptions regarding growth, retirements, and control levels developed by the WRAP SMarket Trading Forum ( MTF). Scenario 2: Alternative Scenario ­ This scenario assumes a higher level of control on existing plants in order to create more room under the milestones for new plants. SCENARIO 1 : WRAP ANNEX SCENARIO Combined Heat and Power ( Co­ Gen) Facilities: SO2 emissions from these sources are projected to remain constant at 8,000 tons per year through 2018. Smelters: SO2 emissions from these sources are projected to remain constant at 48,000 tons per year through 2018. The Annex contains provisions to automatically increase the milestones by up to 38,000 tons in the event that two currently suspended smelters resume operations. Other Sources: This category includes SO2 sources such as refineries and cement kilns. Using information developed by the Grand Canyon Commission, the analysis conducted by the WRAP indicates that the net effect of growth and retirements in this category will lead to a slight decrease in emissions between now and 2018 ( from 162,000 tons in 1998to 141,000 tons in 2018). In addition, there are several facilities in this category that are subject to the BART requirements. The additional reductions from these BART­ eligible sources is estimated at 16,000 tons per year, resulting in a final emissions estimate in 2018 of 125,000 tons per year. Utilities: SO2 emissions from existing coal­ fired power plants were projected based on an 85% nameplate capacity factor, which represents a 12% increase from 1999 generation levels and a reasonable upper­ bound for the annual generating capacity of the existing system. Current controls and already committed future controls were also applied. This resulted in an emissions estimate of 42 1,500 tons per year in 2018. Based on the BART control levels agreed to in the Market Trading Forum, utility emissions are assumed to decrease by 30,000 tons in 2013 and by an additional 117,000tons by 2018 for a final emissions estimate in 2018 of 275,000 tons per year. This analysis assumes no retirements of existing plants. ( See attached table.) New Coal: Emissions from new coal plants were projected assuming that the Best Available Control Technology requirements which apply will result in 90% control of SO2 emissions. Based on feedstock that contains 0.9 #/ mmbtu of sulfur, the emission rate for new plants was calculated at 0.09 #/ mmbtu. Using a heat rate of 9500 btu/ kwh and an annual capacity utilization rate of 90% yields an emission rate of 3.4 tons/ MW/ year for new coal plants. Result As shown in the attached graph and table, this scenario indicates that it is possible to build approximately 7,000 megawatts of new coal­ fired generation at any time between now and 2018 without exceeding the milestones. This represents a 24% increase over current levels of coal­ fired generating capacity in the nine­ state region. SCENARIO 2: ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO Based on discussions with representatives of the coal industry, an alternative scenario was evaluated modifyingjust two of the assumptions used in the WRAP Annex scenario described above. The two assumptions used in this scenario are: 0 No reductions from 1998 SO2 emission levels from the other source category, including no additional controls on the BART­ eligible sources in this category. This has the effect of increasing emissions in 2018 by 37,000 tons compared to the WRAP & mex scenario. Assumes an overall SO2 emission control rate of 85% on existing coal­ fired power plants. This has the effect of reducing emissions in 2018 by 78,000 tons compared to the WRAP Annex scenario. This level of reduction from the existing plants could be achieved through some combination of increased control at the BART­ eligible plants and adding controls to the currently uncontrolled plants that are not subject to BART. 0 Result As shown in the attached graph and table, this scenario indicates that it is possible to build 1 1,000 megawatts of new coal­ fired generation between now and 2012, and another 8,000 megawatts after 2012, for a total of 19,000 megawatts without exceeding the milestones. This represents a 65% increase over current levels of coal­ fired generating capacity in the nine­ state region.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.677390

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0084-0001

Rule

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production; Final Rule; Amendments

Monday, December 30, 2002 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production; Final Rule VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79808 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ FRL 7430 6] RIN 2060 AE77 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Aluminum Production AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule; amendments. SUMMARY: On March 23, 2000, the EPA issued national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for secondary aluminum production facilities under section 112 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). This action amends the applicability provisions for aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders. The amendments also add new provisions governing control of commonly­ ducted units; revise the procedures for adoption of operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans; revise the criteria concerning testing of representative emission units; revise the standard for unvented in­ line flux boxes; and clarify the control requirements for sidewell furnaces. These changes are being made pursuant to settlement agreements in two cases seeking judicial review of the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production. A separate rule to clarify compliance dates and defer certain early compliance obligations which might have otherwise come due before completion of this rulemaking was published on September 24, 2002. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 2002. ADDRESSES: Docket A 2002 05, containing supporting information used in developing these final rule amendments, is available for public inspection and copying between 8: 30 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, at the following address: U. S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room B 108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, U. S. EPA, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division ( C504 05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 0296, electronic mail address, schaefer. john@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The amendments change the applicability provisions of the NESHAP for three types of facilities: aluminum extruded product manufacturing facilities ( NAICS 331316), aluminum die casting facilities ( NAICS 331521), and aluminum foundry facilities ( NAICS 331524). Consequently, categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include: Category NAICS* Examples of regulated entities Industry ..................................................... 331314 Secondary smelting and alloying of aluminum facilities. Secondary aluminum production facility affected sources that are collocated at: 331312 Primary aluminum production facilities. 331315 Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil manufacturing facilities. 331316 Aluminum extruded product manufacturing facilities. 331319 Other aluminum rolling and drawing facilities. 331521 Aluminum die casting facilities. 331524 Aluminum foundry facilities. * North American Information Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.1500 of the final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Docket. We have established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. A 2002 06 and EDocket ID No. OAR 2002 0084. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility in the above paragraph entitled `` Docket.'' Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Worldwide Web ( WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's amendments will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Following signature, a copy of these actions will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed rules 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. Judicial Review. Under section 307( b)( 1) of the CAA, judicial review of these final rule amendments is available only by filing a petition for review in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February 28, 2003. Under section 307( d)( 7)( B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final rule amendments that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79809 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307( b)( 2) of the CAA, the requirements established by these final rule amendments may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements. Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Background II. Summary of the Final Amendments A. How Are We Amending the Applicability provisions? B. What Amendments Are We Making Concerning Control of Commonly­ Ducted Units? C. How Are We Amending the Procedures for Adoption of an Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan? D. How Are We Amending the Provisions Concerning Testing of Representative Emission Units? E. How Are We Amending the Standards for Unvented In­ Line Flux Boxes? F. How Are We Clarifying the Control Requirements for Sidewell Furnaces? G. What Other Amendments Are We Making? III. Response to Comments on Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. et seq. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Congressional Review Act I. Background On March 23, 2000 ( 63 FR 15690), we promulgated the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR). Those standards were established under the authority of section 112( d) of the CAA to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) from major and area sources. After promulgation of the NESHAP for secondary aluminum production, two petitions for judicial review of the standards were filed in the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The first of these petitions was filed by the American Foundrymen's Society, the North American Die Casting Association, and the Non­ Ferrous Founders' Society ( American Foundrymen's Society et al. v. U. S. EPA, Civ. No 00 1208 ( D. C. Cir.)). A second petition for judicial review was filed by the Aluminum Association ( The Aluminum Association v. U. S. EPA, No. 00 1211 ( D. C. Cir.)). There was no significant overlap in the issues presented by the two petitions, and the cases have never been consolidated. However, we did thereafter enter into separate settlement discussions with the petitioners in each case. The Foundrymen's case presented issues concerning the applicability of subpart RRR to aluminum die casters and aluminum foundries which were considered during the initial rulemaking development. Because aluminum die casters and foundries sometimes conduct the same type of operations as other secondary aluminum producers, we originally intended to apply the standards to these facilities, but only in those instances where they conduct such operations. However, representatives of the affected facilities argued that they should not be considered to be secondary aluminum producers and should be wholly exempt from the NESHAP. During the rulemaking development, we decided to permit die casters and foundries to melt contaminated internal scrap without being considered to be secondary aluminum producers, but their representatives insisted that too many facilities would still be subject to the NESHAP. At the time of promulgation of the standards, in response to a request by the die casters and foundries, we announced we would withdraw the standards as applied to die casters and foundries and develop separate maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) standards for these facilities. After the Foundrymen's case was filed, we negotiated an initial settlement agreement in that case which established a process to effectuate our commitment to develop new MACT standards. In that first settlement, EPA agreed that it would stay the current standards for these facilities, collect comprehensive data to support alternate standards, and promulgate alternate standards. We then published a proposal to stay the standards for these facilities ( 65 FR 55491, September 14, 2000) and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking ( ANPR) announcing new standards for these facilities ( 65 FR 55489, September 14, 2000). During the subsequent process of preparing for information collection, the petitioners concluded that the existing standards were not as sweeping in applicability as they had feared, and the parties then agreed to explore an alternate approach to settlement based on clarifications of the current standards. We subsequently reached agreement with the Foundrymen's petitioners on a new settlement which entirely supplanted the prior settlement. Accordingly, we published a notice withdrawing the proposed stay of the existing standards for aluminum die casters and foundries, and announcing that we would take no further action on new standards for those facilities ( 67 FR 41138, June 14, 2002). In the new settlement, we agreed to propose some changes in the applicability provisions of the current standards concerning aluminum die casters and foundries. These changes included permitting customer returns without paints or solid coatings to be treated like internal scrap, and permitting facilities operated by the same company at different locations to be aggregated for purposes of determining what is internal scrap. These revisions of the applicability criteria were proposed on June 14, 2002 ( 67 FR 41125) and are being adopted in today's final rule. In the Foundrymen's settlement, we also agreed to defer the compliance date for new sources constructed or reconstructed at existing aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders until the compliance date for existing sources, so that the rulemaking on general applicability issues could be completed first. We took final action concerning that element of the Foundrymen's settlement in a final rule published on September 24, 2002 ( 67 FR 59787). In entirely separate discussions, we also agreed on a settlement of the Aluminum Association case. That settlement required that we propose a number of substantive clarifications and revisions of the standards, which we are also adopting in today's final rule. The Aluminum Association settlement also required that we clarify and simplify the compliance dates for the standards, and defer certain early compliance obligations which might otherwise come due during the rulemaking process. We took final action concerning those compliance issues in the final rule published on September 24, 2002 ( 67 FR 59787). II. Summary of the Final Amendments A. How Are We Amending the Applicability Provisions? We originally intended to regulate aluminum die casting facilities, VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79810 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations aluminum foundries, and aluminum extruders under subpart RRR only when they engage in the same types of operations as other secondary aluminum producers. We decided during rulemaking development that such facilities should be permitted to melt their own internally­ generated scrap without being automatically treated the same as secondary aluminum producers, who typically process contaminated aluminum scrap obtained from other sources. Thus, § 63.1500( d) in the current standards exempts such facilities if: The facility does not melt any materials other than clean charge and materials generated within the facility; and The facility does not operate a thermal chip dryer, sweat furnace, or scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/ decoating kiln. However, it became apparent during discussions with representatives of these facilities that some aluminum die casting facilities that do not otherwise engage in secondary aluminum operations might fall within the rule solely because they melt certain materials which do not fit clearly within the phrase `` materials generated within the facility.'' In particular, some facilities routinely have defective or incorrect aluminum castings returned by customers and then remelt them. In addition, some companies conduct operations at multiple locations and may melt scrap initially generated at one location at a different location. To address these issues, the amendments contain new applicability language which permits aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders to melt customer returns which contain no paint or other solid coatings without thereby becoming subject to the standards. The amendments also include a new definition of internal scrap which includes all scrap originating from aluminum castings or extrusions that remains at all times within the control of the company that produced the castings or extrusions. We do not regard either of these changes in the applicability language as materially altering our original intent to only cover those aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders who conduct secondary aluminum operations. Under the new language we are adopting, customer returns would not qualify if they have been painted or are contaminated with other solid coatings because these castings would normally require prior cleaning to avoid excess emissions. Moreover, scrap obtained from an external source does not qualify unless it fits within the definition of clean charge. The amendments also change the existing definitions of `` secondary aluminum production facility,'' `` clean charge,'' `` internal runaround'' ( now called `` runaround scrap''), and `` thermal chip dryer,'' and add new definitions of `` customer returns'' and `` internal scrap.'' In the aggregate, these revisions clarify the circumstances when aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders are considered to be secondary aluminum production facilities and, thus, within the applicability of the rule. We are also adding a new section to the general applicability provisions which permits aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders which are area sources to operate thermal chip dryers subject to the requirements of the rule without automatically subjecting their furnace operations to the rule. We are making this change to eliminate an incentive which might exist for small facilities, which are otherwise outside the applicability of the rule, to discontinue their use of thermal chip dryers. As long as such chip dryers are operated in conformity with the rule, we think their use will promote safety and lower emissions at some small operations. We are mindful that some may question why contaminated internal scrap generated by aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders should be treated differently than external scrap with similar contamination levels which is processed by the secondary aluminum industry. We stress that the decision we made during the original secondary aluminum rulemaking process to make this distinction was based on the qualitative differences in the operations being undertaken by the facilities in question, rather than on any conclusions regarding the likely magnitude of emissions from such operations. Moreover, we think that the additional revisions and clarifications of applicability for aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders which we have made are reasonable clarifications and fully consistent with that original decision. B. What Amendments Are We Making Concerning Control of Commonly­ Ducted Units? The current rule permits secondary aluminum producers to combine existing group 1 furnaces and in­ line fluxers within a particular facility in a `` secondary aluminum processing unit'' or SAPU. The facility can then demonstrate compliance by determining the permissible emissions for the entire SAPU and then controlling emissions for the SAPU to that level. This broader definition of the affected source which must be controlled gives a secondary aluminum production facility added flexibility in fashioning the most costeffective control strategies which will meet the standards. The existing rule also permits new group 1 furnaces and new in­ line fluxers to be included in a new SAPU. However, it does not afford a facility the latitude to combine new and existing sources in the same SAPU. This is because the respective standards for existing sources and new sources are separate legal requirements, and we construe the CAA to require that standards be separately applied to all affected units. Because the standards for an existing SAPU and the standards for a new SAPU happen to be identical in this instance, the legal constraints on combining existing emission units with new emission units have been understandably frustrating to some facilities. Moreover, in some facilities it may make the most sense from an engineering perspective to manifold emissions from units which are subject to differing standards to the same emission control device. In order to help facilities meet the standards in the most efficient and cost­ effective manner, we are adding additional language pertaining to commonly­ ducted units. The new language reflects two different approaches to this problem. A facility subject to the standards may use either approach or both approaches if it wishes. First, the amendments add a new paragraph to § 63.1505( k) for SAPU. The new paragraph ( k)( 6) allows the owner or operator to redesignate any existing group 1 furnace or in­ line fluxer at a secondary aluminum processing facility as a new emission unit. Any redesignated emission unit may then be included in a new SAPU at that facility. Any such redesignation ( which requires prior approval of the responsible permitting authority) applies only under subpart RRR and is irreversible. Second, we are also adding new language which clarifies the procedures by which units which are subject to differing standards but are manifolded to the same control device can demonstrate compliance. We believe that this new language is not required to permit this type of combined compliance demonstration, but we think it will give useful additional guidance to permitting authorities in establishing sound and defensible procedures for documenting compliance when units VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79811 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations are commonly­ ducted but subject to separate standards. We are adding two new paragraphs to § 63.1511 pertaining to compliance demonstrations for commonly­ ducted units. The first of these paragraphs simply confirms other provisions of the rule which provide that aggregate emissions can be measured to demonstrate compliance for all emission units within a SAPU. The second new paragraph covers those situations where commonlyducted units are not within a single existing or new SAPU. In this instance, the following criteria apply: Testing must be designed to verify that each affected source or emission unit individually satisfies all applicable emission requirements. Emissions must be tested at the outlet of each individual affected source or emission unit while it is operating under the highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur, prior to the point that the emissions are combined with those from other affected sources or emission units. Combined emissions for the affected sources and emission units must be tested at the outlet of the control device while they are operating simultaneously under the highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur. When determining compliance for a commonly­ ducted unit, emissions of a particular pollutant from the individual unit are presumed to be controlled by the same percentage as total emissions of that pollutant from all commonlyducted units. C. How Are We Amending the Procedures for Adoption of an Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan? In the final rule amendments published on September 24, 2002 ( 67 FR 59787), we clarified the timing of submission of an operation, maintenance, and monitoring ( OM& M) plan to the permitting authority, which is ambiguous in the rule as initially promulgated on March 23, 2000. In this action, we are clarifying the procedures by which a facility submits an OM& M plan to the permitting authority and by which the permitting authority can require any necessary revisions of the plan. Section 63.1505( k) of the existing rule refers to approval of an OM& M plan by the permitting authority, and the necessary elements of an OM& M plan are described in § 63.1510( b), but the procedures for submission and approval of the plan are not specified. We are amending the existing rule to correct that omission. Under the amendments, the facility is required to certify that the OM& M plan it is submitting complies with all requirements of the standards and to comply with the OM& M plan as submitted to the permitting authority, unless and until the plan is revised. If the permitting authority determines that any revisions of the plan are necessary to satisfy the requirements of the standards, the facility is required to promptly make all necessary revisions and resubmit the revised plan. If the facility itself determines that revisions of the OM& M plan are necessary, such revisions will not become effective until the owner or operator submits a description of the changes and a revised plan incorporating them to the permitting authority. These same general procedures also apply to the site­ specific monitoring plan, which is one element of the OM& M plan. D. How Are We Amending the Provisions Concerning Testing of Representative Emission Units? Section 63.1511( f) of the existing rule establishes a procedure which permits a secondary aluminum production facility to test a representative group 1 furnace or in­ line flux box in order to determine the emission rate for other units of the same type at that facility. We are clarifying the criteria for demonstrating compliance by testing of representative emission units. In particular, the existing rule provides that the emission unit being tested must use `` identical feed/ charge and flux materials in the same proportions'' as those emission units it represents. Industry representatives have expressed concern that this language could be given an unduly restrictive construction. To clarify our original intent, we are amending the criteria to require `` feed materials and charge rates which are comparable'' and `` the same type of flux materials in the same proportions'' as the emission units the tested unit represents. E. How Are We Amending the Standards for Unvented In­ Line Flux Boxes? The existing rule requires that all inline flux boxes meet the same emission standards and be tested in the same manner. Industry representatives have argued that the testing procedures in the rule are not practicable for in­ line flux boxes which are unvented ( units which have no ventilation ductwork manifolded to an outlet or emission control device). Documenting compliance with the particulate matter ( PM) standard for such units might require construction of a temporary enclosure around the unit to capture and measure emissions. Industry representatives have also argued that the emissions of hydrogen chloride ( HCl) and PM from such units are intrinsically low, but we believe it is quite possible for the HCl emissions from such units to exceed the applicable standards. The existing rule provides a procedure by which a facility can demonstrate compliance for HCl by limiting its use of reactive chlorine flux and then assuming that all chlorine used is emitted as HCl. However, because of the greater complexity of the reactions which generate PM emissions, there is no analogous procedure for PM. While we do not agree with the industry that all emissions from unvented in­ line flux boxes are intrinsically low, we do agree that the physical characteristics of these units and the nature of the reactions that generate PM mean that we can reliably conclude that an unvented unit which demonstrates compliance with the emission standards for HCl by limiting reactive chlorine flux will also be in compliance with the emission standards for PM. Therefore, we are adding new language to § 63.1512( h) which permits a facility with an unvented in­ line flux box, which elects to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards for HCl by limiting use of reactive chlorine flux, to infer compliance with the emission standards for PM as well. This gives facilities an alternative to testing of actual emissions, which could require costly construction of an enclosure around the unit or other engineering modifications. If a facility infers compliance with the PM standard in this manner, the facility is also required to use the maximum permissible PM emission rate for the flux box when determining the total emissions for any secondary aluminum processing unit which includes the flux box. F. How Are We Clarifying the Control Requirements for Sidewell Furnaces? Industry representatives have pointed out that § 63.1506( m)( 6) includes language that could require installation of an additional control device on sidewell furnaces whenever the level of molten metal is permitted to fall below the passage between the sidewell and the hearth, or reactive flux is added in the hearth. While we believe that a control device will sometimes be necessary in these circumstances, this result was not our intent. As indicated in the preamble to our original proposal, we believe that there is a potential for additional emissions if VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79812 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations the level of molten metal is permitted to fall below the top of the passage between the sidewell and the hearth, or if reactive flux is added in the hearth. Therefore, if these events occur, the emissions from both the sidewell and the hearth must be captured and tested in order to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards. If the emission tests show that a control device is necessary to attain compliance, it must be installed. We are revising the language in question to clarify our intent. In addition, we are amending § 63.1505( i)( 7) to correct an erroneous cross­ reference. As amended, certain sidewell group 1 furnaces are required to meet the limits in paragraphs ( i)( 1) through ( 4) rather than ( j)( 1) through ( 4). G. What Other Amendments Are We Making? We are amending § 63.1510( w) to clarify the procedures for obtaining approval of alternative monitoring methods. The new language makes it clear that this section refers to alternative monitoring methods other than those which may be separately authorized pursuant to § 63.1510( j)( 5) or § 63.1510( v). We are also clarifying the recordkeeping requirements for in­ line fluxers which do not use reactive flux. Section 63.1517( b)( 11) is amended to permit the facility to document that a particular in­ line fluxer does not use reactive flux through the use of operating logs that show that no source of reactive flux was used, labels that prohibit use of reactive flux, or operating logs which document the type of flux used during each operating cycle. We are amending § 63.1505( f)( 1), which establishes emission standards for sweat furnaces, to correct an erroneous residence time. We are clarifying the definition of a melting/ holding furnace in § 63.1503. We are amending § 63.1517( b)( 16) to clarify that both major and area sources must keep a copy of the OM& M plan onsite by deleting language in § 63.1517( b)( 16)( ii) that requires only major sources to keep a copy of the OM& M plan on­ site. We are also making minor amendments to correct printing or technical errors in the final rule. These include: Revising Tables 2 and 3 of subpart RRR to correct entries which were inadvertently printed in the wrong columns and an incorrect specification for a weight measurement device. Revising Equation 2 of § 63.1505( k)( 2) to correct the HCl emission limit ( LcHCl). Revising the entry for § 63.14 in appendix A to subpart RRR to include incorporation by reference for a second document. III. Response to Comments on Amendments to the NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production Comment: One commenter opposes the proposed revision of the applicability criteria which would permit facilities to melt customer returns. This commenter argues that there is no reason to conclude that melting scrap contaminated with oils and coating applied outside the facility is less likely to result in dioxin formation than melting purchased scrap with similar contaminants. Response: In considering this comment, it should be noted that those customer returns which are contaminated with paints or other solid coatings are not included in the proposed applicability change. In any case, our decision to permit melting of certain customer returns is based on a decision to treat this scrap like contaminated internal scrap in deciding whether a facility is engaged in secondary aluminum production. Our decision is not based on any technical assessment regarding the likelihood of dioxin formation. Comment: One commenter argues that the amendments would allow foundries and die casters, including those facilities which are major sources of HAP, to permanently avoid emission limitations, testing requirements and monitoring requirements. Response: We recognize that some aluminum foundries and die casters may have the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of chlorine ( a listed HAP), but we do not agree with the conclusion of the commenter that the rule will permit such facilities to escape regulation entirely. We note that the same argument could be made concerning the applicability exclusion in the existing subpart RRR. Our decision to exclude certain aluminum die casters, foundries, and extruders from the applicability of subpart RRR does not constitute a determination that such facilities should be entirely unregulated. We believe that most, if not all, of the excluded facilities are only area sources of HAP. However, if there is any aluminum foundry or die caster which would be entirely exempt under the revised applicability provisions for the secondary aluminum source category and which also has the potential to emit major source quantities of HAP, a separate MACT standard may ultimately be necessary. If the commenter identifies any facility which is a major source of HAP but is not included in any listed source category, EPA has authority to augment the source category list as provided in CAA section 112( c)( 5). Comment: One commenter opposes the provisions permitting redesignation of existing emission units as new, on the basis that uncontrolled or poorly controlled new emission units could comply by averaging their emissions with well­ controlled redesignated older units. Response: We believe the commenter has misconstrued the effect of the new provisions. The existing rule provides that certain types of emission units may be included within a secondary aluminum processing unit or SAPU, which is the affected source to which the standards apply. We construe the statute to prohibit combining new emission units with existing emission units. The final rule amendments pursuant to the settlement provide that existing emission units may be permanently redesignated as new. Because the standard for an existing SAPU and the standard for a new SAPU are identical, this procedure will not alter the basic control requirements which apply to the redesignated units. The final rule amendments also establish a procedure under which multiple units can be ducted to the same control device, but compliance will still be separately demonstrated for each commonly­ ducted unit. Comment: One commenter states that there are no data to support the change in residence time requirements for sweat furnace afterburners. Response: We established the emission limits for sweat furnaces based on limited performance test data. The EPA established the work practice standards for sweat furnaces on the basis of conditions which were thought to have existed during these performance tests. Upon review of the performance test data, we determined incorrect dimensional data provided in the test report led to an incorrect calculation of afterburner residence time. The amendments do not make the emission limits less stringent but only alter the work practice requirements which are necessary to ensure compliance with the emission limits. We have no further sweat furnace emission data and the commenter has not provided any such data. Comment: The same commenter who questioned the technical basis for the decreased residence time for sweat furnaces argues that EPA is obligated to VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79813 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations consider longer residence times as a `` beyond the floor control option.'' Response: We are not aware of any technologies which could decrease the HAP emission rate for sweat furnaces beyond the floor technology and have no data upon which to evaluate any such technologies. While an increase in the residence time for the floor technology may increase the overall control efficiency by a marginal amount, no data are available to make this determination. Comment: One commenter requests that the amendments include a work practice standard for thermal chip dryers, analogous to the work practice requirement for sweat furnaces. Response: The amendments requested by the commenter are outside of the scope of these amendments and cannot be considered in this rulemaking. In any event, the commenter supplied no test data in support of a work practice standard for thermal chip dryers, and EPA has no data that would support the suggested change in the standard. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to review by the OMB and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a `` 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 entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this action is not a `` significant regulatory action'' and was not submitted to OMB for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements in the existing rule ( subpart RRR) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB control No. 2060 0433. This action does not change the information collection requirements in subpart RRR, but does reduce the number of facilities subject to the rule. An amended Information Collection Request ( ICR) document has been prepared by EPA ( ICR No. 1894.01), and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U. S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 566 1672. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov. icr. The information requirements in the existing rule include mandatory notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These information requirements are needed to confirm the compliance status of major sources, to identify any nonmajor sources not subject to the standards and any new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, and to confirm that emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained. Based on the recorded and reported information, EPA can decide which facilities, records, or processes should be inspected. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized under section 114 of the CAA. All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Under the amendments, fewer facilities would be subject to the testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. For this reason, the overall burden estimate for the existing rule will be reduced by approximately 20 percent. As a result of these amendments, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule) is estimated to decrease by 28,000 labor hours per year and $ 8.5 million per year. Total capital costs associated with monitoring requirements over the 3­ year period of the ICR remain unchanged at an estimated $ 1.3 million; this estimate includes the capital and startup costs associated with installation of monitoring equipment. 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 purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information; process and maintain information and disclose and provide information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search existing 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 EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. et seq. The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with these final rule amendments. The EPA has also determined that these final rule amendments 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 final rule amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business whose parent company has fewer than 750 employees; ( 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; or ( 3) a small organization that is any notfor profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that this action will not create any new costs for affected firms, large or small. In fact, the amendments will reduce the economic impact on small businesses because of the revised applicability requirements for die casters, extruders, and foundries. Because these plants will not incur any significant costs or economic impact, EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with these final rule amendments. After VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79814 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations considering the economic impact of today's final rule amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that they will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. 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, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective 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 the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly most cost­ effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. The EPA has determined that these final rule amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $ 100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. No incremental costs are attributable to these amendments. In addition, the amendments do not significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, the requirements of the UMRA do not apply to these amendments. E. 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.'' Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. These rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They do 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. None of the affected plants are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to these rule amendments. F. 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 Indian tribes.'' These rule amendments do not have tribal implications. They do not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own plants subject to the existing rule or today's amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these rule amendments. G. 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 EPA has 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. These final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use These final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211 ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995 ( Public Law 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 VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79815 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( such as material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The EPA's response to the NTTAA requirements are discussed in the preamble to the final rule ( 65 FR 15690). These amendments do not change the required methods or procedures, but would expand provisions for the use of alternative methods. If a plant wishes to use an alternative method other than those identified in the existing rule, the owner or operator may submit an application to EPA according to the procedures described in the existing rule. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. These final rule amendments are not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 19, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 63 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Subpart RRR [ AMENDED] 2. Section 63.1500 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph ( a); b. Removing existing paragraph ( d); c. Redesignating existing paragraphs ( e) and ( f) as ( d) and ( e); and d. Adding new paragraph ( f). The addition and revision reads as follows: § 63.1500 Applicability. ( a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each secondary aluminum production facility as defined in § 63.1503. * * * * * ( f) An aluminum die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion facility shall be considered to be an area source if it does not emit, or have the potential to emit considering controls, 10 tons per year or more of any single listed HAP or 25 tons per year of any combination of listed HAP from all emission sources which are located in a contiguous area and under common control, without regard to whether or not such sources are regulated under this subpart or any other subpart. In the case of an aluminum die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion facility which is an area source and is subject to regulation under this subpart only because it operates a thermal chip dryer, no furnace operated by such a facility shall be deemed to be subject to the requirements of this subpart if it melts only clean charge, internal scrap, or customer returns. 3. Section 63.1503 is amended by: a. Adding in alphabetical order new definitions for the terms `` aluminum scrap,'' `` customer returns,'' `` internal scrap,'' and `` runaround scrap''; and b. Revising definitions for the terms `` clean charge,'' `` cover flux,'' `` group 1 furnace,'' `` group 2 furnace,'' `` melting/ holding furnace,'' `` reactive fluxing,'' `` scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/ decoating kiln,'' `` secondary aluminum processing unit ( SAPU),'' `` secondary aluminum production facility,'' and `` thermal chip dryer.'' The additions and revisions read as follows: § 63.1503 Definitions. * * * * * Aluminum scrap means fragments of aluminum stock removed during manufacturing ( i. e., machining), manufactured aluminum articles or parts rejected or discarded and useful only as material for reprocessing, and waste and discarded material made of aluminum. * * * * * Clean charge means furnace charge materials including molten aluminum, T­ bar, sow, ingot, billet, pig, alloying elements, aluminum scrap known by the owner or operator to be entirely free of paints, coatings, and lubricants; uncoated/ unpainted aluminum chips that have been thermally dried or treated by a centrifugal cleaner; aluminum scrap dried at 343 ° C ( 650 ° F) or higher; aluminum scrap delacquered/ decoated at 482 ° C ( 900 ° F) or higher, and runaround scrap. Cover flux means salt added to the surface of molten aluminum in a group 1 or group 2 furnace, without agitation of the molten aluminum, for the purpose of preventing oxidation. Customer returns means any aluminum product which is returned by a customer to the aluminum company that originally manufactured the product prior to resale of the product or further distribution in commerce, and which contains no paint or other solid coatings ( i. e., lacquers). * * * * * Group 1 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or processes aluminum that contains paint, lubricants, coatings, or other foreign materials with or without reactive fluxing, or processes clean charge with reactive fluxing. Group 2 furnace means a furnace of any design that melts, holds, or processes only clean charge and that performs no fluxing or performs fluxing using only nonreactive, non­ HAPcontaining non­ HAP­ generating gases or agents. * * * * * Internal scrap means all aluminum scrap regardless of the level of contamination which originates from castings or extrusions produced by an aluminum die casting facility, aluminum foundry, or aluminum extrusion facility, and which remains at all times within the control of the company that produced the castings or extrusions. * * * * * Melting/ holding furnace means a group 1 furnace that processes only clean charge, performs melting, holding, and fluxing functions, and does not transfer molten aluminum to or from another furnace except for purposes of alloy changes, off­ specification product drains, or maintenance activities. * * * * * Reactive fluxing means the use of any gas, liquid, or solid flux ( other than cover flux) that results in a HAP emission. Argon and nitrogen are not reactive and do not produce HAP. * * * * * VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79816 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Runaround scrap means scrap materials generated on­ site by aluminum casting, extruding, rolling, scalping, forging, forming/ stamping, cutting, and trimming operations and that do not contain paint or solid coatings. Uncoated/ unpainted aluminum chips generated by turning, boring, milling, and similar machining operations may be clean charge if they have been thermally dried or treated by a centrifugal cleaner, but are not considered to be runaround scrap. Scrap dryer/ delacquering kiln/ decoating kiln means a unit used primarily to remove various organic contaminants such as oil, paint, lacquer, ink, plastic, and/ or rubber from aluminum scrap ( including used beverage containers) prior to melting. Secondary aluminum processing unit ( SAPU). An existing SAPU means all existing group 1 furnaces and all existing in­ line fluxers within a secondary aluminum production facility. Each existing group 1 furnace or existing in­ line fluxer is considered an emission unit within a secondary aluminum processing unit. A new SAPU means any combination of individual group 1 furnaces and in­ line fluxers within a secondary aluminum processing facility which either were constructed or reconstructed after February 11, 1999, or have been permanently redesignated as new emission units pursuant to § 63.1505( k)( 6). Each of the group 1 furnaces or in­ line fluxers within a new SAPU is considered an emission unit within that secondary aluminum processing unit. Secondary aluminum production facility means any establishment using clean charge, aluminum scrap, or dross from aluminum production, as the raw material and performing one or more of the following processes: scrap shredding, scrap drying/ delacquering/ decoating, thermal chip drying, furnace operations ( i. e., melting, holding, sweating, refining, fluxing, or alloying), recovery of aluminum from dross, inline fluxing, or dross cooling. A secondary aluminum production facility may be independent or part of a primary aluminum production facility. For purposes of this subpart, aluminum die casting facilities, aluminum foundries, and aluminum extrusion facilities are not considered to be secondary aluminum production facilities if the only materials they melt are clean charge, customer returns, or internal scrap, and if they do not operate sweat furnaces, thermal chip dryers, or scrap dryers/ delacquering kilns/ decoating kilns. The determination of whether a facility is a secondary aluminum production facility is only for purposes of this subpart and any regulatory requirements which are derived from the applicability of this subpart, and is separate from any determination which may be made under other environmental laws and regulations, including whether the same facility is a `` secondary metal production facility'' as that term is used in 42 U. S. C. § 7479( 1) and 40 CFR 52.21( b)( 1)( i)( A) (`` prevention of significant deterioration of air quality''). * * * * * Thermal chip dryer means a device that uses heat to evaporate oil or oil/ water mixtures from unpainted/ uncoated aluminum chips. Pre­ heating boxes or other dryers which are used solely to remove water from aluminum scrap are not considered to be thermal chip dryers for purposes of this subpart. * * * * * 4. Section 63.1505 is amended by: a. Revising the section heading; b. Revising paragraph ( f)( 1); c. Revising paragraph ( i)( 7); d. Republishing the introductory text of paragraph ( k)( 2) and revising Equation 2; and e. Adding new paragraph ( k)( 6). The revisions and addition read as follows: § 63.1505 Emission standards for affected sources and emission units. * * * * * ( f) Sweat furnace. * * * ( 1) The owner or operator is not required to conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard of paragraph ( f)( 2) of this section, provided that, on and after the compliance date of this rule, the owner or operator operates and maintains an afterburner with a design residence time of 0.8 seconds or greater and an operating temperature of 1600 ° F or greater. * * * * * ( i) Group 1 furnace. * * * ( 7) The owner or operator of a sidewell group 1 furnace that conducts reactive fluxing ( except for cover flux) in the hearth, or that conducts reactive fluxing in the sidewell at times when the level of molten metal falls below the top of the passage between the sidewell and the hearth, must comply with the emission limits of paragraphs ( i)( 1) through ( 4) of this section on the basis of the combined emissions from the sidewell and the hearth. * * * * * ( k) Secondary aluminum processing unit. * * * ( 2) The owner or operator must not discharge or allow to be discharged to the atmosphere any 3­ day, 24­ hour rolling average emissions of HCl in excess of: L L T T c ti ti i n ti i n HCl HCl = × ( ) ( ) = = 1 1 ( Eq. 2) * * * * * ( 6) With the prior approval of the responsible permitting authority, an owner or operator may redesignate any existing group 1 furnace or in­ line fluxer at a secondary aluminum production facility as a new emission unit. Any emission unit so redesignated may thereafter be included in a new SAPU at that facility. Any such redesignation will be solely for the purpose of this MACT standard and will be irreversible. * * * * * 5. Section 63.1506 is amended by: a. Removing existing paragraph ( a)( 2); b. Redesignating existing paragraphs ( a)( 3) through ( a)( 5) as paragraphs ( a)( 2) through ( a)( 4); and c. Revising paragraphs ( m)( 6)( i) and ( ii). The revisions read as follows. § 63.1506 Operating requirements. * * * * * ( m) Group 1 furnace with add­ on air pollution control devices. * * * ( 6) * * * ( i) The level of molten metal remains above the top of the passage between the sidewell and hearth during reactive flux injection, unless emissions from both the sidewell and the hearth are included in demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits. ( ii) Reactive flux is added only in the sidewell, unless emissions from both the sidewell and the hearth are included in demonstrating compliance with all applicable emission limits. * * * * * 6. Section 63.1510 is amended by: a. Removing the last sentence in the introductory text of paragraph ( b), `` Each plan must contain the following information'', and adding, in its place, five new sentences; b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph ( o)( 1); and c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph ( w). The revisions read as follows: § 63.1510 Monitoring requirements. * * * * * ( b) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring ( OM& M) plan. * * * The plan must be accompanied by a written certification by the owner or operator that the OM& M plan satisfies all VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 ER30DE02.001</ MATH> 79817 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations requirements of this section and is otherwise consistent with the requirements of this subpart. The owner or operator must comply with all of the provisions of the OM& M plan as submitted to the permitting authority, unless and until the plan is revised in accordance with the following procedures. If the permitting authority determines at any time after receipt of the OM& M plan that any revisions of the plan are necessary to satisfy the requirements of this section or this subpart, the owner or operator must promptly make all necessary revisions and resubmit the revised plan. If the owner or operator determines that any other revisions of the OM& M plan are necessary, such revisions will not become effective until the owner or operator submits a description of the changes and a revised plan incorporating them to the permitting authority. Each plan must contain the following information: * * * * * ( o) Group 1 furnace without add­ on air pollution control devices. * * * ( 1) The owner or operator must develop, in consultation with the responsible permitting authority, a written site­ specific monitoring plan. The site­ specific monitoring plan must be submitted to the permitting authority as part of the OM& M plan. The sitespecific monitoring plan must contain sufficient procedures to ensure continuing compliance with all applicable emission limits and must demonstrate, based on documented test results, the relationship between emissions of PM, HCl, and D/ F and the proposed monitoring parameters for each pollutant. Test data must establish the highest level of PM, HCl, and D/ F that will be emitted from the furnace. This may be determined by conducting performance tests and monitoring operating parameters while charging the furnace with feed/ charge materials containing the highest anticipated levels of oils and coatings and fluxing at the highest anticipated rate. If the permitting authority determines that any revisions of the site­ specific monitoring plan are necessary to meet the requirements of this section or this subpart, the owner or operator must promptly make all necessary revisions and resubmit the revised plan to the permitting authority. * * * * * ( w) Alternative monitoring methods. If an owner or operator wishes to use an alternative monitoring method to demonstrate compliance with any emission standard in this subpart, other than those alternative monitoring methods which may be authorized pursuant to § 63.1510( j)( 5) and § 63.1510( v), the owner or operator may submit an application to the Administrator. Any such application will be processed according to the criteria and procedures set forth in paragraphs ( w)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. * * * * * 7. Section 63.1511 is amended by revising paragraph ( f) and adding paragraphs ( h) and ( i) to read as follows: § 63.1511 Performance test/ compliance demonstration general requirements. * * * * * ( f) Testing of representative emission units. With the prior approval of the permitting authority, an owner or operator may utilize emission rates obtained by testing a particular type of group 1 furnace which is not controlled by any add­ on control device, or by testing an in­ line flux box which is not controlled by any add­ on control device, to determine the emission rate for other units of the same type at the same facility. Such emission test results may only be considered to be representative of other units if all of the following criteria are satisfied: ( 1) The tested emission unit must use feed materials and charge rates which are comparable to the emission units that it represents; ( 2) The tested emission unit must use the same type of flux materials in the same proportions as the emission units it represents; ( 3) The tested emission unit must be operated utilizing the same work practices as the emission units that it represents; ( 4) The tested emission unit must be of the same design as the emission units that it represents; and ( 5) The tested emission unit must be tested under the highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur for any of the emission units that it represents. * * * * * ( h) Testing of commonly­ ducted units within a secondary aluminum processing unit. When group 1 furnaces and/ or in­ line fluxers are included in a single existing SAPU or new SAPU, and the emissions from more than one emission unit within that existing SAPU or new SAPU are manifolded to a single control device, compliance for all units within the SAPU is demonstrated if the total measured emissions from all controlled and uncontrolled units in the SAPU do not exceed the emission limits calculated for that SAPU based on the applicable equation in § 63.1505( k). ( i) Testing of commonly­ ducted units not within a secondary aluminum processing unit. With the prior approval of the permitting authority, an owner or operator may do combined performance testing of two or more individual affected sources or emission units which are not included in a single existing SAPU or new SAPU, but whose emissions are manifolded to a single control device. Any such performance testing of commonly­ ducted units must satisfy the following basic requirements: ( 1) All testing must be designed to verify that each affected source or emission unit individually satisfies all emission requirements applicable to that affected source or emission unit; ( 2) All emissions of pollutants subject to a standard must be tested at the outlet from each individual affected source or emission unit while operating under the highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur, and prior to the point that the emissions are manifolded together with emissions from other affected sources or emission units; ( 3) The combined emissions from all affected sources and emission units which are manifolded to a single emission control device must be tested at the outlet of the emission control device; ( 4) All tests at the outlet of the emission control device must be conducted with all affected sources and emission units whose emissions are manifolded to the control device operating simultaneously under the highest load or capacity reasonably expected to occur; and ( 5) For purposes of demonstrating compliance of a commonly­ ducted unit with any emission limit for a particular type of pollutant, the emissions of that pollutant by the individual unit shall be presumed to be controlled by the same percentage as total emissions of that pollutant from all commonly­ ducted units are controlled at the outlet of the emission control device. 8. Section 63.1512 is amended by revising paragraph ( h) to read as follows: § 63.1512 Performance test/ compliance demonstration requirements and procedures. * * * * * ( h) In­ line fluxer. ( 1) The owner or operator of an in­ line fluxer that uses reactive flux materials must conduct a performance test to measure emissions of HCl and PM or otherwise demonstrate compliance in accordance with paragraph ( h)( 2) of this section. If the in­ line fluxer is equipped with an add­ on control device, the emissions must be measured at the outlet of the control device. VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79818 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ( 2) The owner or operator may choose to limit the rate at which reactive chlorine flux is added to an in­ line fluxer and assume, for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the SAPU emission limit, that all chlorine in the reactive flux added to the in­ line fluxer is emitted as HCl. Under these circumstances, the owner or operator is not required to conduct an emission test for HCl. If the owner or operator of any in­ line flux box which has no ventilation ductwork manifolded to any outlet or emission control device chooses to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit for HCl by limiting use of reactive chlorine flux and assuming that all chlorine in the flux is emitted as HCl, compliance with the HCl limit shall also constitute compliance with the emission limit for PM, and no separate emission test for PM is required. In this case, the owner or operator of the unvented in­ line flux box must utilize the maximum permissible PM emission rate for the inline flux boxes when determining the total emissions for any SAPU which includes the flux box. * * * * * 9. Section 63.1515 is amended by revising paragraphs ( b)( 8) and ( b)( 9) to read as follows: § 63.1515 Notifications. * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 8) Manufacturer's specification or analysis documenting the design residence time of no less than 0.8 seconds and design operating temperature of no less than 1,600 ° F for each afterburner used to control emissions from a sweat furnace that is not subject to a performance test. ( 9) The OM& M plan ( including sitespecific monitoring plan for each group 1 furnace with no add­ on air pollution control device). * * * * * 10. Section 63.1517 is amended by revising paragraphs ( b)( 11) and ( b)( 16)( ii) to read as follows: § 63.1517 Records. * * * * * ( b) * * * ( 11) For each in­ line fluxer for which the owner or operator has certified that no reactive flux was used: ( i) Operating logs which establish that no source of reactive flux was present at the in­ line fluxer; ( ii) Labels required pursuant to § 63.1506( b) which establish that no reactive flux may be used at the in­ line fluxer; or ( iii) Operating logs which document each flux gas, agent, or material used during each operating cycle. * * * * * ( 16) * * * ( ii) OM& M plan; and * * * * * 11. Table 2 to subpart RRR is amended under the entry for `` Group 1 furnace with lime­ injected fabric filter ( including those that are part of secondary aluminum processing unit)'' by revising in column 2 the entry `` Fabric filter inlet temperature'' to read as follows: TABLE 2 TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63. SUMMARY OF OPERATING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS Affected source/ emission unit Monitor type/ operation/ process Operating requirements * * * * * * * Group 1 furnace with lime­ injected fabric filter filter ( including those that are part of a secondary aluminum processing unit). * * * * * Fabric filter inlet temperature * * * * * * * * * * Maintain average fabric filter inlet temperature for each 3­ hour period at or below average temperature during the performance test + 14 ° C (+ 25 ° F). * * * * * * * * * * 12. Table 3 to subpart RRR is amended by: a. Under the entry for `` Group 1 furnace with lime­ injected fabric filter'', revising in column 2 the entry `` Reactive flux injection rate Weight measurement device accuracy of + 1% b; calibrate every 3 months; record weight and type of reactive flux added or injected for each 15­ minute block period while reactive fluxing occurs; calculate and record total reactive flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time period used in performance test; or Alternative flux injection rate determination procedure per § 63.1510( j)( 5).''; and b. Under the entry for `` Group 1 furnace without add­ on controls'', revising in column 2 the entry for `` Feed material ( melting/ holding furnace)''. The revisions read as follows: TABLE 3 TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63. SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS Affected source/ emission unit Monitor type/ Operation/ Process Monitoring requirements * * * * * * * Group 1 furnace with lime­ injected fabric filter ................. * * * * * * * * * * Reactive flux injection rate * * * * * Weight measurement device accuracy of ± 1% b; calibrate every 3 months; record weight and type of reactive flux added or injected for each 15­ minute block period while reactive fluxing occurs; calculate and record total reactive flux injection rate for each operating cycle or time period used in performance test; or Alternative flux injection rate determination procedure per § 63.1510( j)( 5). VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3 79819 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 3 TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63. SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES AND EMISSION UNITS Continued Affected source/ emission unit Monitor type/ Operation/ Process Monitoring requirements * * * * * Group 1 furnace without add­ on controls ......................... * * * * * * * * * * Feed material ( melting/ holding furnace). Record type of permissible feed/ charge material; certify charge materials every 6 months. * * * * * 13. Appendix A to subpart RRR is amended under the entry for `` § 63.14'' by revising in column 2 the entry for `` Incorporation by reference'' to read as follows: APPENDIX A TO SUBPART RRR OF PART 63. GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART RRR Citation Requirement Applies to RRR Comment * * * * * * * § 63.14 ........................ Incorporation by Reference Yes ............................. Chapters 3 and 5 of ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual for capture/ collection systems; and Interim Procedures for Estimating Risk Associated with Exposure to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzofurans ( CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update ( incorporated by reference in § 63.1502). * * * * * [ FR Doc. 02 32779 Filed 12 27 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 15: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30DER3. SGM 30DER3

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.682198

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0046

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Attached table includes factors for scaling the NARCO annual emissions to estimate the annual rate of hexavalent chromium emissions from refractory production and the annual rates of phenol and formaldehyde emissions from resin-bonded refractory productio

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.695705

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0047

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Visit the manufacturing facilities assocociated with the production of refractory brick and gather information in preparation for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions testings of the curing ovens and periodic (bell) kilns at this plant.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.696357

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0049

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Conduct testing for a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from a drying oven and a periodic (Bell) kiln used to manufacture resin-bonded refractories at the the North American Refractories Company facility in Womelsdorf, Pennsylvania.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.697406

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0173

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.713520

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0175

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.714222

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0179

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.715195

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0195

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Letter regarding information requested on the Womelsdorf facility

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.717684

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0234

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:This document concerns anhydrol solvent special, PM-4061, 190 Proof. The PDF was deleted in accordance with Agency direction. To review this document, please contact the EPA Docket Center or the Air Docket.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.723655

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0242

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.724439

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0244

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.725185

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0245

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.725872

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0246

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.726586

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0250

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Letter concerning the review of the Refractory Manufacturers spreadsheet.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.727262

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0254

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.727800

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0289

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Letter concerning the granting of an extension to answer the Refractories MACT ICR. The PDF was deleted in accordance with Agency direction. To review this document, please contact the EPA Docket Center or Air Docket.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.730515

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0409

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Snow Shoe, PA; South Webster, OH; and Washington, PA. Documents include numerous letters, memorandums, and surveys.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.731570

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0411

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Documents concerning BMI France response to information collection request

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.732369

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0412

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:These documents concern pages 686-881of BMI France response to information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.733072

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0413

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:This document concerns pages 882 through 1078 of BMI France response to an information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.733831

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0414

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:This document concerns pages 1293 through 1507 of BMI France response to an information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.734672

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0415

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:This document concerns pages 1508 through 1721 of BMI France response to an information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.735435

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0416

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:This document concerns pages 1723 through 1957 of BMI France response of information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.736165

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0417

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:This section concerns pages 1958 through 2157 of BMI France response to an information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.736929

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0418

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:This document is a continuation of the previous document OAR-2002-0088-0417. This document concerns pages 2158 through 2341 of BMI France response to an information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.737605

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0419

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:These documents concern pages 2342 through 2553 of BMI France response to an information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.738460

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0420

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:These documents are continuation of document OAR-2002-0088-0419. They concern pages 2554 through 2747 of BMI France response to an information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.739135

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0422

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:This document concerns pages 2946 through 3149 of BMI France response to an information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.739963

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0423

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:This document concerns pages 3150 through 3348 of BMI France response to an information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.740699

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0424

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:This document concerns pages 3349 through 3505 of BMI France response to an information collection request.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.741552

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0425

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Letter and supporting documents concern pages 1 through 213 of 457 concerning an ICR regarding hazardous air pollutants for American Premier, Inc. operations.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.742296

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0426

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Report and Project Number L4604.03 prepared by Environmental Resources Management. This document concerns pages 214 through 290 of 457 concerning an ICR request regarding hazardous air pollutants for American Premier, Inc. operations.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.743009

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0427

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Report prepared by Environmental Resources Management for American Premier, Inc (pages 292 through 375). Four large charts were not scanned into the system. To review these documents, please contact the EPA Docket Center or the Air Docket.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.743768

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0428

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Supporting documents included are from pages 376 through 457 of 457 pages concerning an ICR regarding hazardous air pollutants for American Premier, Inc. operations.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.744623

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0088-0429

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Letter and supporting documents concern refractories operations for Zircoa with Material Data Safety Sheets for raw materials Ohio USEPA permits.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.745329

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0093-0001

Proposed Rule

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks

Tuesday, December 24, 2002 Part III Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 63, 264, and 265 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light­ Duty Trucks; Proposed Rule VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78612 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 63, 264, and 265 [ FRL 7418 4] RIN 2060 AG99 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light­ Duty Trucks AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP). The proposed NESHAP would implement section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) by requiring these operations to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). The primary HAP emitted by these operations are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, methyl ethyl ketone ( MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone ( MIBK), ethylbenzene, and methanol. The proposed rule would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from these major sources by about 60 percent. This action also proposes to amend the Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to exempt certain activities covered by the proposed NESHAP from these standards. DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 7, 2003. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing, they should do so by January 3, 2003. If requested, a public hearing will be held approximately 15 days after the date of publication of this document in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Comments. By U. S. Postal Service, written comments should be submitted ( in duplicate if possible) to: Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( 6102T), Attention Docket Number A 2001 22, U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, deliver comments ( in duplicate if possible) to: Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( 6102T), Attention Docket Number A 2001 22, U. S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at our Office of Administration auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division ( C539 03), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 7946 to request to speak at a public hearing or to find out if a hearing will be held. Docket. Docket No. A 2001 22 contains supporting information used in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U. S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460 in Room B108, and may be inspected from 8: 30 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Salman, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division ( C539 03), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number ( 919) 541 0859; facsimile number ( 919) 541 5689; electronic mail ( e­ mail) address: salman. dave@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by e­ mail to: a­ and­ rdocket epa. gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A 2001 22. 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: Mr. David Salman, c/ o OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404 02), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The EPA 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 it is received by the EPA, 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 Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division ( C539 03), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number ( 919) 541 7946. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also contact Ms. Eck 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 considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. 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 will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. ( See section 307( d)( 7)( A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by calling ( 202) 566 1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. Worldwide 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 by the EPA Administrator, 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. Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are listed in Table 1. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78613 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1. CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THE PROPOSED STANDARDS Category NAICS Examples of potentially regulated entities Industry ...................................... 336111 336112 336211 Automobile and light­ duty truck assembly plants, producers of automobile and light­ duty truck bodies. 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 coating operation is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in section § 63.3081 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 are used in the development of NESHAP? C. What are the health effects associated with HAP emissions from automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What source categories are affected by this proposed rule? B. What is the relationship to other rules? C. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions? D. What is the affected source? E. What are the emission limits, operating limits, and other standards? F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? G. What are the continuous compliance provisions? H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How did we select the source category? B. How did we select the regulated pollutants? C. How did we select the affected source? D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards for existing and new sources? E. How did we select the format of the proposed standards? F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements? G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements? H. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? I. How did we select the compliance date? 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? E. Can we achieve the goals of the proposed rule in a less costly manner? V. How will the proposed amendments to 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts BB of the hazardous waste regulations be implemented in the States? A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposed Amendments VI. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation VII. 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 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. The Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light­ duty Trucks category of major sources was listed on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that emit or have the potential to emit equal to, or greater than, 9.1 megagrams per year ( Mg/ yr) ( 10 tons per year ( tpy)) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/ yr ( 25 tpy) of any combination of HAP. B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing 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 subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled 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 bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory ( or the best­ performing five 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 Emissions From Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Surface Coating? The major HAP emitted from the automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating source category are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. These compounds account for over 95 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category. These pollutants can cause toxic effects following sufficient exposure. Some of the potential toxic effects include effects to the central nervous system, such as fatigue, nausea, tremors, and lack of coordination; adverse effects on the liver, kidneys, and blood; respiratory effects; and developmental effects. The degree of adverse effects to human health from exposure to HAP can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human health effects may be experienced are VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78614 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules dependent upon ( 1) the ambient concentration observed in the area ( as influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); ( 2) the frequency and duration of exposures; ( 3) characteristics of exposed individuals ( genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population; and ( 4) pollutant­ specific characteristics ( toxicity, half­ life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence). II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What Source Categories Are Affected by This Proposed Rule? The proposed rule would apply to you if you own or operate an automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operation that is a major source, or is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions. We have defined an automobile and lightduty truck surface coating operation as any facility engaged in the surface coating of new automobile or new lightduty truck bodies or collections of body parts for new automobiles or new lightduty trucks. Coating operations included in this source category include, but are not limited to, the application of electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat ( including basecoat and clear coat), final repair, glass bonding primer, glass bonding adhesive, sealer, adhesive, and deadener. The application of blackout and anti­ chip materials is included in these coating operations, as is the cleaning and purging of equipment associated with the coating operations. Automobile customizers, body shops, and refinishers are excluded from this source category. Coating of separate, non­ body miscellaneous metal parts and separate, non­ body plastic parts that are not attached to the vehicle body at the time that the coatings are applied to these parts is excluded from this source category. You would not be subject to the proposed rule if your coating operation is located at an area source. An area source is any stationary source of HAP that is not a major source. You may establish area source status prior to the compliance date of the final rule by limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through the permitting authority. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations. We are also proposing to amend the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Air Emissions Standards for Equipment Leaks at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts BB. The amendments would exempt facilities which would otherwise be subject to requirements of subparts BB if they are subject to the requirements of this proposed NESHAP. Generally, subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 apply to equipment that contains or contacts RCRA hazardous wastes with organic concentrations of at least 10 percent by weight. The regulations apply to large quantity generators as well as to RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The regulations were designed to minimize the potential for leaks from pumps, valves, flanges, and connections. The work practice standards that must be met in this proposed NESHAP in § 63.3094 address coating line purging emissions that would result from solvent purging of coating applicators, and the subsequent collection and transmission of the paint/ solvent mixture to reclamation or recovery system. The collection and transmission systems would potentially be subject to the requirements of subparts BB. To avoid duplication, and because any potential for air releases from these sources are relatively small, we are proposing that if such a collection, transmission, and reclamation or recovery system is located at a facility subject to this proposed NESHAP, then it is exempt from the requirements of subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. As stated elsewhere in this preamble, the HAP emissions from these sources are relatively small in comparison with the coating application, drying, and curing. Measurements made by industry indicate that emissions of VOC would be at least two orders of magnitude less than concentrations that would meet the definition of a leak under subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. Additionally, because the mixture is usually sold to a solvent recycler, the industry has an incentive to capture as much of the solvent as possible, and would therefore want to repair any leaks as quickly as possible. In addition to the coating operations covered under the proposed NESHAP, some automobile and light­ duty truck facilities also have separate, non­ body plastic parts coating operations or separate, non­ body metal parts coating operations. Purges from these separate, non­ body plastic parts coating operations and separate, non­ body metal parts coatings operations are analogous to those for automobile and light­ duty truck body coatings and would also be exempt from the requirements of subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, if the operations occur in the same facility as the automobile and light­ duty truck body coating. Many of the coatings applied to separate, non­ body plastic and separate, non­ body metal parts are similar in composition to those applied to automobile and light­ duty truck bodies. The purged materials are conveyed to waste tanks in the same fashion as the purged materials from automobile and light­ duty truck body coating operations. B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules? Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject to other rules. Automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations that began construction, reconstruction, or modification after October 5, 1979 are subject to new source performance standards ( NSPS) under 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM. That rule limits emissions of volatile organic compounds ( VOC). The EPA has also published control techniques guidelines which establish reasonably available control technologies for limiting VOC emissions from automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations. Additional VOC emission limitations may also apply to these facilities through conditions incorporated in State operating permits and permits issued under authority of title V of the CAA. Facilities in this subcategory may also be subject to various emission limitations pursuant to State air toxics rules. An automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facility may be subject to other NESHAP. Rules are presently under development which will limit emissions from coating operations conducted on separate, non­ body miscellaneous metal parts and separate, non­ body plastic parts and products. Coating of parts ( such as automobile bumpers, fascias, brackets, etc.) for subsequent attachment to vehicle bodies would be subject to one or more of these rules, as would collocated aftermarket replacement part coating operations. Facilities may also be subject to other rules relating to collocated equipment such as foundries and boilers. The capture, transmission, and storage of purge materials from coating equipment may also be subject to the RCRA Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks under subparts BB of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. Those regulations apply to equipment that contains or contacts RCRA hazardous waste with organic concentrations of at least 10 percent by weight. To avoid such possible duplication, we are proposing to exempt such equipment from subparts BB if it is located at a VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78615 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules facility subject to this proposed NESHAP. C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Emissions? HAP emission sources. Emissions from coating application, drying, and curing account for most of the HAP emissions from automobile and lightduty truck surface coating operations. The remaining emissions are primarily from cleaning of booths and application equipment and purging of spray equipment. In most cases, HAP emissions from surface preparation, storage, handling, and waste/ wastewater operations are relatively small. Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. These compounds account for over 95 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category. Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported during the development of the proposed NESHAP, lead, manganese, and chromium are contained in some of the coatings used by this source category but are not likely to be emitted due to the coating application techniques used. No inorganic HAP were reported in thinners or cleaning materials. Most of the inorganic HAP components remain as solids in the dry coating film on the parts being coated, are collected by the circulating water under the spray booth floor grates, or are deposited on the walls, floor, and grates of the spray booths and other equipment in which they are applied. Therefore, inorganic HAP emission levels are expected to be very low and have not been quantified. D. What Is the Affected Source? We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. The proposed rule for automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating defines the affected source as all of the equipment used to apply coating to new automobile or new light­ duty truck bodies or collections of body parts for new automobiles or new light­ duty trucks and to dry or cure the coating after application; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which vehicle body coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying vehicle body coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by an automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operation. The affected source does not include research or laboratory equipment or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations. E. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards? Emission limits. We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions from each new or reconstructed automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facility using the emission limits in Table 2 of this preamble. TABLE 2. EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED AFFECTED SOURCES ( MONTHLY AVERAGE) Operation Limit Combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operation. 0.036 kilogram ( kg) ( 0.30 pound ( lb)) organic HAP/ liter ( HAP/ gallon ( gal)) of coating solids deposited). Combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operation ( for sources meeting the operating limits of § 63.3092( a) and ( b)). 0.060 kg ( 0.50 lb organic HAP/ 1iter ( HAP/ gal) of coating solids deposited Adhesives and sealers, other than glass bonding adhesive ................... 0.010 kg/ kg ( lb/ lb) of material used. Deadener .................................................................................................. 0.010 kg/ kg ( lb/ lb) of material used. We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions from each existing automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facility using the emission limits in Table 3 of this preamble. TABLE 3. EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES ( MONTHLY AVERAGE) Operation Limit Combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operation. 0.072 kg ( 0.60 lb) organic HAP/ liter ( HAP/ gal) of coating deposited. Combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operation ( for sources meeting the operating limits of § 63.3092( a) and ( b)). 0.132 kg ( 1.10 lb) organic HAP/ liter ( HAP/ gal) of coating solids deposited Adhesives and sealers other than glass bonding adhesive .................... 0.010 kg/ kg ( lb/ lb) of material used. Deadener. ................................................................................................. 0.010 lb/ lb ( kg/ kg) of material used. You would calculate emissions from combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations, or from combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations using the procedures in the proposed rule, which account for variable organic HAP contents of the materials applied in each month, as well as transfer efficiency and overall efficiencies of any capture systems and control devices in use. You would average organic HAP contents of other materials used on a monthly basis to determine separately those emissions from sealers and adhesives ( other than glass bonding adhesive), and deadeners. Operating limits. If you use an emission capture and control system to reduce emissions, the proposed operating limits would apply to you. These proposed operating limits are site­ specific parameter limits you determine during the initial performance test of the system. For capture systems, you would identify the parameter( s) to monitor and establish the limits and monitoring procedures. For thermal and catalytic oxidizers, you would establish temperature limits. For solvent recovery systems, you would VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78616 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules monitor the outlet concentration or carbon bed temperature and the amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. All operating limits must reflect operation of the capture and control system during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limit during representative operating conditions. Work practice standards. You would have to develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in and waste materials generated by all coating operations for which emission limits are proposed. The plan would have to specify practices and procedures to ensure that, at a minimum, the following elements are implemented: All organic­ HAP­ containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers. The risk of spills of organic­ HAPcontaining coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized. Organic­ HAP­ containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed containers or pipes. Mixing vessels, other than day tanks equipped with continuous agitation systems, which contain organic­ HAP­ containing coatings and other materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents. Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment. You would also have to develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from cleaning and from purging of equipment associated with all coating operations for which emission limits are proposed. The plan would have to specify practices and procedures to ensure that emissions of HAP from the following operations are minimized: Vehicle body wiping; Coating line purging; Flushing of coating systems; Cleaning of spray booth grates; Cleaning of spray booth walls; Cleaning of spray booth equipment; Cleaning external spray booth areas; and Other housekeeping measures ( e. g., keeping solvent­ laden rags in closed containers.) General Provisions. The General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A) also would apply to you as outlined in table 2 of the proposed rule. The General Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliancerelated activities such as notifications, recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and monitoring. The proposed rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that you should be aware of. However, unless specifically overridden in table 2 of the proposed rule, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply to you. F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? Compliance dates. Existing affected sources would have to be in compliance with the final standards no later than 3 years after the effective date. The effective date is the date on which the final rule is published in the Federal Register. New and reconstructed sources would have to be in compliance upon startup of the affected source or by the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. Compliance with the emission limits is based on a monthly organic HAP emission rate. The initial compliance period, therefore, is the 1­ month period beginning on the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period begins on the compliance date and extends through the end of that month plus the following month. We have defined `` month'' as a calendar month or a prespecified period of 28 to 35 days to allow for flexibility at sources where data are based on a business accounting period. Being `` in compliance'' means that the owner or operator of the affected source meets all the requirements of the proposed rule to achieve the emission limit( s) and operating limits by the end of the initial compliance period, and that the facility is operated in accordance with the approved work practice plans. At the end of the initial compliance period, the owner or operator would use the data and records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in compliance for that period. If it does not meet the applicable limit( s), then it is out of compliance for the entire initial compliance period. Emission limits. Compliance with the emission limit for combined electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive, or the emission limit for combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive would be based on mass organic HAP emissions per volume of applied coating solids as calculated monthly using the procedures in the proposed rule. Compliance with the emission limits for adhesives and sealers ( other than glass bonding adhesive) and deadener would be based on mass average organic HAP content of materials used each month. Electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. Compliance with this emission limit, or if eligible, with the emission limit for combined primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive, is based on the calculations in the proposed rule. You may also use the guidelines presented in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA 450/ 3 88 018 ( docket A 2001 22). To determine the organic HAP content, the volume solids, and the density of the coatings and thinners, you could rely on manufacturer's data, results from the test methods listed below, or alternative test methods for which you get EPA approval on a caseby case basis according to the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR 63.7( f). However, if there is any inconsistency between the test results and manufacturer's data, the test results would prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes. For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. The proposed rule allows you to use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP. If you choose this option, then use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For volume fraction of coating solids, use either ASTM Method D2697 86 ( 1968) or ASTM Method D6093 97. For density, use ASTM Method D1475 98 or information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. For each emission capture and control system that you use, you would: Conduct an initial performance test to determine the overall control efficiency of the equipment ( described below) and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis ( also described below). The performance test would have to be completed no later than the compliance date. You would also need to schedule it in time to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78617 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules obtain the results for use in completing your initial compliance determination for the initial compliance period. The overall control efficiency for a capture and control system would be demonstrated based on emission capture and reduction efficiency. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51; measure the capture efficiency using either EPA Method 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51 or appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK; or use the panel test procedures in ASTM Method D5087 91 ( 1994), ASTM Method D6266 00a, or the guidelines presented in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA 450/ 3 88 018 ( docket A 2001 22). If you have a permanent total enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, then you would assume 100 percent capture. For panel testing, the coatings used may be grouped based on similar appearance characteristics ( e. g., solid color or metallic), processing sequences, and dry film thicknesses. One coating from each group can be tested to represent all of the coatings in that group. To determine the emission reduction efficiency of the control device, you would conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas streams. The test would consist of three runs, each run lasting 1 hour, using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A: Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas volumetric flow rate. Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. Method 4 to determine stack moisture. Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter concentration. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be used. You would be required to determine the transfer efficiency for primersurfacer and topcoat materials using ASTM Method D5066 91 ( 2001) or the guidelines presented in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA 450/ 3 88 018 ( docket A 2001 22). These guidelines include provisions for testing representative coatings instead of testing every coating. You may assume 100 percent transfer efficiency for electrodeposition primer coatings, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final repair coatings, you may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air atomized spray and 55 percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic spray and high volume, low pressure spray. The monthly emission rate, in terms of mass of organic HAP emitted per volume of coating solids deposited, is determined in accordance with the procedures in the proposed rule. These procedures incorporate the volume, organic HAP content, and volume solids content of each coating applied, as well as the transfer efficiency for the coatings and spray equipment used, and the overall control efficiency for controlled booths or bake ovens and other controlled emission points. Adhesives and sealers, and deadener. Compliance with emissions limits for adhesives and sealers ( other than windshield materials) would be based on the monthly mass average organic HAP content of all materials of this type used during the compliance period. Compliance with emission limits for deadener would be based on the monthly mass average organic HAP content of all materials of this type used during the compliance period. Operating limits. As mentioned above, you would establish operating limits during the initial performance test of an emission capture and control system. The operating limit is defined as the minimum or maximum ( as applicable) value achieved for a control device or process parameter during the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limit. The proposed rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of control systems commonly used in the industry. You would be required to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and ensure that the continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS) meet the requirements in § 63.3168 of the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by EPA and is not delegated to States. If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you would continuously monitor temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit would be the average temperature measured during the performance test and for each 3­ hour period, the average temperature would have to be at or above this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limit would be the average temperature increase across the catalyst bed during the performance test and for each 3­ hour period, the average temperature increase would have to be at or above this limit. As an alternative for catalytic oxidizers, you may monitor the temperature immediately before the catalyst bed and develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan. If you use a solvent recovery system, then you would either: ( 1) Continuously monitor the outlet concentration of organic compounds, and the operating limit would be the average organic compound outlet concentration during the performance test ( for each 3­ hour period, the average concentration would have to be below this limit); or ( 2) monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration, in which case the operating limits would be the carbon bed temperature ( not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or nitrogen used for desorption ( to be met as a minimum). If you use a capture and control system to meet the proposed standards, you would have to meet operating limits for the capture system. If the emission capture system is a permanent total enclosure, you would be required to establish that the direction of flow was into the enclosure at all times. In addition, you would have to meet an operating limit of either an average facial velocity of at least 61 meters per minute ( 200 feet per minute) through all natural draft openings in the enclosure, or a minimum pressure drop across the enclosure of at least 0.018 millimeter water ( 0.007 inch water), as established by Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. If the emission capture system was not a permanent total enclosure, you would have to establish either the average volumetric flow rate or the duct static pressure in each duct between the capture device and the add­ on control device inlet during the performance test. Either the average volumetric flow rate would have to be maintained above the operating limit for each 3­ hour period or the average duct static pressure would VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78618 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules have to be maintained above the operating limit for each 3­ hour period. Work practice standards. You would have to develop and implement two site­ specific work practice plans. One plan would address practices to minimize organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in operations for which emission limits are established, as well as the waste materials generated from these operations. A second site­ specific work practice plan would address practices to minimize emissions from cleaning operations and purging of coating equipment. The plans would have to address specific types of potential organic HAP emission points and are subject to approval of the Administrator. Deviations from approved work practice plans would be reported semiannually. G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions? Emission limits. Continuous compliance with the emission limit for combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive, or if eligible, the emission limit for combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive, would be based on monthly calculations following the procedures in the proposed rule. These procedures take into account the amount of each coating used, the organic HAP and volume solids content of each coating used, the transfer efficiency of each coating application system, and the organic HAP abatement from each capture and control system, and provide for calculating monthly mass organic HAP emissions per volume of coating solids deposited. Continuous compliance with the emission limits for adhesives and sealers ( other than components of the windshield adhesive system), and deadener is based on the monthly average mass organic HAP concentration of all materials applied in each category. Operating limits. If you use an emission capture and control system, the proposed rule would require you to achieve on a continuous basis the operating limits you establish during the performance test. If the continuous monitoring shows that the system is operating outside the range of values established during the performance test, then you have deviated from the established operating limits. If you operate a capture and control system that allows emissions to bypass the control device, you would have to demonstrate that HAP emissions from each emission point within the affected source are being routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control device. You may choose from the following four monitoring procedures: ( 1) Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device; ( 2) Car­ seal or lock­ and­ key valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating; ( 3) Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or ( 4) Automatic shutdown system to stop the coating operation when flow is diverted from the control device. If the continuous control device bypass monitoring shows that the control device is bypassed, then you have deviated from the established operating limits. Operations during startup, shutdown, and malfunction. When using an emission capture and control system for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the capture and control system. Work practice standards. You would be required to operate your facility in accordance with your approved sitespecific work practice plans at all times. H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You are required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 2 of the proposed rule. The General Provisions notification requirements include: initial notifications, notification of performance test if you are complying by using a capture and control system, notification of compliance status, and additional notifications required for affected sources with continuous monitoring systems. The General Provisions also require certain records and periodic reports. Initial notifications. If the standards apply to you, you must send a notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your facility is located and to your State agency at least 1 year before the compliance date for existing sources, and within 120 days after the date of initial startup for new and reconstructed sources, or 120 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, whichever is later. That report notifies us and your State agency that you have an existing facility that is subject to the proposed standards or that you have constructed a new facility. Thus, it allows you and the permitting authority to plan for compliance activities. You would also need to send a notification of planned construction or reconstruction of a source that would be subject to the proposed rule and apply for approval to construct or reconstruct. Notification of performance test. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture and control system for which you do not conduct a monthly liquidliquid material balance, you would conduct a performance test no later than the compliance date for your affected source. You must notify us ( or the delegated State or local agency) at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as indicated in the General Provisions for the NESHAP. Notification of compliance status. You would send us a notification of compliance status within 30 days after the end of the initial compliance demonstration. In the notification, you would certify whether the affected source has complied with the proposed standards; summarize the data and calculations supporting the compliance demonstration; describe how you will determine continuous compliance; and for capture and control systems for which you conduct performance tests, provide the results of the tests. Your notification would also include the measured range of each monitored parameter and the operating limits established during the performance test, and information showing whether the source has achieved its operating limits during the initial compliance period. Recordkeeping requirements. The proposed rule would require you to collect and keep records according to certain minimum data requirements for the CPMS. Failure to collect and keep the specified minimum data would be a deviation that is separate from any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice requirement. You would be required to keep records of reported information and all other information necessary to document compliance with the proposed rule for 5 years. As required under the General Provisions, records for the 2 most recent years must be kept on­ site; the other 3 years' records may be kept off­ site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of the control and monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the equipment. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78619 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules You would have to keep the following records: A current copy of information provided by materials suppliers such as manufacturer's formulation data or test data used to determine organic HAP or VOC content, solids content, and quantity of the coatings and thinners applied. All documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status. The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture and control system. All maintenance performed on the emission capture and control system. Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction that are different from the procedures specified in your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when the plan procedures are followed. Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or inoperative ( including out­ of­ control periods). All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards. All results of performance tests. Data and documentation used to determine capture system efficiency or to support a determination that the system is a permanent total enclosure. Required work practice plans and documentation to support compliance with the provisions of these plans. Deviations, as determined from these records, would need to be recorded and also reported. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or obligation established by the proposed rule, including but not limited to the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards, is not met. If you use a capture and control system to reduce organic HAP emissions, you would have to make your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. It would stay in your records for the life of the affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the proposed standards. If you revise the plan, you would need to keep the previous superceded versions on record for 5 years following the revision. Periodic reports. Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period, you would submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in continuous compliance. If deviations occur, you would need to include them in the report as follows: Report each deviation from each applicable monthly emission limit. Report each deviation from the work practice plan. If you are complying by using a thermal oxidizer, report all times when a 3­ hour average temperature is below the operating limit. If you are complying by using a catalytic oxidizer, report all times when a 3­ hour average temperature increase across the catalyst bed is below the operating limit. If you are complying by using oxidizers or solvent recovery systems, report all times when the value of the site­ specific operating parameter used to monitor the capture system performance was greater than or less than ( as appropriate) the operating limit established for the capture system. Report other specific information on the periods of time the deviations occurred. You would also have to send us explanations in each semiannual report if a change occurs that might affect your compliance status. Other reports. You would be required to submit other reports, including those for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the emission capture and control system. If the procedures you follow during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction are inconsistent with your plan, you would report those procedures with your semiannual reports in addition to immediate reports required by 40 CFR 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Source Category? Automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating is a source category that is on the list of source categories to be regulated because it contains major sources which emit or have the potential to emit at least 9.7 Mg ( 10 tons) of any one HAP or at least 22.7 Mg ( 25 tons) of any combination of HAP annually. The proposed rule would control HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources. Area sources are not being regulated under this proposed rule. The automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating source category as described in the listing includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of new automobile and light­ duty truck bodies. Excluded from this source category are automobile customizers, body shops, and refinishers. For purposes of this proposed rule, we are defining the source category to include the application of electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat ( including basecoat and clear coat), final repair, glass bonding primer, glass bonding adhesive, sealer, adhesive, and deadener; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which the above listed coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials associated with the above listed coatings are stored or mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and manual and automated equipment used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. We intend the source category to include facilities for which the surface coating of automobiles and light­ duty trucks or automobile and light­ duty truck bodies is either their principal activity or is an integral part of an automobile or light­ duty truck assembly plant. The initial listing for this source category included the surface coating of body parts for inclusion in new vehicles. As provided in the initial source category listing notice ( 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992): . . . the Agency recognizes that these descriptions [ in the initial list], like the list itself, may be revised from time to time as better information becomes available. The Agency intends to revise these descriptions as part of the process of establishing standards for each category. Ultimately, a definition of each listed category, or subsequently listed subcategories, will be incorporated in each rule establishing a NESHAP for a category. Some automobile assembly plants operate separate lines which apply coatings to parts such as bumpers, fascias, and brackets for attachment to separately coated vehicle bodies. However, since most plastic and metal parts that are attached to coated vehicle bodies are produced in separate facilities, we have decided that it makes more sense to regulate these off­ line plastic and metal parts coating operations under separate NESHAP for surface coating of plastic parts and products and miscellaneous metal parts because of the substantially different equipment that may be used to coat these parts and for consistency with the NSPS and other air pollution control regulations affecting these coating operations. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78620 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules B. How Did We Select the Regulated Pollutants? Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene and methanol. These compounds account for over 95 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. Because coatings used in automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating contain many combinations of these and other organic HAP, it is not practical to regulate them individually. Therefore, the proposed standards would regulate emissions of all organic HAP. Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported during the development of the proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP contained in the coatings used by this source category include lead, manganese, and chromium compounds. There is limited opportunity for these HAP to be emitted into the ambient air. The lead compounds are present in the electrodeposition primers. This technique would not typically generate air emissions of these compounds which are in the coating solids. Once the coating solids are deposited on the substrate, they remain on the substrate and are not emitted during cure of the coating. Therefore, we conclude that there are limited or no air emissions of lead compounds. Based on information reported during the development of the proposed NESHAP, a small amount of chromium compounds are contained in a few of the coatings used by this source category. Because these inorganic compounds are in the coating solids, they are retained on the substrate to which they are applied, and the only opportunity for them to enter the ambient air is if they are spray­ applied. Because of the atomization of the coating during spray application, inorganic compounds become airborne, and they are either deposited on the substrate, collected by the circulating water under the spray booth floor grates, adhere to the surrounding walls and other surfaces in the area, or enter the air and become susceptible to transport to other areas in the building or outside into the ambient air. The data available to EPA indicate that the facilities in this source category that use spray application techniques sometimes apply coatings that contain inorganic HAP compounds, including small quantities of chromium oxide. Overspray, including that containing inorganic HAP, is controlled to an extremely high level by down­ draft impingement in circulating sub­ grate water systems. C. How Did We Select the Affected Source? In selecting the affected sources for MACT standards, our primary goal is to ensure that MACT is applied to HAPemitting operations or activities within the source category or subcategory being regulated. The affected source also serves to distinguish where new source MACT applies under a particular standard. Specifically, the General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 define the terms `` construction'' and `` reconstruction'' with reference to the term `` affected source'' ( 40 CFR 60.2) and provide that new source MACT applies when construction or reconstruction of an affected source occurs ( 40 CFR 60.5). The collection of equipment and activities evaluated in determining MACT ( including the MACT floor) is used in defining the affected source. Some source categories are comprised of HAP­ emitting equipment and activities that are independent, have no functional interactions at the process level, and are not related to each other in terms of emission control. In these cases, it is reasonable from a MACT implementation perspective to have separate, narrowly defined affected sources for purposes of focusing MACT applicability. An implication of a narrow definition of affected source is that new source MACT requirements could be triggered more frequently as equipment is replaced ( potential `` reconstruction'') or facilities are expanded ( potential `` construction'') than with a broader definition of affected source, such as some collection of equipment or even the entire facility. This approach is sometimes appropriate based on consideration of emission reductions, cost impacts, and implementation factors. When a MACT standard is based on total facility emissions, we select an affected source based on the entire facility as well. This approach for defining the affected source broadly is particularly appropriate for industries where a plantwide emission standard provides the opportunity and incentive for owners and operators to utilize control strategies that are more cost effective than if separate standards were established for each emission point within a facility. The affected source in the automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating source category for which MACT standards are being proposed is the equipment used for electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat ( including basecoat and clear coat), final repair, glass bonding primer, glass bonding adhesive, sealer, adhesive, and deadener; as well as storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored and mixed; all manual and automated equipment for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation for which an emission limit is proposed. Standards for new sources apply to newly constructed or reconstructed paintshops. All of the organic HAP­ emitting coating operations covered by this source category occur within the area of an automobile assembly plant referred to as the paint shop, except for the operations related to glass installation ( glass bonding primer, glass bonding adhesive, and pre­ installation cleaning) and certain off­ line final repair operations. All existing affected sources are located at automobile assembly plants. Other collocated operations at automobile assembly plants may be subject to other NESHAP, including NESHAP currently under development for source categories such as miscellaneous metal parts coating and plastic parts and products coating. Additional information on the operations at automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facilities that were selected for regulation and other operations that are conducted at automobile assembly plants are included in the docket for the proposed standards. D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources? After we identify the specific source categories or subcategories of sources to regulate under section 112 of the CAA, we must develop MACT standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112 establishes a minimum baseline or `` floor'' for standards. For new sources in a category or subcategory, the standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best­ controlled similar source ( section 112( d)( 3)). The 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 bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources for which the Administrator has emissions information ( or the bestperforming five sources for categories or VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78621 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). Electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. All 59 facilities in the source category that were in operation in 1997 or 1998 responded to an information collection request ( ICR). ( Several facilities did not have operating paint shops during this period, but submitted information pertaining to their applications of sealers and adhesives in the assembly process.) Two facilities that presently track their usage and emissions on a line­ by­ line basis submitted two sets of data each. The responses contained data on the mass of organic HAP emissions per volume of coating solids deposited for each month of a calendar year for electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, and topcoat operations; and additional information on final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. Final repair and glass bonding materials are functionally tied to the electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer and topcoat materials. Final repair materials must be compatible with these other coatings and must provide an exact color and appearance match. Glass bonding materials also must be compatible with these other coatings. The choice of glass bonding materials is highly dependent on the performance characteristics of and interaction with these other coatings. Glass bonds must meet safety requirements issued by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Therefore, we have included final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive with electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer and topcoat. In most cases, facilities calculated their monthly emissions from primersurfacer and topcoat operations using a procedure that closely matched the procedure in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA 450/ 3 88 018 ( docket A 2001 22). The calculations took into account the overall efficiency of capture systems and control devices, as well as the transfer efficiency of spray equipment used to apply coatings. In addition, the responses included the mass organic HAP content and the volume solids content of all materials added to the electrodeposition system on a monthly basis. Using the data, we ranked the facilities on the basis of mass of organic HAP emissions per volume of coating solids deposited on an annual basis. Several of the lowest emitting facilities did not apply full body primer­ surfacer during the ICR reporting year ( although these facilities as well as all other presently operating facilities do so currently). Since the data from these facilities did not represent the current and anticipated industry practices, we eliminated them from the ranking. We then identified the eight facilities with the lowest­ organic­ HAP emissions ( from electrodeposition, primer­ surfacer, and topcoat combined) per volume coating solids deposited. As four of the eight lowest emitting plants used a powder primer­ surfacer application system which results in a much thicker film than a liquid application system, we adjusted the solids deposited volumes for the powder systems to reflect liquid primer surfacer thicknesses. We then identified the month of the reporting year with the peak organic HAP emission rate for the eight facilities with the lowest annual emission rates. Since the proposed rule requires compliance each and every month, an emission limit based on the annual emissions would be unachievable by even the lowest emitting plants approximately 6 months of the year. Variations in colors or vehicles produced and the organic HAP contents of different basecoats and color­ keyed primer­ surfacers leads to unavoidable fluctuations in organic HAP emission rates, even with the same application equipment and capture and control devices in use. The average organic HAP emission rate for the peak month for the eight lowest emitting plants ( as determined on an annual basis) was determined to be the MACT floor for a monthly compliance standard for combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations at existing plants. We have also proposed a compliance demonstration option based on emissions from combined primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations for those plants with well controlled electrodeposition operations, or that use very low­ organic­ HAP materials in their electrodeposition primer operation. This was based on the emission rate from primer­ surfacer and topcoat application at the eight lowest emitting plants. ( The same plants as those with the lowest emission rates from electrodeposition, primer­ surfacer, and topcoat combined.) The emission rate without electrodeposition is comparable to the proposed emission rate with electrodeposition when the lower­ organic­ HAP emissions per volume of coating solids deposited which result from including electrodeposition primer are considered. The floor for new sources was based on the performance of the plant with the lowest annual emission rate. The peak monthly emission rate for this plant for the reporting year would represent the best consistently achievable emission rate for new sources. Both the existing source MACT floor and the new source MACT floor are based on monthly compliance. All or nearly all automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facilities are subject to compliance with existing rules demonstrated by calculations based on monthly coating use. The ICR responses upon which the MACT determination was made provided data on a monthly basis. A 1­ month time period is the shortest compliance period for which data are available to reliably determine MACT. Adhesives and sealers ( other than glass binding adhesive), and deadeners. All facilities in the source category submitted responses to an ICR. The responses contained data on the mass used, and the mass fraction of organic HAP in each of the materials used during the reporting year. The average mass organic HAP content of the materials used throughout the reporting year was determined for each facility. The eight facilities with the lowestaverage organic­ HAP content in each group ( i. e., adhesives and sealers were considered separately from deadeners) were determined. These facilities used materials with an average mass fraction of organic HAP of less than 0.01 kilogram ( kg)/ kg ( pound ( lb)/ lb. Because of imprecision in analytical methods at this level, and because the organic HAP reported as zero for some materials at some facilities may have contained traces of organic HAP that were not reported to the facility by the material supplier, the MACT floor mass organic HAP content was determined to be 0.01 kg/ kg ( lb/ lb). This is the lowest level for both new and existing facilities for which compliance could be reliably demonstrated. The proposed rule would require compliance to be demonstrated monthly on the basis of a mass average organic HAP content of the materials used. A shorter compliance time interval would result in excessive recordkeeping with little or no additional reduction in organic HAP emissions. If each and every material used within a particular group of materials meets the monthly average emission limit on an individual basis, then no calculations are required to demonstrate compliance. Storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78622 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules materials. The proposed rule would regulate these operations in accordance with a site­ specific work practice plan to be developed subject to approval by the Administrator and implemented by each new and existing source. We have no reliable data on the extent of emissions from these operations but believe them to be low. Cleaning and equipment purging emissions. While the responses to the ICR contain extensive ( though in some cases inconsistent) data pertaining to the volumetric use and organic HAP content of cleaning and purging materials, a substantial but unknown fraction of the organic HAP emissions from cleaning and purging operations are captured and controlled. We have no reliable data that would enable us to determine an emission limit for these operations that would represent MACT level control. The proposed rule would regulate these operations in accordance with a site­ specific work practice plan to be developed subject to approval by the Administrator and implemented by each new and existing source. After the floors have been determined for new and existing sources in a source category or subcategory, we must set MACT standards that are technically achievable and no less stringent than the floors. Such standards must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. We identify and consider any reasonable regulatory alternatives that are `` beyond­ the­ floor,'' taking into account emission reduction, cost, non­ air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. These alternatives may be different for new and existing sources because different MACT floors and separate standards may be established for new and existing sources. The eight facilities with the lowestorganic HAP emission rates from electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer and topcoat application employed a combination of various organic HAP emission limitation techniques, including the use of lowerorganic HAP electrodeposition primer materials, powder primer­ surfacer, waterborne basecoats, lower­ organic­ HAP solvent based primer­ surfacers, lower­ organic­ HAP solvent based basecoats and clearcoats, and improved capture and control systems. However, no single technology or combination of technologies representing a beyond­ thefloor MACT was identified, nor did we identify any other available technologies which are not presently in use with the potential to decrease organic HAP emissions beyond­ the­ floor for either new or existing sources. We expect that many existing plants will improve capture and control device efficiency as a means of compliance. Control options beyond­ the­ floor could involve even higher overall efficiencies. Because of the dilute nature of the organic HAP­ containing streams available for capture, the cost of such a beyond­ the­ floor limit would exceed $ 40,000 per ton of incremental organic HAP controlled. We are not proposing beyond­ the­ floor limits at this time. Following a future analysis of residual risk, EPA may propose a beyond­ thefloor emission limit, if it is found to be justified. The facilities which presently use adhesives and sealers, and deadeners with the lowest­ mass­ organic­ HAP contents would not be able to reliably demonstrate compliance with a standard more stringent than the floor level emission limit for these materials due to uncertainty in the analytical methods available and the expected inability or unwillingness of the suppliers of the materials to certify lower­ organic­ HAP contents. A wide variety of techniques exist for reducing organic HAP emissions from mixing, storage, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials, and from cleaning and purging of equipment. Because we have no data upon which to establish a numerical organic HAP emission limit for these operations, we have proposed to regulate them through the development and implementation of site­ specific work practice plans. The proposed rule identifies a number of potential emission control practices which must be considered, as applicable, in these work plans. Alternative practices which achieve equivalent or improved emission limitations are also permitted under the proposed rule. Because we are unable to reliably estimate the emissions reductions that will be achieved beyond the present baseline emissions from these operations, the work practices requirements may represent beyond­ thefloor standards. We believe that the costs of implementing these work practices will be reasonable, as many of the same or equivalent practices would be required for control of VOC emissions under title V air permits. In lieu of emission standards, section 112( h) of the CAA allows work practice standards or other requirements to be established if: ( 1) A pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance or capture system, or ( 2) measurement is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. All automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facilities use some type of work practice measures to reduce HAP emissions from mixing, storage, conveying, and cleaning and purging as part of their standard operating procedures. They use these measures to decrease solvent usage and minimize exposure to workers. However, data to quantify accurately the emissions reductions achievable by the work practice measures are unavailable, and it is not feasible to measure emissions or enforce a numerical standard for emissions from these operations. We selected MACT floor level standards for electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, glass bonding adhesive, sealer, and adhesive application, and deadener because we were unable to identify any specific technologies that would result in a lower level of emissions. We have proposed a more stringent emission limit for electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, and topcoat application for new sources. This more stringent limit is not appropriate for existing sources because of the difficulty, uncertainty, and in some cases, impossibility of retrofitting the best combination of emission limitation techniques to existing facilities, as well as the high cost associated with what would be a beyond­ the­ floor limit for existing facilities. We believe the proposed standards for existing sources are achievable because they are presently being achieved by at least six existing sources. We believe the proposed standards for new sources are achievable because they are presently being achieved by the best performing facility in the source category. We have proposed standards for which compliance would be demonstrated on a monthly basis. The data used to determine MACT for electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer and topcoat were based on organic HAP emission limits that were achieved by the best performing plants each month ( during which production occurred) during the reporting year for the ICR responses. We used annual data to determine MACT for adhesives and sealers, and deadeners, but believe that monthly compliance is achievable because the standards are based on organic HAP per mass of material, or organic HAP per volume of material and we have no reason to believe that different materials are used at different times throughout the year. E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Standards? Numerical emission standards are required by section 112 of the CAA unless we can justify that it is not VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78623 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, in which case a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard can be set ( section 112( h) of the CAA). Formats considered. We considered the following formats for allowable organic HAP emissions from the affected source: ( 1) Mass of organic HAP per unit weight or volume of coating, coating solids, or coating solids deposited; ( 2) mass of organic HAP per unit of production; ( 3) organic HAP concentration exiting a control device; ( 4) organic HAP emissions per unit surface area coated; and ( 5) percent reduction achieved by a capture system and control device. Each format is defined, and the major advantages and disadvantages are discussed below. The first type of format considered would express the emission limitation as mass of organic HAP emissions per volume of coating, mass of coating solids, volume of coating solids, or volume of coating solids deposited. An advantage of this type of format is that it relates emissions to production levels, but in a more equitable way than one based on units of production. Also, an affected source would have flexibility in choosing among several compliance options to achieve a standard based on this type of format. This type of standard, when based on mass or volume of coating solids deposited, takes into account the transfer efficiency, i. e., the fraction of coating solids used that actually adhere to the substrate. A mass of HAP per volume of coating format ( i. e., kg HAP/ liter ( lb HAP/ gallon ( gal)) of coating) either for each coating or as an average across all coatings could be used. While this format is simple to understand and use, its main disadvantage is that it would not credit sources that switch to lower­ emitting, higher­ solids coatings. For example, a facility using a coating with a solids content of 40 percent and a HAP content of 3 lb/ gal will use fewer pounds of HAP than a facility using a coating with a solids content of 20 percent and a HAP content of 2 lb/ gal because the first facility will use 50 percent less coating than the second. A comparison of the emission potential of two coatings using a mass HAP per volume coating format cannot be made. An alternative format is a mass HAP per volume of coating solids ( i. e., kg HAP/ liter ( lb HAP/ gal) of coating solids). This format would adequately credit sources that converted conventional higher­ HAP­ solvent coatings to higher­ solids coatings. The same is true for a format of mass HAP/ mass of solids ( i. e., kg HAP/ kg ( lb HAP/ lb) solids). For example, if a source were to increase the solids content of a coating and thereby decrease the quantity of coating used, either of these formats would properly credit the affected source's emissions reductions. However, there are potential drawbacks to the mass HAP/ mass solids format. Such a standard does not take into account the sometimes considerable differences in coating solids densities. Either the mass HAP/ mass solid or the mass HAP/ volume solid formats can be restated to consider applied solids rather than solids contained in the coating to provide credit for application techniques with higher transfer efficiencies. The second format considered is mass of organic HAP emissions per unit of production ( e. g., kg HAP per vehicle coated). Its major disadvantage is that the surface area of automobiles and light­ duty trucks varies greatly. The third format considered, a limit on the concentration of organic HAP in the exhaust from the control device would only apply to sources that use add­ on control devices. This format for a standard is the easiest to enforce because direct emissions measurements can be made using Method 25 or 25A. However, the concentration of organic HAP emitted from the control device does not reflect total emissions because of the possibility of uncaptured emissions from the coating operation, nor does it limit total emissions because of the effect of varying the exhaust flow rates ( i. e., increasing dilution air). For example, two similar coating operations could produce the same amount of organic HAP yet have different inlet concentrations to the control device because of variations in capture of emissions from the coating operation and because of varying oven airflow rates. A standard based on outlet concentration would require the line with the higher concentration ( lower airflow rate) to control more organic HAP emissions than the line with the lower inlet concentration. Because management of airflow rates is generally under the control of the operator, this format would not reflect the application of MACT for the coating operation. Furthermore, this format would limit the compliance options available to sources because it would not accommodate the use of either low­ HAP content coatings and other materials, or the use of a combination of capture and control systems in conjunction with reduced­ HAP coatings and other materials. The fourth format, organic HAP emissions per unit surface area coated, provides flexibility in the selection of coating materials, the streams to be controlled, and the approach to capture and control. We requested surface area data for vehicles produced during the ICR reporting year and received data of this type from a number of respondents. The data that we received were incomplete, and the methods of estimating vehicle surface areas varied widely. In many cases, computer generated design drawings were analyzed to estimate surface areas. The algorithms used to make the estimates are unlikely to be consistent from manufacturer to manufacturer. While a standard in this format has some advantages, it would be difficult to establish MACT because of the inconsistent basis of the estimates. The fifth format, percent reduction, would only apply to sources that use add­ on control devices. This format is often the best choice when capture and control systems are widely used in the source category, and the achievable percent reduction over a wide range of operating conditions is predictable. The advantages of this format are that it would reflect MACT at all facilities, and the facilities would be allowed flexibility in the method selected for achieving the percent reduction. A disadvantage of the percent reduction format is that it does not credit improvements in the materials or processes. For example, reduction in the organic HAP content of a coating or in the amount of coating applied per unit of substrate manufactured would not be credited toward compliance. This might discourage development of low­ or non­ HAP coatings. Similar to the concentration format for a standard, this format also would not accommodate the use of either low­ HAP content coatings and other materials or a combination of capture and control systems in conjunction with reduced­ HAP coatings and other materials as a means of compliance. Format selected. We selected mass of HAP emitted per volume of coating solids deposited as the format for the proposed emission limit for electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. All automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facilities presently calculate VOC emissions from primersurfacer and topcoat application in this format and have recordkeeping systems in place to track coating usage, mass fraction of VOC, volume fraction of solids, and transfer efficiencies. Responses to the ICR were, for the most part, based on adaptions of these systems to calculate organic HAP emissions from both topcoat and primer VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78624 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules surfacer application. Only minor adjustments would be necessary to include electrodeposition coatings, as only two to four different materials are used for this process, and the transfer efficiency is essentially 100 percent. Such a format would be consistent with the information upon which MACT determination was based. This format gives credit for the use of low­ or zeroorganic HAP coatings or high solids coatings in one or more application processes, as well as improved application techniques which result in higher transfer efficiencies for primersurfacer and topcoat. This format would allow sources flexibility to use a combination of emission capture and control systems as well as low­ HAP content coatings and other materials. We selected mass of organic HAP per mass of coating as the format for the proposed standards for adhesives and sealers, and deadeners. These materials are applied with nearly 100 percent transfer efficiency in most cases and emissions from these materials are rarely, if ever, directed to add­ on control devices. F. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? We have proposed a compliance procedure for electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. The procedure takes into account the volume of each coating used, its mass organic HAP content, volume solids content, and density, as well as the transfer efficiency and the overall efficiency of any add­ on control devices. The procedure is modeled after the procedure in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA 450/ 3 88 018 ( docket A 2001 22), presently used to demonstrate compliance with VOC emission limits for topcoat and primersurfacer application at automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facilities. We have proposed a monthly average mass organic HAP content determination to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for adhesives and sealers, and deadeners. Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, is the method developed by EPA for determining the HAP content of coatings and has been used in previous surface coating NESHAP. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 311 for use in the proposed rule. Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is the method developed by EPA for determining the VOC content of coatings and can be used if you choose to determine the nonaqueous volatile matter content as a surrogate for organic HAP. In past rules, VOC emission control measures have been implemented in the coatings industry with Method 24 as the compliance method. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 24 for use in the proposed rule. The proposed requirements for determining volume solids would allow you to choose between calculating the value using either ASTM Method D2697 86 ( 1988) or ASTM Method D6093 97. You may use information provided by your coating supplier instead of conducting the HAP, solids, and density determinations yourself. The above specified test methods will take precedence if there is any discrepancy between the result of the methods and information provided by your suppliers. Capture and control systems. If you use an emission capture and control system, you would be required to conduct an initial performance test of the system to determine its overall control efficiency. The overall control efficiency would be combined with the monthly HAP content of the coatings and other materials used in the affected source to derive the monthly HAP emission rate to demonstrate compliance with the standard for electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. If you conduct a performance test, you would also determine parameter operating limits during the test. The test methods that the proposed rule would require for the performance test have been required for many industrial surface coating sources under NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP in 40 CFR part 63. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over these methods. Work practices. In the initial compliance report, you would certify that you have met the proposed work practice standards during the initial compliance period. You would also keep the records required to document your actions. These are minimal compliance requirements to ensure you are meeting the standards. G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements? To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits and operating limits, the proposed rule would require continuous parameter monitoring of capture systems, add­ on control devices, and recordkeeping. We selected the following requirements based on: reasonable cost, ease of execution, and usefulness of the resulting data to both the owners or operators and EPA for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits and operating limits. We are proposing that certain parameters be continuously monitored for the types of capture and control systems commonly used in the industry. These monitoring parameters have been used in other standards for similar industries. The values of these parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed emission limits are established during the initial or most recent performance test that demonstrates compliance. These values are your operating limits for the capture and control system. You would be required to determine 3­ hour average values for most monitored parameters for the affected source. We selected this averaging period to allow for normal variation of the parameter while ensuring that the control system is continuously operating at the same or better control level as during a performance test demonstrating compliance with the emission limits. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the monthly emission limits, you would also need records of the quantity of coatings and other materials used and the data and calculations supporting your determination of their HAP content. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standards, you would keep the associated records specified in your work practice plan, as required by the proposed rule, and comply with the associated reporting requirements. H. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 2 of the proposed rule. We evaluated the General Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be the minimum notification, reporting, and recordkeeping necessary to ensure compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the proposed standards. I. How Did We Select the Compliance Date? The proposed rule allows existing sources 3 years from the effective date of the final standards to demonstrate VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78625 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules compliance. This is the maximum compliance period permitted by the CAA. We believe that 3 years may be necessary for some affected sources to design, install, and test improved capture systems and control devices. Sources that adopt reformulated lower HAP coatings or powder coatings may also need 3 years to specify, adjust application equipment, and modify existing coating processes. New or reconstructed affected sources must comply immediately upon startup or the effective date of the proposed rule, whichever is later as required by the CAA. IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts? The proposed rule would decrease HAP emissions from automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facilities from an estimated 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy. This represents a decrease of 6,000 tpy or 60 percent. The proposed rule would also decrease VOC by approximately 12,000 to 18,000 tpy. These values were calculated in comparison to baseline emissions reported to EPA by individual facilities for 1996 or 1997. B. What Are the Cost Impacts? The estimated total capital costs of compliance, including the costs of monitors, is $ 670 million. This will result in an additional annualized capital cost of $ 75 million compared to a baseline total capital expenditure of $ 4 to $ 5 billion per year. The projected total annual costs, including capital recovery, operating costs, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting is $ 154 million per year. This represents less than one­ tenth of 1 percent of the baseline industry revenues of $ 290 billion and just over 1.0 percent of baseline industry pre­ tax earnings of $ 14 billion. The cost analysis assumed that each existing facility would use, in the order presented, as many of the following four steps as necessary to meet the proposed emission limit. First, if needed, facilities that did not already control their electrodeposition primer bake oven exhaust would install and operate such control at an average cost of $ 8,200 per ton of HAP controlled. Next, if needed, facilities would reduce the HAP­ to­ VOC ratio of their primer­ surfacer and topcoat materials to 0.3 to 1.0 at an average cost of $ 540 per ton of HAP controlled. Finally, if needed, facilities would control the necessary amount of primer­ surfacer and topcoat spray booth exhaust at an average cost of $ 40,000 per ton of HAP controlled. For all four steps combined, the average cost is about $ 25,000 per ton of HAP controlled. New facilities and new paint shops would incur little additional cost to meet the proposed emission limit. These facilities would already include bake oven controls and partial spray booth exhaust controls for VOC control purposes. New facilities might need to make some downward adjustment in the HAP content of their materials to meet the proposed emission limit. C. What Are the Economic Impacts? The EPA prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the primary and secondary impacts the proposed rule would have on the producers and consumers of automobiles and lightduty trucks, and society as a whole. The analysis was conducted to determine the economic impacts associated with the proposed rule at both the market and industry levels. Overall, the analysis indicates a minimal change in vehicle prices and production quantities. Based on the estimated compliance costs associated with the proposed rule and the predicted changes in prices and production in the affected industry, the estimated annual social costs of the proposed rule is projected to be $ 161 million ( 1999 dollars). The social costs take into account changes in behavior by producers and consumers due to the imposition of compliance costs from the proposed rule. For this reason the estimated annual social costs differ from the estimated annual engineering costs of $ 154 million. Producers, in aggregate, are expected to bear $ 152 million annually in costs while the consumers are expected to incur the remaining $ 10 million in social costs associated with the proposed rule. The economic model projects an aggregate price increase for the modeled vehicle classes of automobiles and lightduty trucks to be less than 1/ 100th of 1 percent as a result of the proposed standards. This represents at most an increase in price of $ 3.00 per vehicle. The model also projects that directly affected producers would reduce total production by approximately 1,400 vehicles per year. This represents approximately 0.01 percent of the 12.7 million vehicles produced by the potentially affected plants in 1999, the baseline year of analysis. In terms of industry impacts, the automobile and light­ duty truck manufacturers are projected to experience a decrease in pre­ tax earnings of about 1 percent or $ 152 million. In comparison, total pre­ tax earnings for the potentially affected plants included in the analysis exceeded $ 14 billion in 1999. The reduction in pre­ tax earnings of 1 percent reflects an increase in production costs and a decline in revenues earned from a reduction in the quantity of vehicles sold. Through the market and industry impacts described above, the proposed rule would lead to a redistribution of profits within the industry. Some facilities ( 28 percent) are projected to experience a profit increase with the proposed rule; however, the majority ( 72 percent) that continue operating are projected to lose profits. No facilities are projected to close due to the proposed rule. D. What Are the Non­ Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts? Solid waste and water impacts of the proposed rule are expected to be negligible. Capture of additional organic HAP­ laden streams and control of these streams with regenerative thermal oxidizers is expected to require an additional 180 million kilowatt hours per year and an additional 4.9 billion standard cubic feet per year of natural gas. E. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Proposed Rule in a Less Costly Manner? We have made every effort in developing this proposal to minimize the cost to the regulated community and allow maximum flexibility in compliance options consistent with our statutory obligations. We recognize, however, that the proposal may still require some facilities to take costly steps to further control emissions even though those emissions may not result in exposures which could pose an excess individual lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 in 1 million or exceed thresholds determined to provide an ample margin of safety for protecting public health and the environment from the effects of HAP. We are, therefore, specifically soliciting comment on whether there are further ways to structure the proposed rule to focus on the facilities which pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health and the environment. During the rulemaking process on a separate proposed NESHAP, representatives of the plywood and composite wood products industry provided EPA with descriptions of three approaches that they believed could be used to implement more cost­ effective reductions in risk. These approaches could be effective in focusing regulatory controls on facilities that pose significant risks and avoiding the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78626 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health or the environment, and we are seeking public comment on the utility of each of these approaches with respect to this rule. The docket for today's proposed rule contains `` white papers'' prepared by the plywood and composite wood products industry that outline their proposed approaches ( see docket number A 2001 22). One of the approaches, an applicability cutoff for threshold pollutants, would be implemented under the authority of CAA section 112( d)( 4); the second approach, subcategorization and delisting, would be implemented under the authority of CAA section 112( c)( 1) and ( c)( 9); and the third approach would involve the use of a concentration­ based applicability threshold. We are seeking comment on whether these approaches are legally justified and, if so, we ask for information that could be used to support such approaches. The MACT program outlined in CAA section 112( d) is intended to reduce emissions of HAP through the application of MACT to major sources of toxic air pollutants. Section 112( c)( 9) is intended to allow EPA to avoid setting MACT standards for categories or subcategories of sources that pose less than a specified level of risk to public health and the environment. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposals described here appropriately rely on these provisions of CAA section 112. The two health­ based approaches focus on assessing inhalation exposures or accounting for adverse environmental impacts. In addition to the specific requests for comment noted in this section, we are also interested in any information or comment concerning technical limitations, environmental and cost impacts, compliance assurance, legal rationale, and implementation relevant to the identified approaches. We also request comment on appropriate practicable and verifiable methods to ensure that sources' emissions remain below levels that protect public health and the environment. We will evaluate all comments before determining whether to include an approach in the final rule. 1. Industry HAP emissions and potential health effects For the automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating source category, seven HAP account for over 95 percent of the total HAP emitted. Those seven HAP are toluene, xylene, glycol ethers ( including ethylene glycol monobutyl ether ( EGBE)), MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. Additional HAP which may be emitted by some automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations are: Ethylene glycol, hexane, formaldehyde, chromium compounds, diisocyanates, manganese compounds, methyl methacrylate, methylene chloride, and nickel compounds. Of the seven HAP emitted in the largest quantities by this source category, all can cause toxic effects following sufficient exposure. The potential toxic effects of these seven HAP include effects to the central nervous system, such as fatigue, nausea, tremors, and loss of motor coordination; adverse effects on the liver, kidneys, and blood; respiratory effects; and developmental effects. In addition, one of the seven predominant HAP, EGBE, is a possible carcinogen, although information on this compound is not currently sufficient to allow us to quantify its potency. In accordance with CAA section 112( k), EPA developed a list of 33 HAP which present the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. None of the predominant seven HAP is included on this list for EPA's Urban Air Toxics Program, although three of the other emitted HAP ( formaldehyde, manganese compounds, and nickel compounds) appear on the list. In November 1998, EPA published `` A Multimedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic ( PBT) Pollutants.'' None of the predominant seven HAP emitted by automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations appears on the published list of compounds referred to in EPA's PBT strategy. To estimate the potential baseline risks posed by the source category and the potential impact of applicability cutoffs, EPA performed a `` rough'' risk assessment for 56 of the approximately 60 facilities in the source category by using a model plant placed at the actual location of each plant and simulating impacts using air emissions data from the 1999 EPA Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI). In addition to the seven predominant HAP, the following additional HAP were included in this rough risk assessment because they were reported in TRI as being emitted by facilities in the source category: ethylene glycol, hexane, formaldehyde, diisocyanates, manganese compounds, nickel compounds, and benzene. The benzene emissions and some of the nickel emissions are from non­ surface coating activities which are not part of the source category. Of the HAP reported in TRI which are emitted from automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations, three ( formaldehyde, nickel compounds, and EGBE) are carcinogens that, at present, are not considered to have thresholds for cancer effects. Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, however, may be a threshold carcinogen, as suggested by some recent evidence from animal studies, though EPA, at present, considers it to be a nonthreshold carcinogen without sufficient information to quantify its cancer potency. Likewise, formaldehyde is a potential threshold carcinogen, and EPA is currently revising the dose­ response assessment for formaldehyde. Most facilities in this source category emit some small quantity of formaldehyde. In the 1999 TRI, however, only two facilities in this source category reported formaldehyde emissions. No other facilities exceeded the TRI reporting threshold for formaldehyde in 1999. The baseline cancer risk and subsequent cancer risk reductions were estimated to be minimal for this source category. Of the three carcinogens included in the assessment, emissions reductions attributable to the proposed standards could be estimated for only EGBE. However, since EGBE risks cannot currently be quantified, the cancer risk reductions associated with the proposed rule are estimated by this rough assessment to be minimal. However, noncancer risks are projected to be significantly reduced by the proposed rule. ( Details of this assessment are available in the docket.) 2. Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold Pollutants Under CAA Section 112( d)( 4) The first approach is an `` applicability cutoff'' for threshold pollutants that is based on EPA's authority under CAA section 112( d)( 4) to establish standards for HAP which are `` threshold pollutants.'' A `` threshold pollutant'' is one for which there is a concentration or dose below which adverse effects are not expected to occur over a lifetime of exposure. For such pollutants, section 112( d)( 4) allows EPA to consider the threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when establishing emission standards. Specifically, section 112( d)( 4) allows EPA to establish emission standards that are not based upon the MACT specified under section 112( d)( 2) for pollutants for which a health threshold has been established. Such standards may be less stringent than MACT. Historically, EPA has interpreted section 112( d)( 4) to allow categories of sources that emit only threshold pollutants to avoid further regulation if those emissions result in ambient levels that do not exceed the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78627 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 See 63 18754, 18765 66 ( April 15, 1998) ( Pulp and Paper Combustion Sources Proposed NESHAP). 2 `` Methods for Derivation of Inhalation reference Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry.'' EPA 600/ 8 90 066F, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994. 3 `` Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical Panel,'' EPA/ 630/ R 00/ 002. USEPA, August 2000. http:// www. epa. gov/ nceawww1/ pdfs/ chem_ mix/ chem_ mix_ 08_ 2001. pdf. threshold, with an ample margin of safety. 1 A different interpretation would allow us to exempt individual facilities within a source category that meet the section 112( d)( 4) requirements. There are three potential scenarios under this interpretation of the section 112( d)( 4) provision. One scenario would allow an exemption for individual facilities that emit only threshold pollutants and can demonstrate that their emissions of threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety, even if the category is otherwise subject to MACT. A second scenario would allow the section 112( d)( 4) provision to be applied to both threshold and nonthreshold pollutants, using the 1 in 1 million cancer risk level for decisionmaking for non­ threshold pollutants. A third scenario would allow a section 112( d)( 4) exemption at a facility that emits both threshold and nonthreshold pollutants. For those emission points where only threshold pollutants are emitted and where emissions of the threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety, those emission points could be exempt from the MACT standards. The MACT standards would still apply to nonthreshold emissions from other emission points at the source. For this third scenario, emission points that emit a combination of threshold and nonthreshold pollutants that are cocontrolled by MACT would still be subject to the MACT level of control. However, any threshold HAP eligible for exemption under section 112( d)( 4) that are controlled by control devices different from those controlling nonthreshold HAP would be able to use the exemption, and the facility would still be subject to the sections of the standards that control non­ threshold pollutants or that control both threshold and non­ threshold pollutants. Estimation of hazard quotients and hazard indices. Under the section 112( d)( 4) approach, EPA would have to determine that emissions of each of the threshold pollutants emitted by automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations at the facility do not result in exposures which exceed the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety. The common approach for evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air pollutant is to calculate a `` hazard quotient'' by dividing the pollutant's inhalation exposure concentration ( often assumed to be equivalent to its estimated concentration in air at a location where people could be exposed) by the pollutant's inhalation Reference Concentration ( RfC). An RfC is an estimate ( with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure that, over a lifetime, likely would not result in the occurrence of adverse health effects in humans, including sensitive individuals. The EPA typically establishes an RfC by applying uncertainty factors to the critical toxic effect derived from the lowest­ or no­ observed­ adverse­ effect level of a pollutant 2. A hazard quotient less than one means that the exposure concentration of the pollutant is less than the RfC and, therefore, presumed to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. A hazard quotient greater than one means that the exposure concentration of the pollutant is greater than the RfC. Further, EPA guidance for assessing exposures to mixtures of threshold pollutants recommends calculating a hazard index ( HI) by summing the individual hazard quotients for those pollutants in the mixture that affect the same target organ or system by the same mechanism 3. The HI values would be interpreted similarly to hazard quotients; values below one would generally be considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects, and values above one would generally be cause for concern. For the determinations discussed herein, EPA would generally plan to use RfC values contained in EPA's toxicology database, the Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS). When a pollutant does not have an approved RfC in IRIS, or when a pollutant is a carcinogen, EPA would have to determine whether a threshold exists based upon the availability of specific data on the pollutant's mode or mechanism of action, potentially using a health threshold value from an alternative source, such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) or the California Environmental Protection Agency ( CalEPA). Table 4 provides RfC, as well as unit risk estimates, for the HAP emitted by automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations. A unit risk estimate is defined as the upperbound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 ug/ m 3 in the air. TABLE 4. DOSE­ RESPONSE ASSESSMENT VALUES FOR HAP REPORTED EMITTED BY THE AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT­ DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING SOURCE CATEGORY Chemical name CAS No. Reference concentration a ( mg/ m3) Unit risk estimate b ( 1/( ug/ m3)) Chromium ( VI) compounds ................................................................ 18540 29 9 1.0E 04 ( IRIS) 1.2E 02 ( IRIS) Chromium ( VI) trioxide, chromic acid mist ........................................ 11115 74 5 8.0E 06 ( IRIS) Ethyl benzene .................................................................................... 100 41 4 1.0E+ 00 ( IRIS) Ethylene glycol ................................................................................... 107 21 1 4.0E 01 ( CAL) Formaldehyde .................................................................................... 50 00 0 9.8E 03 ( ATSDR) 1.3E 05 ( IRIS) Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether ..................................................... 112 34 5 2.0E 02 ( HEAST) Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether ........................................................ 111 76 2 1.3E+ 01 ( IRIS) Hexamethylene­ 1, 6­ diisocyanate ...................................................... 822 06 0 1.0E 05 ( IRIS) n­ Hexane ........................................................................................... 110 54 3 2.0E 01 ( IRIS) Manganese compounds .................................................................... 7439 96 5 5.0E 05 ( IRIS) Methanol ............................................................................................ 67 56 1 4.0E+ 00 ( CAL) Methyl ethyl ketone ............................................................................ 78 93 3 1.0E+ 00 ( IRIS) Methyl isobutyl ketone ....................................................................... 108 10 1 8.0E 02 ( HEAST) Methyl methacrylate ........................................................................... 80 62 6 7.0E 01 ( IRIS) Methylene chloride ............................................................................. 75 09 2 1.0E+ 00 ( ATSDR) 4.7E 07 ( IRIS) VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78628 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 4 Ibid. 5 Senate Debate on Conference Report ( October 27, 1990), reprinted in `` A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' Comm. Print S. Prt. 103 38 ( 1993) (`` Legis. Hist.'') at 868. TABLE 4. DOSE­ RESPONSE ASSESSMENT VALUES FOR HAP REPORTED EMITTED BY THE AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT­ DUTY TRUCK SURFACE COATING SOURCE CATEGORY Continued Chemical name CAS No. Reference concentration a ( mg/ m3) Unit risk estimate b ( 1/( ug/ m3)) Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate ....................................................... 101 68 8 6.0E 04 ( IRIS) Nickel compounds ............................................................................. 7440 02 0 2.0E 04 ( ATSDR) Nickel oxide ....................................................................................... 1313 99 1 1.0E 04 ( CAL) Toluene .............................................................................................. 108 88 3 4.0E 01 ( IRIS) 2,4/ 2,6­ Toluene diisocyanate mixture ( TDI) ...................................... 26471 62 5 7.0E 05 ( IRIS) 1.1E 05 ( CAL) Xylenes ( mixed) ................................................................................. 1330 20 7 4.3E 01 ( ATSDR) a Reference Concentration: An estimate ( with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population ( including sensitive subgroups which include children, asthmatics, and the elderly) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used. b Unit Risk Estimate: The upper­ bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 ug/ m3 in air. The interpretation of the Unit Risk Estimate would be as follows: if the Unit Risk Estimate = 1.5 × 10 ¥ 6 per ug/ m3, 1.5 excess tumors are expected to develop per 1,000,000 people if exposed daily for a lifetime to 1 ug of the chemical in 1 cubic meter of air. Unit Risk Estimates are considered upper bound estimates, meaning they represent a plausible upper limit to the true value. ( Note that this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit.) The true risk is likely to be less, but could be greater. Sources: IRIS = EPA Integrated Risk Information System ( http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ index. html) ATSDR = U. S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( http:// www. atsdr. cdc. gov/ mrls. html) CAL = California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( http:// www. oehha. ca. gov/ air/ hot_ spots/ index. html) HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (# PB(= 97 921199, July 1997). To establish an applicability cutoff under section 112( d)( 4), EPA would need to define ambient air exposure concentration limits for any threshold pollutants involved. There are several factors to consider when establishing such concentrations. First, we would need to ensure that the concentrations that would be established would protect public health with an ample margin of safety. As discussed above, the approach EPA commonly uses when evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air pollutant is to calculate the pollutant's hazard quotient, which is the exposure concentration divided by the RfC. The EPA's `` Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures'' suggests that the noncancer health effects associated with a mixture of pollutants ideally are assessed by considering the pollutants' common mechanisms of toxicity. 4 The guidance also suggests that when exposures to mixtures of pollutants are being evaluated, the risk assessor may calculate a HI. The recommended method is to calculate multiple hazard indices for each exposure route of interest and for a single specific toxic effect or toxicity to a single target organ. The default approach recommended by the guidance is to sum the hazard quotients for those pollutants that induce the same toxic effect or affect the same target organ. A mixture is then assessed by several HI, each representing one toxic effect or target organ. The guidance notes that the pollutants included in the HI calculation are any pollutants that show the effect being assessed, regardless of the critical effect upon which the RfC is based. The guidance cautions that if the target organ or toxic effect for which the HI is calculated is different from the RfC's critical effect, then the RfC for that chemical will be an overestimate, that is, the resultant HI potentially may be overprotective. Conversely, since the calculation of a HI does not account for the fact that the potency of a mixture of HAP can be more potent than the sum of the individual HAP potencies, a HI may potentially be underprotective in some situations. Options for establishing a HI limit. One consideration in establishing a HI limit is whether the analysis considers the total ambient air concentrations of all the emitted HAP to which the public is exposed. 5 There are several options for establishing a HI limit for the section 112( d)( 4) analysis that reflect, to varying degrees, public exposure. One option is to allow the HI posed by all threshold HAP emitted from automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations at the facility to be no greater than one. This approach is protective if no additional threshold HAP exposures would be anticipated from other sources at, or in the vicinity of, the facility or through other routes of exposure ( e. g., through dermal absorption). A second option is to adopt a `` default percentage'' approach, whereby the HI limit of the HAP emitted by the facility is set at some percentage or fraction of one ( e. g., 20 percent or 0.2). This approach recognizes the fact that the facility in question is only one of many sources of threshold HAP to which people are typically exposed every day. Because noncancer risk assessment is predicated on total exposure or dose, and because risk assessments focus only on an individual source, establishing a HI limit of 0.2 would account for an assumption that 20 percent of an individual's total exposure is from that individual source. For the purposes of this discussion, we will call all sources of HAP, other than operations within the source category at the facility in question, `` background'' sources. If the affected source is allowed to emit HAP such that its own impacts could result in HI values of one, total exposures to threshold HAP in the vicinity of the facility could be substantially greater than one due to background sources, and this would not be protective of public health since only HI values below one are considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. Thus, setting the HI limit for the facility at some default percentage of one will provide a buffer which would help to ensure that total exposures to threshold HAP near the facility ( i. e., in combination with exposures due to background sources) will generally not exceed one and can generally be considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. The EPA requests comment on using the `` default percentage'' approach and on setting the default HI limit at 0.2. The EPA is also requesting comment on whether an alternative HI limit, in some multiple of one, would be a more appropriate applicability cutoff. A third option is to use available data ( from scientific literature or EPA studies, for example) to determine background concentrations of HAP, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78629 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 6 See http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ nata. 7 See http:// www. atsdr. cdc. gov/ toxpro2. html. 8 `` A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA 450/ 4 92 001. David E. Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March 1992. 9 `` Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.'' NCEA F 0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3 9ff. http:// www. epa. gov/ ncea/ raf/ pdfs/ cancer_ gls. pdf. possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used to estimate the exposures to HAP from activities other than automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating operations. For example, EPA's National­ Scale Air Toxics Assessment ( NATA) 6 and ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles 7 contain information about background concentrations of some HAP in the atmosphere and other media. The combined exposures from an affected source and from background emissions ( as determined from the literature or studies) would then not be allowed to exceed a HI limit of 1.0. The EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of setting the HI limit at one for such an analysis. A fourth option is to allow facilities to estimate or measure their own facility­ specific background HAP concentrations for use in their analysis. With regard to the third and fourth options, EPA requests comment on how these analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA requests comment on how the analyses should take into account background exposure levels from air, water, food, and soil encountered by the individuals exposed to emissions from this source category. In addition, we request comment on how such analyses should account for potential increases in exposures due to the use of a new HAP or the increased use of a previously emitted HAP, or the effect of other nearby sources that release HAP. The EPA requests comment on the feasibility and scientific validity of each of these or other options. Finally, EPA requests comment on how we should implement the section 112( d)( 4) applicability cutoffs, including appropriate mechanisms for applying cutoffs to individual facilities. For example, would the title V permit process provide an appropriate mechanism? Tiered analytical approach for predicting exposure. Establishing that a facility meets the cutoffs established under section 112( d)( 4) will necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we would promote a tiered analysis for these determinations. A tiered analysis involves making successive refinements in modeling methodologies and input data to derive successively less conservative, more realistic estimates of pollutant concentrations in air and estimates of risk. As a first tier of analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple look­ up tables based on the results of air dispersion modeling conducted using conservative input assumptions. By specifying a limited number of input parameters, such as stack height, distance to property line, and emission rate, a facility could use these look­ up tables to determine easily whether the emissions from their sources might cause a HI limit to be exceeded. A facility that does not pass this initial conservative screening analysis could implement increasingly more sitespecific and resource­ intensive tiers of analysis using EPA­ approved modeling procedures in an attempt to demonstrate that exposure to emissions from the facility does not exceed the HI limit. Existing EPA guidance could provide the basis for conducting such a tiered analysis. 8 The EPA requests comment on methods for constructing and implementing a tiered analysis for determining applicability of the section 112( d)( 4) criteria to specific automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating sources. Ambient monitoring data could possibly be used to supplement or supplant the tiered modeling analysis described above. We envision that the appropriate monitoring to support such a determination could be extensive. The EPA requests comment on the appropriate use of monitoring in the determinations described above. Accounting for dose­ response relationships. In the past, EPA routinely treated carcinogens as non­ threshold pollutants. The EPA recognizes that advances in risk assessment science and policy may affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and non­ threshold HAP. The EPA's draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 9 suggest that carcinogens be assigned non­ linear dose­ response relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible that doseresponse curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a dose greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects. It is possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by this source category would determine that one or more of the carcinogens in the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a carcinogen that exhibits a non­ linear dose­ response relationship but does not have a threshold. The dose­ response assessment for formaldehyde is currently undergoing revision by EPA. As part of this revision effort, EPA is evaluating formaldehyde as a potential non­ linear carcinogen. The revised dose­ response assessment will be subject to review by the EPA Science Advisory Board, followed by full consensus review, before adoption into the EPA's IRIS. At this time, EPA estimates that the consensus review will be completed by the end of 2003. The revision of the dose­ response assessment could affect the potency factor of formaldehyde, as well as its status as a threshold or non­ threshold pollutant. At this time, the outcome is not known. In addition to the current reassessment by EPA, there have been several reassessments of the toxicity and carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in recent years, including work by the World Health Organization and the Canadian Ministry of Health. The EPA requests comment on how we should consider the state of the science as it relates to the treatment of threshold pollutants when making determinations under section 112( d)( 4). In addition, EPA requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a non­ threshold carcinogenic HAP at which it would be appropriate to allow a facility to use the scenarios discussed under the section 112( d)( 4) approach. Risk assessment results. The results of the human health risk assessments described below are based on approaches for quantifying exposure, risk, and cancer incidence that carry significant assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations. For example, in conducting these types of analyses, there are typically many uncertainties regarding dose­ response functions, levels of exposure, exposed populations, air quality modeling applications, emission levels, and control effectiveness. Because the estimates derived from the various scoping approaches are necessarily rough, we are concerned that they not convey a false sense of precision. Any point estimates of risk reduction or benefits generated by these approaches should be considered as part of a range of potential estimates. If the final rule is implemented as proposed at all automobile and lightduty truck surface coating facilities, the number of people exposed to HI values equal to, or greater than, one was estimated to be reduced from about 100 to about ten. The number of people exposed to HI values of 0.2 or greater was predicted to decrease from about VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78630 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 3,500 to about 1,200. ( Details of these analyses are available in the docket.) Based on the results of this rough assessment, if the section 112( d)( 4) approach is applied only to threshold pollutants, EPA estimates that none of the facilities in this source category could obtain an exemption from regulation, since all, or nearly all, facilities emit some amount of one or more non­ threshold pollutants. This application of the section 112( d)( 4) approach is estimated to produce minimal potential cost savings. If formaldehyde and EGBE are determined to be threshold carcinogens, these estimates could change. The second scenario under the section 112( d)( 4) provision would apply to both threshold and non­ threshold pollutants. If this scenario is selected, EPA estimates, using a HI limit of one and treating 10 ¥ 6 as a cancer risk threshold, that as many as 54 of the facilities in the source category may be exempt from the proposed rule. The EPA estimates in this case that the annualized cost of the proposed rule would be about $ 9 million per year, resulting in cost savings of about $ 145 million per year ( as compared to establishing a MACT standard for all plants in the industry). Using a HI limit of 0.2 and treating 10 ¥ 6 as a cancer risk threshold, EPA estimates that as many as 41 facilities may be exempt from the proposed rule. The EPA estimates in this case that the annualized cost of the proposed rule would be about $ 66 million per year, resulting in cost savings of about $ 88 million per year ( as compared to establishing a MACT standard for all plants in the industry). The EPA does not expect the third scenario, which would allow emission point exemptions, to be applicable for the automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating source category because mixtures of threshold and non­ threshold pollutants are co­ emitted, and the same emission controls would apply to both. The risk estimates from this rough assessment are based on typical facility configurations ( i. e., model plants) and, as such, they are subject to significant uncertainties, such that the actual risks at any one facility could be significantly higher or lower. Therefore, while these risk estimates assist in providing a broad picture of impacts across the source category, they should not be the basis for an exemption from the requirements of the proposed rule. Rather, any such exemption should be based on an estimate of the facilityspecific risks which would require sitespecific data and a more refined analysis. For either of the first two approaches described above, the actual number of facilities that would qualify for an exemption would depend upon sitespecific risk assessments and the specified HI limit ( see earlier discussion of HI limit). If the section 112( d)( 4) approach were adopted, the requirements of the proposed rule would not apply to any source that demonstrates, based on a tiered analysis that includes EPA­ approved modeling of the affected source's emissions, that the anticipated HAP exposures do not exceed the specified HI limit. 3. Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112( c)( 9)( B) of the CAA The EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112( c)( 1), in order to facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section 112 of the CAA. Further, section 112( c)( 9)( B) allows EPA to delete a category ( or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated: ( 1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that ``* * * no source in the category * * * emits ( carcinogenic) air pollutants in quantities which may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than 1 in 1 million to the individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of such pollutants from the source * * *''; ( 2) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse noncancer health effects, that ``* * * emissions from no source in the category or subcategory * * * exceed a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of safety * * *''; and ( 3) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse environmental effects, that `` no adverse environmental effect will result from emissions from any source. * * *'' Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white papers prepared by industry representatives and discussed previously ( see docket A 2001 22), EPA is considering whether it would be possible to establish a subcategory of facilities within the larger source category that would meet the risk­ based criteria for delisting. Such criteria would likely include the same requirements as described previously for the second scenario under the section 112( d)( 4) approach, whereby a facility would be in the low­ risk subcategory if its emissions of threshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed the HI limits, and if its emissions of non­ threshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed a cancer risk level of 10 ¥ 6. The EPA requests comment on what an appropriate HI limit would be for a determination that a facility be included in the low­ risk subcategory. Since each facility in such a subcategory would be a low­ risk facility ( i. e., each would meet these criteria), the subcategory could be delisted in accordance with section 112( c)( 9), thereby limiting the costs and impacts of the proposed MACT rule to only those facilities that do not qualify for subcategorization and delisting. The EPA estimates that the maximum potential of utilizing this approach would be the same as that of applying the section 112( d)( 4) approach for threshold and non­ threshold pollutants, though the actual impact is likely to be less. For example, with a HI value limit of one and treating 10 ¥ 6 as a cancer risk threshold, as many as 54 of the facilities may be exempted under this approach. Alternatively, with a HI limit of 0.2 and treating 10 ¥ 6 as a cancer risk threshold, as many as 41 facilities may be exempted under this approach. Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted subcategory would be responsible for providing all data required to determine whether they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that could not demonstrate that they are eligible to be included in the low­ risk subcategory would be subject to MACT and possible future residual risk standards. The EPA solicits comment on implementing a risk­ based approach for establishing subcategories of automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facilities. Establishing that a facility qualifies for the low­ risk subcategory under section 112( c)( 9) will necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we would employ the same tiered analysis described earlier in the section 112( d)( 4) discussion for these determinations. One concern that EPA has with respect to the section 112( c)( 9) approach is the effect that it could have on the MACT floors. If many of the facilities in the low­ risk subcategory are wellcontrolled that could make the MACT floor less stringent for the remaining facilities. One approach that has been suggested to mitigate this effect would be to establish the MACT floor now based on controls in place for the entire category and to allow facilities to become part of the low­ risk subcategory in the future, after the MACT standards are established. This would allow lowrisk facilities to use the section 112( c)( 9) exemption without affecting the MACT VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78631 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules floor calculation. The EPA requests comment on this suggested approach. Another scenario under the section 112( c)( 9) approach would be to define a subcategory of facilities within the source category based upon technological differences, such as differences in production rate, emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability. The EPA requests comment on how we might establish subcategories based on these, or other, source characteristics. If it could then be determined that each source in this technologically­ defined subcategory presents a low risk to the surrounding community, the subcategory could then be delisted in accordance with section 112( c)( 9). The EPA requests comment on the concept of identifying technologically­ based subcategories that may include only low­ risk facilities within the source category. If a section 112( c)( 9) approach were adopted, the requirements of the proposed rule would not apply to any source that demonstrates that it belongs in a subcategory which has been delisted under section 112( c)( 9). Consideration of criteria pollutants. Finally, EPA projects that adoption of the MACT floor level of controls would result in increases in nitrogen oxide ( NOX) emissions. This pollutant is a precursor in the formation of ozone and fine particulate matter ( PM). Ozone has been associated with a variety of adverse health effects such as reduced lung function, respiratory symptoms ( e. g., cough and chest pain) and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory causes. Fine PM has been associated with a variety of adverse health effects such as premature mortality, chronic bronchitis, and increased frequency of asthma attacks. The EPA requests comments on the extent to which consideration should be given to the adverse effects of the possible increase in NOX emissions from applying MACT technology, in the context of implementing our authority under section 112( c)( 9) or other exemptions. V. How Will the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, Subparts BB of the Hazardous Waste Regulations Be Implemented in the States? A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States Under section 3006 of the RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified State to administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the State in lieu of the Federal program and to issue and enforce permits in the State. A State may receive authorization by following the approval process described under 40 CFR 271.21. See 40 CFR part 271 for the overall standards and requirements for authorization. The EPA continues to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. An authorized State also continues to have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under State law. After a State receives initial authorization, new Federal requirements promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) do not apply in that State until the State adopts and receives authorization for equivalent State requirements. In contrast, under RCRA section 3006( g) ( 42 U. S. C. 6926( g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions promulgated pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in authorized States at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. As such, EPA carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the State to do so. Authorized States are required to modify their programs when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. The RCRA section 3009 allows the States to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program. ( See also section 271.1( i)). Therefore, authorized States are not required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non­ HSWA, that are considered less stringent than existing Federal requirements. B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposed Amendments Currently, the air emissions from the collection, transmission, and storage of purged paint and solvent at automobile and light­ duty truck assembly plants are regulated under the authority of RCRA ( see 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts BB). The proposed amendments would exempt these wastes from regulation under RCRA and defer regulation to the CAA requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, which is also being proposed today. This exemption is considered to be less stringent than the existing RCRA regulations and, therefore, States are not required to adopt and seek authorization for today's proposed exemption. However, EPA will strongly encourage States to adopt today's proposed RCRA provisions and seek authorization for them to prevent duplication with the new NESHAP when final. VI. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation We welcome comments from interested persons on any aspect of the proposed standards and on any statement( s) in this preamble or in the referenced supporting documents. In particular, we request comments on how monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements can be consolidated for sources that are subject to more than one rule. For example, all automobile and light­ duty truck assembly plants are subject to VOC regulations and some may perform coating activities which would be subject to the NESHAP for plastic parts coating or miscellaneous metal parts coating, both currently under development. Supporting data and detailed analyses should be submitted with comments to allow us to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be directed to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A 2001 22 ( see ADDRESSES). Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted on or before the date specified in DATES. VII. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the 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, it has been determined VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78632 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules that the proposed rule is a `` significant regulatory action'' because it could have an annual impact on the economy of over $ 100 million. Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. As stipulated in Executive Order 12866, in deciding how or whether to regulate, EPA is required to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. To this end, EPA prepared a detailed benefit­ cost analysis in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Coatings NESHAP,'' which is contained in the docket. The following is a summary of the benefitcost analysis: It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the rule as proposed, HAP emissions will be reduced from 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy. This represents a 60 percent reduction ( or 6,000 tpy) of toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. Based on scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years, the EPA has classified ethylene glycol monobutyl ether ( EGBE), one of the glycol ethers, as a `` possible human carcinogen,'' while ethylbenzene, MEK, toluene, and xylenes are considered by the EPA as `` not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.'' At this time, we are unable to provide a comprehensive quantification and monetization of the HAP­ related benefits of this proposal. Exposure to HAP can result in the incidence of respiratory irritation, chest constriction, gastric irritation, eye, nose, and throat irritation as well as neurological and blood effects. Specifically, exposure to EGBE may result in neurological and blood effects, including fatigue, nausea, tremor, and anemia. Though no reliable human epidemiological study is available to address the potential carcinogenicity of EGBE, a draft report of a 2­ year rodent inhalation study reported equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity in female rats and male mice. Exposure to MEK may lead to eye, nose, and throat irritation while methanol may lead to blurred vision, headache, dizziness, and nausea. Toluene may cause effects to the central nervous system, such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and nausea. In addition, chronic exposure to this HAP can lead to tremors, decreased brain size, involuntary eye movements, and impairment of speech, hearing, and vision. Xylenes, a mixture of three closely related compounds, may cause nose and throat irritation, nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and tremors. The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from automobile and light­ duty truck coating operations are also expected to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, particularly VOC. Specifically, the proposed rule achieves a 12,000 to 18,000 tpy reduction in VOC. The VOC is a precursor to tropospheric ( ground­ level) ozone and a small percentage also precipitate in the atmosphere to form PM. Although we have not estimated the monetary value associated with VOC reductions, the benefits can be substantial. Health and welfare effects from exposure to ground­ level ozone are well documented. Elevated concentrations of ground­ level ozone primarily may result in acute respiratory­ related impacts such as coughing and difficulty breathing. Chronic exposure to ground­ level ozone may lead to structural damage to the lungs, alterations in lung capacity and breathing frequency, increased sensitivity of airways, eye, nose, and throat irritation, malaise, and nausea. Adverse ozone welfare effects include damage to agricultural crops, ornamental plants, and materials damage. Though only a small fraction of VOC forms PM, exposure to PM can result in human health and welfare effects including excess deaths, morbidity, soiling and materials damage, as well as reduced visibility. To the extent that reduced exposure to HAP and VOC reduces the instances of the above described health effects, benefits from the proposed rule are realized by society through an improvement in environmental quality. Benefit­ cost comparison ( net benefits) is a tool used to evaluate the reallocation of society's resources used to address the pollution externality created by the coatings operations at automobile and light­ duty truck plants. The additional costs of internalizing the pollution produced at major sources of emissions from automobile and lightduty truck manufacturing facilities can be compared to the improvement in society's well­ being from a cleaner and healthier environment. Comparing benefits of the proposed rule to the costs imposed by the alternative methods to control emissions optimally identifies a strategy that results in the highest net benefit to society. In the case of the proposed automobiles and light­ duty trucks coating NESHAP, we are proposing only one option, the minimum level of control mandated by the CAA or the MACT floor. Based on estimated compliance costs associated with this proposed rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected industry, the estimated social costs of this proposed rule are $ 161 million ( 1999 dollars). 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.'' Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 13132, it has been determined that the proposed rule does not have `` federalism implications'' because it does not meet the necessary criteria. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials to enable them to provide timely input in the development of the proposed regulation. C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' ( 65 FR VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78633 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 10 U. S. Department of Energy. 1999. Electric Power Annual, Volume I. Table A2: Industry Capability by Fuel Source and Industry Sector, 1999 and 1998 ( Megawatts). 11 U. S. Department of Energy. 1999. Natural Gas Annual. Table 1: Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, 1995 1999. 67249, November 9, 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.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or operate automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA 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 considered by the Agency. The EPA interprets 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. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish environmental standards based on an assessment of health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain actions identified as `` significant energy actions.'' Section 4( b) of Executive Order 13211 defines `` significant energy actions'' as `` any action by an agency ( normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: ( 1)( i) That is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and ( ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or ( 2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.'' This proposed rule is not a `` significant energy action'' because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The proposed rule affects the automobile and light­ duty truck manufacturing industries. There is no crude oil, fuel, or coal production from these industries, therefore there is no direct effect on such energy production related to implementation of the rule as proposed. In addition, the cost of energy distribution should not be affected by this proposal at all since this proposed rule does not affect energy distribution facilities. The proposed rule is projected to trigger an increase in energy use due to the installation and operation of additional pollution control equipment. The estimated increase in energy consumption is 4.9 billion standard cubic feet per year of natural gas and 180 million kilowatt hours per year of electricity nationwide. The nationwide cost of this increased energy consumption is estimated at $ 26 million per year. The increase in energy costs does not reflect changes in energy prices, but rather an increase in the quantity of electricity and natural gas demanded. Given that the existing electricity generation capacity in the United States was 785,990 megawatts in 1999 10 and that 23,755 billion cubic feet of natural gas was produced domestically in the same year, 11 the proposed rule is not likely to have any significant adverse impact on energy prices, distribution, availability, or use. 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, EPA 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 aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective 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 EPA 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 EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. We have determined that the proposed rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, we have prepared a written statement ( titled `` Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis for the Proposed Automobiles and Light­ Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP'') under section 202 of the UMRA which is summarized below. 1. Statutory Authority The statutory authority for this rulemaking is section 112 of the CAA, enacted to reduce nationwide air toxic emissions. In compliance with UMRA section 205( a), we identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Additional information on the costs and environmental impacts of these VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78634 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules regulatory alternatives is presented in the docket. The regulatory alternative upon which the proposed rule is based represents the MACT floor for automobile and light­ duty truck coating operations and, as a result, is the least costly and least burdensome alternative. 2. Social Costs and Benefits The RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including EPA's assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Automobiles and Light­ Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP'' in the docket. Based on the estimated compliance costs associated with the proposed rule and the predicted changes in prices and production in the affected industry, the estimated annual social costs of the proposed rule is projected to be $ 161 million ( 1999 dollars). It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the rule as proposed, HAP will be reduced from 10,000 tpy to 4,000 tpy. This represents a 60 percent reduction ( 6,000 tpy) of toluene, xylene, glycol ethers, MEK, MIBK, ethylbenzene, and methanol. Based on scientific studies conducted over the past 20 years, EPA has classified EGBE as a `` possible human carcinogen,'' while ethylbenzene, MEK, toluene, and xylenes are considered by the Agency as `` not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.'' The studies upon which these classifications are based have worked toward the determination of a relationship between exposure to these HAP and the onset of cancer. However, there are several questions remaining on how cancers that may result from exposure to these HAP can be quantified in terms of dollars. Therefore, EPA is unable to provide a monetized estimate of the benefits of HAP reduced by the proposed rule at this time. Exposure to HAP can result in the incidence of respiratory irritation, chest constriction, gastric irritation, eye, nose, and throat irritation, as well as neurological and blood effects, including fatigue, nausea, tremor, and anemia. The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from automobile and light­ duty truck coating operations is also expected to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, particularly VOC. Specifically, this proposed rule achieves a 12,000 to 18,000 tpy reduction in VOC. The VOC is a precursor to tropospheric ( ground­ level) ozone and a small percentage also precipitate in the atmosphere to form PM. Although we have not estimated the monetary value associated with VOC reductions, the benefits can be substantial. Health and welfare effects from exposure to ground­ level ozone are well documented. Elevated concentrations of ground­ level ozone primarily may result in acute respiratory­ related impacts such as coughing and difficulty breathing. Chronic exposure to ground­ level ozone may lead to structural damage to the lungs, alterations in lung capacity and breathing frequency, increased sensitivity of airways, eye, nose, and throat irritation, malaise, and nausea. Adverse ozone welfare effects include damage to agricultural crops, ornamental plants, and materials damage. Though only a small fraction of VOC forms PM, exposure to PM can result in human health and welfare effects, including excess deaths, morbidity, soiling and materials damage, as well as reduced visibility. To the extent that reduced exposure to HAP and VOC reduces the instances of the above described health effects, benefits from the proposed rule would be realized by society through an improvement in environmental quality. 3. Future and Disproportionate Costs The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the proposed rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate budgetary effects of the proposed rule on any particular areas of the country, State, or local governments, types of communities ( e. g., urban, rural), or particular industry segments. 4. Effects on the National Economy The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the proposed rule on the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of United States goods and services if we determine that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and material. The nationwide economic impact of the proposed rule is presented in the `` Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Automobiles and Light­ Duty Trucks Coating NESHAP.'' That analysis provides estimates of the effect of the proposed rule on some of the categories mentioned above. The estimated direct cost to the automobile and light­ duty truck manufacturing industry of compliance with the proposed rule is approximately $ 154 million ( 1999 dollars) annually. Indirect costs of the proposed rule to industries other than the automobile and light­ duty truck manufacturing industry, governments, tribes, and other affected entities are expected to be minor. The estimated annual costs is minimal when compared to the nominal gross domestic product of $ 9,255 billion reported for the Nation in 1999. The proposed rule is expected to have little impact on domestic productivity, economic growth, full employment, energy markets, creation of productive jobs, and the international competitiveness of United States goods and services. 5. Consultation With Government Officials Although this proposed rule does not affect any State, local, or tribal governments, EPA has consulted with State and local air pollution control officials. The EPA has held meetings on the proposed rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies, environmental groups, consultants and vendors, and other interested parties. The EPA has added materials to the docket to document these meetings. G. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601, et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating industry, a small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business according to Small Business Administration size standards for companies identified by NAICS codes 33611 ( automobile manufacturing) and 33621 ( light­ duty truck and utility vehicle manufacturing) with 1,000 or fewer employees; ( 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 forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Based on the above definition, there are no small entities presently engaged in automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that the proposed VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78635 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the observation that the proposed rule affects no small entities since none are engaged in the surface coating of automobiles and lightduty trucks. H. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501, et seq. An ICR document has been prepared by EPA ( ICR No. 2045.01) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the U. S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 566 1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information collection 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 standards would not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the final rule) is estimated to be 33,436 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of $ 982,742. This estimate includes a one­ time performance test and report ( with repeat tests where needed) for those affected sources that choose to comply through the installation of new capture systems and control devices; one­ time purchase and installation of CPMS for those affected sources that choose to comply through the installation of new capture systems and control devices; preparation and submission of work practice plans; one­ time submission of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual excess emission reports; maintenance inspections; notifications; and recordkeeping. There are no additional capital/ startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3­ year period of the ICR. The monitoring related operation and maintenance costs over this same period are estimated at $ 7,000. 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 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 EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Comments are requested on EPA'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. By U. S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; or by courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6143, Washington, DC 20460 (( 202) 566 1700); and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 24, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 23, 2003. 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 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA cites the following standards in the proposed rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 24, 25, 25A, 204, 204A through F, and 311. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 204A through F, and 311. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the docket for the proposed rule ( docket A 2001 22). The six VCS described below were identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rule. The VCS ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10, `` Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in the proposed rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part 10, is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B. The two VCS, ASTM D2697 86 ( 1998), `` Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings'' and ASTM D6093 97, `` Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' are cited in the proposed rule as acceptable alternatives to EPA Method 24 to determine the volume solids content of coatings. Currently, EPA Method 24 does not have a procedure for determining the volume of solids in coatings. The two VCS standards augment the procedures in Method 24, which currently states that volume solids content be calculated from the coating manufacturer's formulation. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78636 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules The VCS ASTM D5066 91 ( 2001), `` Standard Test Method for Determination of the Transfer Efficiency Under Production Conditions for Spray Application of Automotive Paints­ Weight Basis,'' is cited in the proposed rule as an acceptable procedure to measure transfer efficiency of spray coatings. Currently, no EPA method is available to measure transfer efficiency. The two VCS, ASTM D6266 00a, `` Test Method for Determining the Amount of Volatile Organic Compound ( VOC) Released from Waterborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device ( Abatement)'' and ASTM D5087 91 ( 1994), `` Standard Test Method for Determining Amount of Volatile Organic Compound ( VOC) Released from Solventborne Automotive Coatings and Available for Removal in a VOC Control Device ( Abatement),'' are cited in the proposed rule as acceptable procedures to measure solvent loading ( similar to capture efficiency) for the heated flash zone for waterborne basecoats and for bake ovens. Currently, no EPA method is available to measure solvent release potential from automobile and light­ duty truck coatings in order to determine the potential solvent loading from the coatings used. Six VCS: ASTM D1475 90, ASTM D2369 95, ASTM D3792 91, ASTM D4017 96a, ASTM D4457 85 ( Reapproved 91), and ASTM D5403 93 are already incorporated by reference in EPA Method 24. Five VCS: ASTM D1979 91, ASTM D3432 89, ASTM D4747 87, ASTM D4827 93, and ASTM PS9 94 are incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311. In addition to the VCS EPA proposes to use, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified 14 other VCS. The EPA determined that 10 of these 14 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. ( See docket A 2001 22 for further information on the methods.) Four of the 14 VCS identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of the proposed rule because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/ BSR MFC 13M, `` Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 ( and possibly 1); ASME/ BSR MFC 12M, `` Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; ISO/ DIS 12039, `` Stationary Source Emissions­ Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and Oxygen Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A; and ISO/ PWI 17895, `` Paints and Varnishes­ Determination of the Volatile Organic Compound Content of Water­ based Emulsion Paints,'' for EPA Method 24. Sections 63.3161 and 63.3166 to the proposed standards list the EPA testing methods included in the proposed rule. Under § 63.7( f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods in place of any of the EPA testing methods. During the development of the proposed rulemaking, EPA searched for VCS that might be applicable and included ASTM test methods as appropriate for determination of volume fraction of coating solids. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 264 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds. 40 CFR Part 265 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds, Water supply. Dated: November 26, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 63, 264, and 265 of the Code of Federal Regulations are 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 IIII to read as follows: Subpart IIII National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light­ Duty Trucks Sec. What This Subpart Covers 63.3080 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.3081 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.3082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.3083 When do I have to comply with this subpart? Emission Limitations 63.3090 What emission limits must I meet for a new or reconstructed affected source? 63.3091 What emission limits must I meet for an existing affected source? 63.3092 How must I control emissions from my electrodeposition primer system if I want to comply with the combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive emission limit? 63.3093 What operating limits must I meet? 63.3094 What work practice standards must I meet? General Compliance Requirements 63.3100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63.3101 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.3110 What notifications must I submit? 63.3120 What reports must I submit? 63.3130 What records must I keep? 63.3131 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? Compliance Requirements for Adhesive, Sealer, and Deadener 63.3150 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? 63.3151 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? 63.3152 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? Compliance Requirements for the Combined Electrodeposition Primer, Primer­ Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates 63.3160 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.3161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? 63.3162 [ Reserved] 63.3163 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? 63.3164 What are the general requirements for performance tests? 63.3165 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? 63.3166 How do I determine the add­ on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78637 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Proposed December 4, 2002 ( 67 FR 72275). 2 Proposed August 13, 2002 ( 67 FR 52780). 63.3167 How do I establish the add­ on control device operating limits during the performance test? 63.3168 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance? Compliance Requirements for the Combined Primer­ Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates and the Separate Electrodeposition Primer Emission Rates 63.3170 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.3171 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? 63.3172 [ Reserved] 63.3173 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? Other Requirements and Information 63.3175 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.3176 What definitions apply to this subpart? Tables to Subpart IIII of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart IIII of Part 63 Operating Limits for Capture Systems and Add­ On Control Devices Table 2 to Subpart IIII of Part 63 Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart IIII of Part 63 Table 3 to Subpart IIII of Part 63 Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Solvents and Solvent Blends Table 4 to Subpart IIII of Part 63 Default Organic HAP Mass Fraction for Petroleum Solvent Groups Subpart IIII National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light­ Duty Trucks What This Subpart Covers § 63.3080 What is the purpose of this subpart? This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for facilities which surface coat new automobile or light­ duty truck bodies or collections of body parts for new automobiles or new light­ duty trucks. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations. § 63.3081 Am I subject to this subpart? ( a) Except as provided in paragraph ( c) of this section, the source category to which this subpart applies is automobile and light­ duty truck surface coating. ( b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a new, reconstructed, or existing affected source, as defined in § 63.3082, that is located at a facility which surface coats new automobile or new light­ duty truck bodies or collections of body parts for new automobiles or new light­ duty trucks, and that is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of emissions of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP). A major source of HAP emissions is 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 any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams ( Mg) ( 10 tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 Mg ( 25 tons) or more per year. ( c) This subpart does not apply to surface coating, surface preparation, or cleaning activities that meet the criteria of paragraph ( c)( 1) or ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Surface coating subject to any other NESHAP in this part as of [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], including plastic parts and products surface coating 1 and miscellaneous metal parts surface coating .2 ( 2) Surface coating that occurs at research or laboratory facilities or that is part of janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations, including maintenance spray booths used for painting production equipment, furniture, signage, etc., for use within the plant. § 63.3082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? ( a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, and existing affected source. ( b) The affected source is the collection of all of the items listed in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section that are used for surface coating of new automobile or light­ duty truck bodies or collections of body parts for new automobiles or new light­ duty trucks: ( 1) All coating operations as defined in § 63.3176; ( 2) All storage containers and mixing vessels in which coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored or mixed; ( 3) All manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and ( 4) All storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and containers used for conveying waste materials generated by a coating operation. ( c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced its construction after December 24, 2002, and the construction is of a completely new automobile and light­ duty truck assembly plant where previously no automobile and light­ duty truck assembly plant had existed, or a completely new automobile and lightduty truck paint shop where previously no automobile and light­ duty truck assembly plant had existed. ( d) An affected source is reconstructed if it contains a paint shop that has undergone replacement of components to such an extent that: ( 1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeded 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a new paint shop; and ( 2) It was technologically and economically feasible for the reconstructed source to meet the relevant standards established by the Administrator pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). ( e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed. § 63.3083 When do I have to comply with this subpart? The date by which you must comply with this subpart is called the compliance date. The compliance date for each type of affected source is specified in paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section. The compliance date begins the initial compliance period during which you conduct the initial compliance demonstrations described in § § 63.3150, 63.3160 and 63.3170. ( a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, the compliance date is the applicable date in paragraph ( a)( 1) or ( 2) of this section: ( 1) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source is before [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the compliance date is [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ( 2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the compliance date is the date of initial startup of your affected source. ( b) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is the date 3 years after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ( c) For an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP emissions, the compliance date is specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) For any portion of the source that becomes a new or reconstructed affected source subject to this subpart, the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78638 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules compliance date is the date of initial startup of the affected source or [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. ( 2) For any portion of the source that becomes an existing affected source subject to this subpart, the compliance date is the date 1 year after the area source becomes a major source or 3 years after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. ( d) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.3110 according to the dates specified in that section and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before the compliance dates described in paragraphs ( a) through ( c) of this section. Emission Limitations § 63.3090 What emission limits must I meet for a new or reconstructed affected source? ( a) Except as provided in paragraph ( b) of this section, you must limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.036 kilogram ( kg)/ liter ( 0.30 pound ( lb)/ gallon ( gal)) of coating solids deposited during each month, determined according to the requirements in § 63.3161. ( b) If you meet the operating limits of § 63.3092( a) and ( b), you must either meet the emission limits of paragraph ( a) of this section or limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.060 kg/ liter ( 0.50 lb/ gal) of applied coating solids used during each month, determined according to the requirements in § 63.3171. If you do not have an electrodeposition primer system, you must limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.060 kg/ liter ( 0.50 lb/ gal) of applied coating solids used during each month, determined according to the requirements in § 63.3171. ( c) You must limit average organic HAP emissions from all adhesive and sealer materials other than materials used as components of glass bonding systems to no more than 0.010 kg/ kg ( lb/ lb) of adhesive and sealer material used during each month. ( d) You must limit average organic HAP emissions from all deadener materials to no more than 0.010 kg/ kg ( lb/ lb) of deadener material used during each month. § 63.3091 What emission limits must I meet for an existing affected source? ( a) Except as provided in paragraph ( b) of this section, you must limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.072 kg/ liter 0.60 lb/ gal) of coating solids deposited during each month, determined according to the requirements in § 63.3161. ( b) If you meet the operating limits of § 63.3092( a) and ( b), you must either meet the emission limits of paragraph ( a) of this section or limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.132 kg/ liter ( 1.10 lb/ gal) of coating solids deposited during each month, determined according to the requirements in § 63.3171. If you do not have an electrodeposition primer system, you must limit combined organic HAP emissions to the atmosphere from primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application to no more than 0.132 kg/ liter ( 1.10 lb/ gal) of coating solids deposited during each month, determined according to the requirements in § 63.3171. ( c) You must limit average organic HAP emissions from all adhesive and sealer materials other than materials used as components of glass bonding systems to no more than 0.010 kg/ kg ( lb/ lb) of adhesive and sealer material used during each month. ( d) You must limit average organic HAP emissions from all deadener materials to no more than 0.010 kg/ kg ( lb/ lb) of deadener material used during each month. § 63.3092 How must I control emissions from my electrodeposition primer system if I want to comply with the combined primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive emission limit? If your electrodeposition primer system meets the requirements of either paragraph ( a) or ( b) of this section, you may choose to comply with the emission limits of § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b) instead of the emission limits of § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a). ( a) Each individual material added to the electrodeposition primer system contains no more than: ( 1) 1.0 percent by weight of any organic HAP; and ( 2) 0.10 percent by weight of any organic HAP which is an Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) defined carcinogen as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4). ( b) Emissions from all bake ovens used to cure electrodeposition primers must be captured and ducted to a control device having a control efficiency of at least 95 percent. § 63.3093 What operating limits must I meet? ( a) You are not required to meet any operating limits for any coating operation( s) without add­ on controls. ( b) For any controlled coating operation( s), you must meet the operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. These operating limits apply to the emission capture and addon control systems on the coating operation( s) for which you use this option, and you must establish the operating limits during the performance test according to the requirements in § 63.3167. You must meet the operating limits at all times after you establish them. ( c) If you choose to meet the emission limitations of § 63.3092( b) and the emission limits of § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b), then you must operate the capture system and add­ on control device used to capture and control emissions from your electrodeposition primer bake oven( s) so that they meet the operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. ( d) If you use an add­ on control device other than those listed in Table 1 to this subpart, or wish to monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a different operating limit, you must apply to the Administrator for approval of alternative monitoring under § 63.8( f). § 63.3094 What work practice standards must I meet? ( a) [ Reserved] ( b) You must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from the storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used in, and waste materials generated by, all coating operations for which emission limits are established under § 63.3090( a) through ( d) or § 63.3091( a) through ( d). The plan must specify practices and procedures to ensure that, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 5) of this section are implemented. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78639 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 1) All organic­ HAP­ containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be stored in closed containers. ( 2) The risk of spills of organic­ HAPcontaining coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be minimized. ( 3) Organic­ HAP­ containing coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed containers or pipes. ( 4) Mixing vessels, other than day tanks equipped with continuous agitation systems, which contain organic­ HAP­ containing coatings and other materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents. ( 5) Emissions of organic HAP must be minimized during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment. ( c) You must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from cleaning and from purging of equipment associated with all coating operations for which emission limits are established under § 63.3090( a) through ( d) or § 63.3091( a) through ( d). ( 1) The plan shall, at a minimum, address each of the operations listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i) through ( viii) of this section in which you use organic HAPcontaining materials or in which there is a potential for emission of organic HAP. ( i) The plan must address vehicle body wipe emissions through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i)( A) through ( E) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Use of solvent­ moistened wipes. ( B) Keeping solvent containers closed when not in use. ( C) Keeping wipe disposal/ recovery containers closed when not in use. ( D) Use of tack­ wipes. ( E) Use of solvents containing less than 1 percent organic HAP by weight. ( ii) The plan must address coating line purging emissions through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( ii)( A) through ( D) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Air/ solvent push­ out. ( B) Capture and reclaim or recovery of purge materials ( excluding applicator nozzles/ tips). ( C) Block painting to the maximum extent feasible. ( D) Use of low­ HAP or no­ HAP solvents for purge. ( iii) The plan must address emissions from flushing of coating systems through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( iii)( A) through ( D) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Keeping solvent tanks closed. ( B) Recovering and recycling solvents. ( C) Keeping recovered/ recycled solvent tanks closed. ( D) Use of low­ HAP or no­ HAP solvents. ( iv) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth grates through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( iv)( A) through ( E) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Controlled burn­ off. ( B) Rinsing with high­ pressure water ( in place). ( C) Rinsing with high­ pressure water ( off line). ( D) Use of spray­ on masking or other type of liquid masking. ( E) Use of low­ HAP or no­ HAP content cleaners. ( v) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth walls through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( v)( A) through ( E) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Use of masking materials ( contact paper, plastic sheet, or other similar type of material). ( B) Use of spray­ on masking. ( C) Use of rags and manual wipes instead of spray application when cleaning walls. ( D) Use of low­ HAP or no­ HAP content cleaners. ( E) Controlled access to cleaning solvents. ( vi) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of spray booth equipment through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( vi)( A) through ( E) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Use of covers on equipment ( disposable or reusable). ( B) Use of parts cleaners ( off­ line submersion cleaning). ( C) Use of spray­ on masking or other protective coatings. ( D) Use of low­ HAP or no­ HAP content cleaners. ( E) Controlled access to cleaning solvents. ( vii) The plan must address emissions from cleaning of external spray booth areas through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( vii)( A) through ( F) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Use of removable floor coverings ( paper, foil, plastic, or similar type of material). ( B) Use of manual and/ or mechanical scrubbers, rags, or wipes instead of spray application. ( C) Use of shoe cleaners to eliminate coating track­ out from spray booths. ( D) Use of booties or shoe wraps. ( E) Use of low­ HAP or no­ HAP content cleaners. ( F) Controlled access to cleaning solvents. ( viii) The plan must address emissions from housekeeping measures not addressed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i) through ( vii) of this section through one or more of the techniques listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1)( viii)( A) through ( C) of this section, or an approved alternative. ( A) Keeping solvent­ laden articles ( cloths, paper, plastic, rags, wipes, and similar items) in covered containers when not in use. ( B) Storing new and used solvents in closed containers. ( C) Transferring of solvents in a manner to minimize the risk of spills. ( 2) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i) through ( viii) of this section, if the type of coatings used in any facility with surface coating operations subject to the requirements of this section are of such a nature that the need for one or more of the practices specified under paragraphs ( c)( 1)( i) through ( viii) is eliminated, then the plan may include approved alternative or equivalent measures that are applicable or necessary during cleaning of storage, conveying, and application equipment. ( d) As provided in § 63.6( g), we, EPA, may choose to grant you permission to use an alternative to the work practice standards in this section. General Compliance Requirements § 63.3100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? ( a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations in § § 63.3090 and 63.3091 at all times, as determined on a monthly basis. ( b) The coating operations must be in compliance with the operating limits for emission capture systems and add­ on control devices required by § 63.3093 at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( c) You must be in compliance with the work practice standards in § 63.3094 at all times. ( d) You must always operate and maintain your affected source including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of complying with this subpart according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 1)( i). ( e) You must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture systems, add­ on control devices, and continuous parameter monitors ( CPM) during the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in § 63.3083 and the date when the initial VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78640 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules emission capture system and add­ on control device performance tests have been completed, as specified in § 63.3160. ( f) If your affected source uses emission capture systems and add­ on control devices, you must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3). The plan must address startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction of the emission capture system or the add­ on control devices. § 63.3101 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 2 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in § § 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. Notifications, Reports, and Records § 63.3110 What notifications must I submit? ( a) General. You must submit the notifications in § § 63.7( b) and ( c), 63.8( f)( 4), and 63.9( b) through ( e) and ( h) that apply to you by the dates specified in those sections, except as provided in paragraphs ( b) and ( c) of this section. ( b) Initial notification. You must submit the Initial Notification required by § 63.9( b) for a new or reconstructed affected source no later than 120 days after initial startup or 120 days after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later. For an existing affected source, you must submit the Initial Notification no later than 1 year after [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ( c) Notification of compliance status. You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.9( h) no later than 30 calendar days following the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.3160 that applies to your affected source. The Notification of Compliance Status must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 12) of this section and in § 63.9( h). ( 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. ( 3) Date of the report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. The reporting period is the initial compliance period described in § 63.3160 that applies to your affected source. ( 4) Identification of the compliance option specified in § 63.3090( a) or ( b) or § 63.3091( a) or ( b) that you used for electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application in the affected source during the initial compliance period. ( 5) Statement of whether or not the affected source achieved the emission limitations for the initial compliance period. ( 6) If you had a deviation, include the information in paragraphs ( c)( 6)( i) and ( ii) of this section. ( i) A description and statement of the cause of the deviation. ( ii) If you failed to meet any of the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090 or § 63.3091, include all the calculations you used to determine the applicable emission rate or applicable average organic HAP content for the emission limit( s) that you failed to meet. You do not need to submit information provided by the materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. ( 7) All data and calculations used to determine the monthly average mass of organic HAP emitted per volume of applied coating solids from: ( i) The combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations if you were eligible for and chose to comply with the emission limits of § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b); or ( ii) The combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations. ( 8) All data and calculations used to determine compliance with the separate limits for electrodeposition primer in § 63.3092( a) or ( b) if you were eligible for and chose to comply with the emission limits of § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b). ( 9) All data and calculations used to determine the monthly mass average HAP content of materials subject to the emission limits of § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). ( 10) All data and calculations used to determine the transfer efficiency for primer­ surfacer and topcoat coatings. ( 11) You must include the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 11)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) For each emission capture system, a summary of the data and copies of the calculations supporting the determination that the emission capture system is a permanent total enclosure ( PTE) or a measurement of the emission capture system efficiency. Include a description of the procedure followed for measuring capture efficiency, summaries of any capture efficiency tests conducted, and any calculations supporting the capture efficiency determination. If you use the data quality objective ( DQO) or lower confidence limit ( LCL) approach, you must also include the statistical calculations to show you meet the DQO or LCL criteria in appendix A to subpart KK of this part. You do not need to submit complete test reports. ( ii) A summary of the results of each add­ on control device performance test. You do not need to submit complete test reports unless requested. ( iii) A list of each emission capture system's and add­ on control device's operating limits and a summary of the data used to calculate those limits. ( 12) A statement of whether or not you developed and implemented the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b) and ( c). § 63.3120 What reports must I submit? ( a) Semiannual compliance reports. You must submit semiannual compliance reports for each affected source according to the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 7) of this section. The semiannual compliance reporting requirements may be satisfied by reports required under other parts of the CAA, as specified in paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section. ( 1) Dates. Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10( a), you must prepare and submit each semiannual compliance report according to the dates specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1)( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the first semiannual reporting period which begins the day after the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.3160 that applies to your affected source and ends on June 30 or December 31, whichever occurs first following the end of the initial compliance period. ( ii) Each subsequent semiannual compliance report must cover the subsequent semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. ( iii) Each 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. ( iv) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78641 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules 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 date specified in paragraph ( a)( 1)( iii) of this section. ( 2) Inclusion with title V report. If you have obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A). If you submit a semiannual compliance report pursuant to this section along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or 40 CFR 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A), and the semiannual compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice in this subpart, its submission shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a semiannual compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority. ( 3) General requirements. The semiannual compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( a)( 3)( i) through ( iv) of this section, and the information specified in paragraphs ( a)( 4) through ( 9) and ( c)( 1) of this section that are applicable to your affected source. ( i) Company name and address. ( ii) 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. ( iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. The reporting period is the 6­ month period ending on June 30 or December 31. ( iv) Identification of the compliance option specified in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b) that you used for electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive application in the affected source during the initial compliance period. ( 4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission limitations, operating limits, or work practices in § § 63.3090, 63.3091, 63.3092, 63.3093, and 63.3094 that apply to you, the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. If you used control devices to comply with the emission limits, and there were no periods during which the continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS) were out of control as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), the semiannual compliance report must include a statement that there were no periods during which the CPMS were out of control during the reporting period. ( 5) Deviations: adhesive, sealer, and deadener. If there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 5)( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which the monthly average organic HAP content exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). ( ii) The volume and organic HAP content of each material used that is subject to the applicable organic HAP content limit. ( iii) The calculation used to determine the average monthly organic HAP content for the month in which the deviation occurred. ( iv) The reason for the deviation. ( 6) Deviations: combined electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer and glass bonding adhesive, or combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive. If there was a deviation from the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090( a) or ( b) or § 63.3091( a) or ( b), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 6)( i) through ( xiv) of this section. ( i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which the monthly organic HAP emission rate from combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a); or the monthly organic HAP emission rate from combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b). ( ii) The calculation used to determine the monthly organic HAP emission rate in accordance with § 63.3161 or § 63.3171. You do not need to submit the background data supporting these calculations, for example information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. ( iii) The date and time that any malfunctions of the capture system or add­ on control devices used to control emissions from these operations started and stopped. ( iv) A brief description of the CPMS. ( v) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit. ( vi) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero ( low­ level) and high­ level checks. ( vii) The date and time period that each CPMS was out of control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). ( viii) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of each bypass of an add­ on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. ( ix) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total source operating time of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and the bypass of each add­ on control device during the semiannual reporting period. ( x) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add­ on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( xi) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total source operating time of the downtime for each CPMS during the semiannual reporting period. ( xii) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation, emission capture system, or add­ on control devices since the last semiannual reporting period. ( xiii) For each deviation from the work practice standards, a description of the deviation, the date and time period of the deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation. ( xiv) A statement of the cause of each deviation. ( 7) Deviations: separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limit. If you used the separate electrodeposition primer organic HAP content limits in § 63.3092( a), and there was a deviation from these limits, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 7)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) Identification of each material used that deviated from the emission limit, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78642 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules and the dates and time periods each was used. ( ii) The determination of mass fraction of each organic HAP for each material identified in paragraph ( a)( 7)( i) of this section. You do not need to submit background data supporting this calculation, for example, information provided by material suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports. ( iii) A statement of the cause of each deviation. ( 8) Deviations: separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control limitations. If you used the separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control limitations in § 63.3092( b), and there was a deviation from these limitations, the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 8)( i) through ( xii) of this section. ( i) The beginning and ending dates of each month during which there was a deviation from the separate electrodeposition primer bake oven capture and control limitations in § 63.3092( b). ( ii) The date and time that any malfunctions of the capture systems or control devices used to control emissions from the electrodeposition primer bake oven started and stopped. ( iii) A brief description of the CPMS. ( iv) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit. ( v) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for zero ( lowlevel and high­ level checks. ( vi) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out of control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). ( vii) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart; date and time period of each bypass of an add­ on control device; and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. ( viii) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total source operating time of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and the bypasses of each addon control device during the semiannual reporting period. ( ix) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from each operating limit in Table 1 to this subpart and bypasses of each add­ on control device during the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( x) A summary of the total duration and the percent of the total source operating time of the downtime for each CPMS during the semiannual reporting period. ( xi) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation, emission capture system, or add­ on control devices since the last semiannual reporting period. ( xii) A statement of the cause of each deviation. ( 9) Deviations: work practice plans. If there was a deviation from an applicable work practice plan developed in accordance with § 63.3094( b) or ( c), the semiannual compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs ( a)( 9)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) The time period during which each deviation occurred. ( ii) The nature of each deviation. ( iii) The corrective action( s) taken to bring the applicable work practices into compliance with the work practice plan. ( b) Performance test reports. If you use add­ on control devices, you must submit reports of performance test results for emission capture systems and add­ on control devices no later than 60 days after completing the tests as specified in § 63.10( d)( 2). ( c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. If you used add­ on control devices and you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) If your actions were consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must include the information specified in § 63.10( d) in the semiannual compliance report required by paragraph ( a) of this section. ( 2) If your actions were not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report as described in paragraphs ( c)( 2)( i) and ( ii) of this section. ( i) You must describe the actions taken during the event in a report delivered by facsimile, telephone, or other means to the Administrator within 2 working days after starting actions that are inconsistent with the plan. ( ii) You must submit a letter to the Administrator within 7 working days after the end of the event, unless you have made alternative arrangements with the Administrator as specified in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). The letter must contain the information specified in § 63.10( d)( 5)( ii). § 63.3130 What records must I keep? You must collect and keep records of the data and information specified in this section. Failure to collect and keep these records is a deviation from the applicable standard. ( a) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, and the documentation supporting each notification and report. ( b) A current copy of information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, such as manufacturer's formulation data, or test data used to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP, the density and the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating, the mass fraction of organic HAP and the density for each thinner, and the mass fraction of organic HAP for each cleaning material. If you conducted testing to determine mass fraction of organic HAP, density, or volume fraction of coating solids, you must keep a copy of the complete test report. If you use information provided to you by the manufacturer or supplier of the material that was based on testing, you must keep the summary sheet of results provided to you by the manufacturer or supplier. If you use the results of an analysis conducted by an outside testing lab, you must keep a copy of the test report. You are not required to obtain the test report or other supporting documentation from the manufacturer or supplier. ( c) For each month, the records specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) For each coating material used for electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations, a record of the volume used in each month, the mass fraction organic HAP content, the density, and the volume fraction of solids. ( 2) For each coating material used for deadener, sealer, or adhesive, a record of the mass used in each month and the mass organic HAP content. ( 3) A record of the calculation of the organic HAP emission rate for electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive for each month if subject to the emission rate limit of § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a). ( 4) A record of the calculation of the organic HAP emission rate for primersurfacer topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive for each month if subject to the emission rate limit of § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b), and a record of the weight fraction of each organic HAP in each material added to the electrodeposition primer system if subject to the limitations of § 63.3092( a). VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78643 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 5) A record, for each month, of the calculation of the average monthly mass organic HAP content of: ( i) Sealers and adhesives; and ( ii) Deadeners. ( d) A record of the name and volume of each cleaning material used during each month. ( e) A record of the mass fraction of organic HAP for each cleaning material used during each month. ( f) A record of the density for each cleaning material used during each month. ( g) A record of the date, time, and duration of each deviation, and for each deviation, a record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. ( h) The records required by § 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through ( v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( i) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and documentation you used to support a determination that the capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent. ( j) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the requirements specified in § 63.3164, including the records specified in paragraphs ( j)( 1) through ( 4) of this section that apply to you. ( 1) Records for a liquid­ touncaptured gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. Records of the mass of total volatile hydrocarbon ( TVH), as measured by Method 204A or F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, for each material used in the coating operation, and the total TVH for all materials used during each capture efficiency test run, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. ( 2) Records for a gas­ to­ gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. Records of the mass of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture system, as measured by Method 204B or C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, at the inlet to the addon control device, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run, as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. ( 3) Records for panel tests. Records needed to document a capture efficiency determination using a panel test as described in § 63.3165( e), including a copy of the test report and calculations performed to convert the panel test results to percent capture efficiency values. ( 4) Records for an alternative protocol. Records needed to document a capture efficiency determination using an alternative method or protocol, if applicable. ( k) The records specified in paragraphs ( k)( 1) and ( 2) of this section for each add­ on control device organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency determination as specified in § 63.3166. ( 1) Records of each add­ on control device performance test conducted according to § § 63.3164 and 63.3166. ( 2) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add­ on control device performance test showing that the performance test was conducted under representative operating conditions. ( l) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the emission capture and add­ on control device operating limits as specified in § 63.3167 and to document compliance with the operating limits as specified in Table 1 to this subpart. ( m) Records of the data and calculations you used to determine the transfer efficiency for primer­ surfacer and topcoat application. ( n) A record of the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b) and ( c) and documentation that you are implementing the plan on a continuous basis. § 63.3131 In what form and for how long must I keep my records? ( a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review according to § 63.10( b)( 1). Where appropriate, the records may be maintained as electronic spreadsheets or as a database. ( b) As specified in § 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 keep each record on site for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record according to § 63.10( b)( 1). You may keep the records off site for the remaining 3 years. Compliance Requirements for Adhesive, Sealer, and Deadener § 63.3150 By what date must I conduct the initial compliance demonstration? You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.3151. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083 and ends on the last day of the month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next month. You must determine the mass average organic HAP content of the materials used each month for each group of materials for which an emission limitation is established in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). The initial compliance demonstration includes the calculations according to § 63.3151 and supporting documentation showing that during the initial compliance period, the mass average organic HAP content for each group of materials was equal to or less than the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). § 63.3151 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations? You must separately calculate the mass average organic HAP content of the materials used during the initial compliance period for each group of materials for which an emission limit is established in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). If every individual material used within a group of materials meets the emission limit for that group of materials, you may demonstrate compliance with that emission limit by documenting the name and the organic HAP content of each material used during the initial compliance period. If any individual material used within a group of materials exceeds the emission limit for that group of materials, you must determine the mass average organic HAP content according to the procedures of paragraphs ( d) and ( e) of this section. ( a) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material used. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78644 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules You must determine the mass fraction of organic HAP for each material used during the compliance period by using one of the options in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) Method 311 ( appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). You may use Method 311 for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP. Use the procedures specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1)( i) and ( ii) of this section when performing a Method 311 test. ( i) Count each organic HAP that is measured to be present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHA­ defined carcinogens, as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4), and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene ( not an OSHA carcinogen) is measured to be 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. Express the mass fraction of each organic HAP you count as a value truncated to four places after the decimal point ( e. g., 0.3791). ( ii) Calculate the total mass fraction of organic HAP in the test material by adding up the individual organic HAP mass fractions and truncating the result to three places after the decimal point ( e. g., 0.7638 truncates to 0.763). ( 2) Method 24 ( appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you may use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic HAP. ( 3) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP once the Administrator has approved it. You must follow the procedure in § 63.7( f) to submit an alternative test method for approval. ( 4) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the test methods specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 3) of this section, such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHAdefined carcinogens, as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4), and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. For example, if toluene ( not an OSHA carcinogen) is 0.5 percent of the material by mass, you do not have to count it. If there is a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted according to paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 3) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence. ( 5) Solvent blends. Solvent blends may be listed as single components for some materials in data provided by manufacturers or suppliers. Solvent blends may contain organic HAP which must be counted toward the total organic HAP mass fraction of the materials. When neither test data nor manufacturer's data for solvent blends are available, you may use the default values for the mass fraction of organic HAP in the solvent blends listed in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart. If you use the tables, you must use the values in Table 3 for all solvent blends that match Table 3 entries, and you may only use Table 4 if the solvent blends in the materials you use do not match any of the solvent blends in Table 3 and you only know whether the blend is aliphatic or aromatic. However, if the results of a Method 311 test indicate higher values than those listed on Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, the Method 311 results will take precedence. ( b) Determine the density of each material used. Determine the density of each material used during the compliance period from test results using ASTM Method D1475 98 or information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475 98 test results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test results will take precedence. ( c) Determine the volume of each material used. Determine the volume ( liters) of each material used during each month by measurement or usage records. ( d) Determine the mass average organic HAP content for each group of materials. Determine the mass average organic HAP content of the materials used during the initial compliance period for each group of materials for which an emission limit is established in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d), using Equations 1 and 2 of this section. ( 1) Calculate the mass average organic HAP content of adhesive and sealer materials other than components of the glass bonding system used in the initial compliance period using Equation 1 of this section: C Vol D W Vol D Eq avg as as j as j as j j r as j as j j r , , , , , , ( . = ( )( )( ) ( )( ) = = 1 1 1) Where: Cavg, as = mass average organic HAP content of adhesives and sealers used, kg/ kg. Volas, j = volume of adhesive or sealer j used, liters. Das, j = Density of adhesive or sealer j used, kg per liter. Was, j = mass fraction of organic HAP in adhesive or sealer, j, kg/ kg. r = number of adhesives and sealers used. ( 2) Calculate the mass average organic HAP content of deadener used in the initial compliance period using Equation 2 of this section: C Vol D W Vol D Eq avg d d m d m d m m s d m d m m s , , , , , , ( . = ( )( )( ) ( )( ) = = 1 1 2) Where: Cavg, d = mass average organic HAP content of deadener used, kg/ kg. Vold, m = volume of deadener, m, used, liters. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 EP24DE02.006</ GPH> EP24DE02.007</ GPH> 78645 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules Dd, m = density of deadener, m, used, kg per liter. Wd, m = mass fraction of organic HAP in deadener, m, kg/ kg. s = number of deadener materials used. ( e) Compliance demonstration. The mass average organic HAP content for the compliance period must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). You must keep all records as required by § § 63.3130 and 63.3131. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.3110, you must submit a statement that the coating operations were in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because the mass average organic HAP content was less than or equal to the applicable emission limits in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d), determined according to this section. § 63.3152 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? ( a) To demonstrate continuous compliance, the mass average organic HAP content for each compliance period, determined according to § 63.3151( a) through ( c), must be less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d). A compliance period consists of 1 month. Each month after the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.3150 is a compliance period consisting of that month. ( b) If the mass average organic HAP emission content for any compliance period exceeds the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( c) and ( d) or § 63.3091( c) and ( d), this is a deviation from the emission limitations for that compliance period and must be reported as specified in § § 63.3110( c)( 6) and 63.3120( a)( 5). ( c) You must maintain records as specified in § § 63.3130 and 63.3131. Compliance Requirements for the Combined Electrodeposition Primer, Primer­ Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates § 63.3160 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? ( a) New and reconstructed affected sources. For a new or reconstructed affected source, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083. You must conduct a performance test of each capture system and add­ on control device according to § § 63.3164 and 63.3166 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3093 no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083. ( 2) You must develop and begin implementing the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b), ( c), and ( e) no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.3083. ( 3) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.3161. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083 and ends on the last day of the month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next month. You must determine the mass of organic HAP emissions and volume of coating solids deposited in the initial compliance period. The initial compliance demonstration includes the results of emission capture system and add­ on control device performance tests conducted according to § § 63.3164 and 63.3166; supporting documentation showing that during the initial compliance period the organic HAP emission rate was equal to or less than the emission limit in § 63.3090( a); the operating limits established during the performance tests and the results of the continuous parameter monitoring required by § 63.3168; and documentation of whether you developed and implemented the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b), ( c), and ( e). ( 4) You do not need to comply with the operating limits for the emission capture system and add­ on control device required by § 63.3093 until after you have completed the performance tests specified in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. Instead, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the emission capture system, add­ on control device, and CPM during the period between the compliance date and the performance test. You must begin complying with the operating limits for your affected source on the date you complete the performance tests specified in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section. ( b) Existing affected sources. For an existing affected source, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) All emission capture systems, addon control devices, and CPMS must be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083. You must conduct a performance test of each capture system and add­ on control device according to the procedures in § § 63.3164 and 63.3166 and establish the operating limits required by § 63.3093 no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.3083. ( 2) You must develop and begin implementing the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b), ( c), and ( e) no later than the compliance date specified in § 63.3083. ( 3) You must complete the initial compliance demonstration for the initial compliance period according to the requirements of § 63.3161. The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date specified in § 63.3083 and ends on the last day of the month following the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period extends through the end of that month plus the next month. You must determine the mass of organic HAP emissions and volume of coating solids deposited during the initial compliance period. The initial compliance demonstration includes the results of emission capture system and add­ on control device performance tests conducted according to § § 63.3164 and 63.3166; supporting documentation showing that during the initial compliance period the organic HAP emission rate was equal to or less than the emission limits in § 63.3091( a); the operating limits established during the performance tests and the results of the continuous parameter monitoring required by § 63.3168; and documentation of whether you developed and implemented the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b), ( c), and ( e). § 63.3161 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? ( a) You must meet all of the requirements of this section to demonstrate initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance, the organic HAP emissions from the combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations must meet the applicable emission limitation in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a). ( b) Compliance with operating limits. Except as provided in § 63.3160( a)( 4), you must establish and demonstrate continuous compliance during the initial compliance period with the operating limits required by § 63.3093, VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78646 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules using the procedures specified in § § 63.3167 and 63.3168. ( c) Compliance with work practice requirements. You must develop, implement, and document your implementation of the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b) and ( c) during the initial compliance period, as specified in § 63.3130. ( d) Compliance with emission limits. You must follow the procedures in paragraphs ( e) through ( o) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a). You may also use the guidelines presented in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA 450/ 3 88 018 ( docket A 2001 22) in making this demonstration. ( e) Determine the mass fraction of organic HAP, density and volume used. Follow the procedures specified in § 63.3151( a) through ( c) to determine the mass fraction of organic HAP and the density and volume of each coating and thinner used during each month. ( f) Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. You must determine the volume fraction of coating solids ( liter of coating solids per liter of coating) for each coating used during the compliance period by a test or by information provided by the supplier or the manufacturer of the material, as specified in paragraphs ( f)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. If test results obtained according to paragraph ( f)( 1) of this section do not agree with the information obtained under paragraph ( f)( 2) of this section, the test results will take precedence. ( 1) ASTM Method D2697 86( 1998) or D6093 97. You may use ASTM Method D2697 86( 1998) or D6093 97 to determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating. Divide the nonvolatile volume percent obtained with the methods by 100 to calculate volume fraction of coating solids. ( 2) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may obtain the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating from the supplier or manufacturer. ( g) Determine the transfer efficiency for each coating. You must determine the transfer efficiency for each primersurfacer and topcoat coating using ASTM Method D5066 91( 2001) or the guidelines presented in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA 450/ 3 88 018 ( docket A 2001 22). Those guidelines include provisions for testing representative coatings instead of testing every coating. You may assume 100 percent transfer efficiency for electrodeposition primer coatings, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives. For final repair coatings, you may assume 40 percent transfer efficiency for air atomized spray and 55 percent transfer efficiency for electrostatic spray and high volume, low pressure spray. ( h) Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before add­ on controls. Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions before consideration of addon controls from all coatings and thinners used during each month in the combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations using Equation 1 of this section: H A B Eq BC= + ( . 1) Where: HBC = total mass of organic HAP emissions before consideration of add­ on controls during the month, kg. A = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month, kg, as calculated in Equation 1A of this section. B = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used during the month, kg, as calculated in Equation 1B of this section. ( 1) Calculate the kg organic HAP in the coatings used during the month using Equation 1A of this section: A Vol D W Eq c i i m c i c i = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 1A) Where: A = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month, kg. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month, liters. Dc, i = density of coating, i, kg coating per liter coating. Wc, i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg organic HAP per kg coating. m = number of different coatings used during the month. ( 2) Calculate the kg of organic HAP in the thinners used during the month using Equation 1B of this section: B Vol D W Eq t j j n t j t j = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 1B) Where: B = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used during the month, kg. Volt, j = total volume of thinner, j, used during the month, liters. Dt, j = density of thinner, j, kg per liter. Wt, j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner, j, kg organic HAP per kg thinner. n = number of different thinners used during the month. ( i) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation. Determine the mass of organic HAP emissions reduced for each controlled coating operation during each month. The emission reduction determination quantifies the total organic HAP emissions captured by the emission capture system and destroyed or removed by the add­ on control device. Use the procedures in paragraph ( j) of this section to calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation using an emission capture system and add­ on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances. For each controlled coating operation using a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid­ liquid material balance, use the procedures in paragraph ( k) of this section to calculate the organic HAP emission reduction. ( j) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation not using liquid­ liquid material balances. For each controlled coating operation using an emission capture system and add­ on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances, calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the controlled coating operation during the month using Equation 2 of this section. The calculation of mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the controlled coating operation during the month applies the emission capture system efficiency and add­ on control device efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the coatings and thinners that are used in the coating operation served by the emission capture system and add­ on control device during each month. For any period of time a deviation specified in § 63.3163( c) or ( d) occurs in the controlled coating operation, including a deviation during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you must assume zero efficiency for the emission capture system and add­ on control device. Equation 2 of this section treats the materials used during such a deviation as if they were used on an uncontrolled coating operation for the time period of the deviation. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 EP24DE02.008</ GPH> EP24DE02.009</ GPH> EP24DE02.010</ GPH> 78647 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules H A B H CE DRE Eq C C C UNC = + ( ) × 100 100 ( . 2) Where: HC = mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the controlled coating operation during the month, kg. AC = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the controlled coating operation during the month, kg, as calculated in Equation 2A of this section. BC = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the controlled coating operation during the month, kg, as calculated in Equation 2B of this section. Hunc = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings and thinners used during all deviations specified in § 63.3163( c) and ( d) that occurred during the month in the controlled coating operation, kg, as calculated in Equation 2C of this section. CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the add­ on control device, percent. Use the test methods and procedures specified in § § 63.3164 and 63.3165 to measure and record capture efficiency. DRE = organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device, percent. Use the test methods and procedures in § § 63.3164 and 63.3166 to measure and record the organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency. ( 1) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the controlled coating operation, kg, using Equation 2A of this section. A Vol D W Eq C ci i m c i c i = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 2A) Where: AC = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the controlled coating operation during the month, kg. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month, liters. Dc, i = density of coating, i, kg per liter. Wc, i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg per kg. m = number of different coatings used. ( 2) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the controlled coating operation, kg, using Equation 2B of this section. B Vol D W Eq C tj j n t j t j = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 2B) Where: BC = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the controlled coating operation during the month, kg. Volt, j = total volume of thinner, j, used during the month, liters. Dt, j = density of thinner, j, kg per liter. Wt, j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner, j, kg per kg. n = number of different thinners used. ( 3) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings and thinners used in the controlled coating operation during deviations specified in § 63.3163( c) and ( d), using Equation 2C of this section: H Vol D W Eq unc h h h h q = ( )( ) = ( ) ( . 1 2C) Where: Hunc = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings and thinners used during all deviations specified in § 63.3163( c) and ( d) that occurred during the month in the controlled coating operation, kg. Volh = total volume of coating or thinner, h, used in the controlled coating operation during deviations, liters. Dh = density of coating or thinner, h, kg per liter. Wh = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating or thinner, h, kg organic HAP per kg coating. q = number of different coatings or thinners. ( k) Calculate the organic HAP emission reduction for each controlled coating operation using liquid­ liquid material balances. For each controlled coating operation using a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances, calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system using a liquid­ liquid material balance during the month by applying the volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency to the mass of organic HAP contained in the coatings and thinners used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during each month. Perform a liquid­ liquid material balance for each month as specified in paragraphs ( k)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. Calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction by the solvent recovery system as specified in paragraph ( k)( 7) of this section. ( 1) For each solvent recovery system, install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications, a device that indicates the cumulative amount of volatile organic matter recovered by the solvent recovery system each month. The device must be initially certified by the manufacturer to be accurate to within ± 2.0 percent of the mass of volatile organic matter recovered. ( 2) For each solvent recovery system, determine the mass of volatile organic matter recovered for the month, kg, based on measurement with the device required in paragraph ( k)( 1) of this section. ( 3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each coating and thinner used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. You may determine the volatile organic matter mass fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or an EPA approved alternative method, or you may use information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In the event of any inconsistency between information provided by the manufacturer or supplier and the results of Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or an approved alternative method, the test method results will govern. ( 4) Determine the density of each coating and thinner used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, kg per liter, according to § 63.3151( b). ( 5) Measure the volume of each coating and thinner used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, liters. ( 6) Each month, calculate the solvent recovery system's volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency, using Equation 3 of this section: VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 EP24DE02.011</ GPH> EP24DE02.012</ GPH> EP24DE02.013</ GPH> EP24DE02.014</ GPH> 78648 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules R M Vol D WV Vol D WV Eq v VR i i ci j j t j j n i m = + = = 100 1 1 , , ( . 3) Where: RV = volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency of the solvent recovery system during the month, percent. MVR = mass of volatile organic matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month, kg. Voli = volume of coating, i, used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, liters. Di = density of coating, i, kg per liter. WVc, i = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for coating, i, kg volatile organic matter per kg coating. Volj = volume of thinner, j, used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, liters. Dj = density of thinner, j, kg per liter. WVt, j = mass fraction of volatile organic matter for thinner, j, kg volatile organic matter per kg thinner. m = number of different coatings used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month. n = number of different thinners used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month. ( 7) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, using Equation 4 of this section: H A B R Eq CSR CSR CSR v = + ( ) (. 100 4) Where: HCSR = mass of organic HAP emission reduction for the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system using a liquid­ liquid material balance during the month, kg. ACSR = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, calculated using Equation 4A of this section. BCSR = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, calculated using Equation 4B of this section. RV = volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency of the solvent recovery system, percent, from Equation 3 of this section. ( i) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, using Equation 4A of this section. A Vol D W Eq CSR c i c i i m c i = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 4A) Where: ACSR = total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, kg. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, liters. Dc, i = density of coating, i, kg per liter. Wc, i = mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, kg per kg. m = number of different coatings used. ( 2) Calculate the mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, kg, using Equation 4B of this section. B Vol D W Eq CSR t j t j j n t j = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 1 4B) Where: BCSR = total mass of organic HAP in the thinners used in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, kg. Volt, j = total volume of thinner, j, used during the month in the coating operation controlled by the solvent recovery system, liters. Dt, j = density of thinner, j, kg per liter. Wt, j = mass fraction of organic HAP in thinner, j, kg per kg. n = number of different thinners used. ( l) Calculate the total volume of coating solids deposited. Determine the total volume of coating solids deposited, liters, in the combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations using Equation 5 of this section: V Vol V TE Eq sdep c i s i c i i m = ( )( )( ) = , , , ( . 5) 1 Where: Vsdep = total volume of coating solids deposited during the month, liters. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month, liters. Vs, i = volume fraction of coating solids for coating, i, liter solids per liter coating, determined according to § 63.3161( f). TEc, i = transfer efficiency of coating, i, determined according to § 63.3161( g). m = number of coatings used during the month. ( m) Calculate the mass of organic HAP emissions for each month. Determine the mass of organic HAP emissions, kg, during each month, using Equation 6 of this section. H H H H Eq HAP BC C i CSR j j r i q = ( ) ( ) = = , , ( . 1 1 6) Where: HHAP = total mass of organic HAP emissions for the month, kg. HBC = total mass of organic HAP emissions before add­ on controls VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 EP24DE02.015</ GPH> EP24DE02.016</ GPH> EP24DE02.017</ GPH> EP24DE02.018</ GPH> EP24DE02.019</ GPH> EP24DE02.020</ GPH> 78649 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules from all the coatings and thinners used during the month, kg, determined according to paragraph ( h) of this section. HC, i = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction for controlled coating operation, i, not using a liquid­ liquid material balance, during the month, kg, from Equation 2 of this section. HCSR, j = total mass of organic HAP emission reduction for coating operation, j, controlled by a solvent recovery system using a liquidliquid material balance, during the month, kg, from Equation 4 of this section. q = number of controlled coating operations not using a liquid­ liquid material balance. r = number of coating operations controlled by a solvent recovery system using a liquid­ liquid material balance. ( n) Calculate the organic HAP emission rate for the month. Determine the organic HAP emission rate for the month compliance period, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids deposited, using Equation 7 of this section: H H V Eq rate HAP sdep =( )( ) ( . 7) Where: Hrate = organic HAP emission rate for the month compliance period, kg organic HAP per liter coating solids deposited. HHAP = mass of organic HAP emissions for the month, kg, determined according to Equation 6 of this section. Vsdep = total volume of coating solids deposited during the month, liters, from Equation 5 of this section. ( o) Compliance demonstration. To demonstrate initial compliance, the organic HAP emissions from the combined electrodeposition primer, primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations must meet the applicable emission limitation in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a). You must keep all records as required by § § 63.3130 and 63.3131. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.3110, you must submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was ( were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a) and you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.3093 and the work practice standards required by § 63.3094. § 63.3162 [ Reserved] § 63.3163 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? ( a) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a), the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period, determined according to the procedures in § 63.3161, must be equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a). A compliance period consists of 1 month. Each month after the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.3160 is a compliance period consisting of that month. You must perform the calculations in § 63.3161 on a monthly basis. ( b) If the organic HAP emission rate for any 1 month compliance period exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a), this is a deviation from the emission limitation for that compliance period and must be reported as specified in § § 63.3110( c)( 6) and 63.3120( a)( 6). ( c) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit required by § 63.3093 that applies to you, as specified in Table 1 to this subpart. ( 1) If an operating parameter is out of the allowed range specified in Table 1 to this subpart, this is a deviation from the operating limit that must be reported as specified in § § 63.3110( c)( 6) and 63.3120( a)( 6). ( 2) If an operating parameter deviates from the operating limit specified in Table 1 to this subpart, then you must assume that the emission capture system and add­ on control device were achieving zero efficiency during the time period of the deviation. ( d) You must meet the requirements for bypass lines in § 63.3168( b) for control devices other than solvent recovery systems for which you conduct liquid­ liquid material balances. If any bypass line is opened and emissions are diverted to the atmosphere when the coating operation is running, this is a deviation that must be reported as specified in § 63.3110( c)( 6) and 63.3120( a)( 6). For the purposes of completing the compliance calculations specified in § 63.3161( k), you must assume that the emission capture system and add­ on control device were achieving zero efficiency during the time period of the deviation. ( e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standards in § 63.3094. If you did not develop a work practice plan, if you did not implement the plan, or if you did not keep the records required by § 63.3130( n), this is a deviation from the work practice standards that must be reported as specified in § § 63.3110( c)( 6) and 63.3120( a)( 6). ( f) If there were no deviations from the emission limitations, submit a statement as part of the semiannual compliance report that you were in compliance with the emission rate limitations during the reporting period because the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( a) or § 63.3091( a), and you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.3093 and the work practice standards required by § 63.3094 during each compliance period. ( g) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system, add­ on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency, you must operate in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by § 63.3100( f). ( h) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system, add­ on control device, or coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period you identify as a startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations according to the provisions in § 63.6( e). ( i) [ Reserved] ( j) You must maintain records as specified in § § 63.3130 and 63.3131. § 63.3164 What are the general requirements for performance tests? ( a) You must conduct each performance test required by § 63.3160 according to the requirements in § 63.7( e)( 1) and under the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the performance test according to the provisions in § 63.7( h). ( 1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, and during periods of nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions. You must record the process information that is necessary to document operating VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 EP24DE02.021</ GPH> 78650 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. ( 2) Representative emission capture system and add­ on control device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when the emission capture system and add­ on control device are operating at a representative flow rate, and the add­ on control device is operating at a representative inlet concentration. You must record information that is necessary to document emission capture system and add­ on control device operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. ( b) You must conduct each performance test of an emission capture system according to the requirements in § 63.3165. You must conduct each performance test of an add­ on control device according to the requirements in § 63.3166. § 63.3165 How do I determine the emission capture system efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine capture efficiency as part of the performance test required by § 63.3160. ( a) Assuming 100 percent capture efficiency. You may assume the capture system efficiency is 100 percent if both of the conditions in paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section are met: ( 1) The capture system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for a PTE and directs all the exhaust gases from the enclosure to an add­ on control device. ( 2) All coatings and thinners used in the coating operation are applied within the capture system, and coating solvent flash­ off and coating curing and drying occurs within the capture system. For example, this criterion is not met if parts enter the open shop environment when being moved between a spray booth and a curing oven. ( b) Measuring capture efficiency. If the capture system does not meet both of the criteria in paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section, then you must use one of the four procedures described in paragraphs ( c) through ( f) of this section to measure capture efficiency. The capture efficiency measurements use TVH capture efficiency as a surrogate for organic HAP capture efficiency. For the protocols in paragraphs ( c) and ( d) of this section, the capture efficiency measurement must consist of three test runs. Each test run must be at least 3 hours duration or the length of a production run, whichever is longer, up to 8 hours. For the purposes of this test, a production run means the time required for a single part to go from the beginning to the end of production, which includes surface preparation activities and drying or curing time. ( c) Liquid­ to­ uncaptured­ gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. The liquid­ touncaptured gas protocol compares the mass of liquid TVH in materials used in the coating operation to the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the emission capture system. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure and the procedures in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 6) of this section to measure emission capture system efficiency using the liquid­ touncaptured gas protocol. ( 1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure around the coating operation where coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are applied, and all areas where emissions from these applied coatings and materials subsequently occur, such as flash­ off, curing, and drying areas. The areas of the coating operation where capture devices collect emissions for routing to an add­ on control device, such as the entrance and exit areas of an oven or spray booth, must also be inside the enclosure. The enclosure must meet the applicable definition of a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. ( 2) Use Method 204A or F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to determine the mass fraction of TVH liquid input from each coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation during each capture efficiency test run. To make the determination, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term volatile organic compounds ( VOC) in the methods. ( 3) Use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the total mass of TVH liquid input from all the coatings and thinners used in the coating operation during each capture efficiency test run. TVH TVH Vol D Eq used i i i i n = ( )( )( ) = 1 ( . 1) Where: TVHi = mass fraction of TVH in coating or thinner, i, used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, kg TVH per kg material. Voli = total volume of coating or thinner, i, used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, liters. Di = density of coating or thinner, i, kg material per liter material. n = number of different coatings and thinners used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run. ( 4) Use Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions that are not captured by the emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods. ( i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total enclosure. ( ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure. During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined, must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally. ( 5) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent capture efficiency of the emission capture system using Equation 2 of this section: CE TVH TVH TVH Eq used uncaptured used = ( ) × 100 ( . 2) VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 EP24DE02.022</ GPH> EP24DE02.023</ GPH> 78651 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules Where: CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the add­ on control device, percent. TVHused = total mass of TVH liquid input used in the coating operation during the capture efficiency test run, kg. TVHuncaptured = total mass of TVH that is not captured by the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test run, kg. ( 6) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test runs. ( d) Gas­ to­ gas protocol using a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure. The gas­ to­ gas protocol compares the mass of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture system to the mass of TVH emissions not captured. Use a temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure and the procedures in paragraphs ( d)( 1) through ( 5) of this section to measure emission capture system efficiency using the gas­ to­ gas protocol. ( 1) Either use a building enclosure or construct an enclosure around the coating operation where coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are applied, and all areas where emissions from these applied coatings and materials subsequently occur, such as flash­ off, curing, and drying areas. The areas of the coating operation where capture devices collect emissions generated by the coating operation for routing to an add­ on control device, such as the entrance and exit areas of an oven or a spray booth, must also be inside the enclosure. The enclosure must meet the applicable definition of a temporary total enclosure or building enclosure in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. ( 2) Use Method 204B or C of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions captured by the emission capture system during each capture efficiency test run as measured at the inlet to the add­ on control device. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods. ( i) The sampling points for the Method 204B or C measurement must be upstream from the add­ on control device and must represent total emissions routed from the capture system and entering the add­ on control device. ( ii) If multiple emission streams from the capture system enter the add­ on control device without a single common duct, then the emissions entering the add­ on control device must be simultaneously measured in each duct, and the total emissions entering the add­ on control device must be determined. ( 3) Use Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 to measure the total mass, kg, of TVH emissions that are not captured by the emission capture system; they are measured as they exit the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency test run. To make the measurement, substitute TVH for each occurrence of the term VOC in the methods. ( i) Use Method 204D if the enclosure is a temporary total enclosure. ( ii) Use Method 204E if the enclosure is a building enclosure. During the capture efficiency measurement, all organic compound emitting operations inside the building enclosure, other than the coating operation for which capture efficiency is being determined, must be shut down, but all fans and blowers must be operating normally. ( 4) For each capture efficiency test run, determine the percent capture efficiency of the emission capture system using Equation 3 of this section: CE TVH TVH TVH Eq captured captured uncaptured = + ( ) × 100 ( . 3) Where: CE = capture efficiency of the emission capture system vented to the add­ on control device, percent. TVHcaptured = total mass of TVH captured by the emission capture system as measured at the inlet to the add­ on control device during the emission capture efficiency test run, kg. TVHuncaptured = total mass of TVH that is not captured by the emission capture system and that exits from the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during the capture efficiency test run, kg. ( 5) Determine the capture efficiency of the emission capture system as the average of the capture efficiencies measured in the three test runs. ( e) Panel testing to determine the capture efficiency of flash­ off or bake oven emissions. You may determine the capture efficiency of flash­ off or bake oven emissions using ASTM Method D5087­ 91( 1994), ASTM Method D6266 00a, or the guidelines presented in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA 450/ 3 88 018 ( docket A 2001­ 22). The results of these panel testing procedures are in units of mass of VOC per volume of coating solids deposited. These results must be converted to percent capture efficiency values using Equation 4 of this section: CE P V VOC Eq i i sdep i i =( )( )( ) , ( . 4) Where: CEi = capture efficiency for coating i for the flash­ off area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, percent. Pi = panel test result for coating i, kg of VOC per liter of coating solids deposited. Vsdep, i = total volume of coating solids deposited for coating i during the month in the spray booth( s) for the flash­ off area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, liters, from Equation 5 of this section. VOCi = total mass of VOC in coating i used during the month in the spray booth( s) for the flash­ off area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, kg, from Equation 6 of this section. ( 1) Calculate the total volume of coating solids deposited for each coating used during the month in the spray booth( s) for the flash­ off area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted using equation 5 of this section: V Vol V TE Eq sdep i c i s i c i , , , , ( . =( )( )( ) 5) Where: Vsdep, i = total volume of coating solids deposited for coating i during the month in the spray booth( s) for the flash­ off area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, liters. Volc, i = total volume of coating, i, used during the month in the spray booth( s) for the flash­ off area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, liters. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 EP24DE02.024</ GPH> EP24DE02.025</ GPH> EP24DE02.026</ GPH> 78652 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules Vs, i = volume fraction of coating solids for coating, i, liter solids per liter coating, determined according to § 63.3161( f). TEc, i = transfer efficiency of coating, i, in the spray booth( s) for the flashoff area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted determined according to § 63.3161( g). ( 2) Calculate the total mass of VOC in each coating used during the month in the spray booth( s) for the flash­ off area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, kg, using Equation 6 of this section: VOC Vol D Wvoc Eq i ci ci ci =( )( )( ) , , , ( . 6) Where: VOCi = total mass of VOC in coating i used during the month in the spray booth( s) for the flash­ off area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, kg. Volc, i = total volume of coating i used during the month in the spray booth( s) for the flash­ off area or bake oven for which the panel test is conducted, liters. DC = density of coating i, kg coating per liter coating, determined according to § 63.3151( b). Wvocc, i = mass fraction of VOC in coating i, kg organic HAP per kg coating, determined by Method 24 ( appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) or the guidelines presented in `` Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light­ Duty Truck Topcoat Operations,'' EPA 450/ 3 88 018 ( docket A 2001 22). ( f) Alternative capture efficiency procedure. As an alternative to the procedures specified in paragraphs ( c) through ( e) of this section, you may determine capture efficiency using any other capture efficiency protocol and test methods that satisfy the criteria of either the DQO or LCL approach as described in appendix A to subpart KK of this part. § 63.3166 How do I determine the add­ on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency? You must use the procedures and test methods in this section to determine the add­ on control device emission destruction or removal efficiency as part of the performance test required by § 63.3160. You must conduct three test runs as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour. ( a) For all types of add­ on control devices, use the test methods specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points. ( 2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate. ( 3) Use Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. The ASME PTC 19.10 1981 may be used as an alternative to Method 3B. ( 4) Use Method 4 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to determine stack gas moisture. ( 5) Methods for determining gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during each test run. ( b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the inlet and outlet of the add­ on control device simultaneously, using either Method 25 or 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. You must use the same method for both the inlet and outlet measurements. ( 1) Use Method 25 if the add­ on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million by volume ( ppmv) at the control device outlet. ( 2) Use Method 25A if the add­ on control device is an oxidizer and you expect the total gaseous organic concentration as carbon to be 50 ppmv or less at the control device outlet. ( 3) Use Method 25A if the add­ control device is not an oxidizer. ( c) If two or more add­ on control devices are used for the same emission stream, then you must measure emissions at the outlet of each device. For example, if one add­ on control device is a concentrator with an outlet for the high­ volume, dilute stream that has been treated by the concentrator, and a second add­ on control device is an oxidizer with an outlet for the lowvolume concentrated stream that is treated with the oxidizer, you must measure emissions at the outlet of the oxidizer and the high volume dilute stream outlet of the concentrator. ( d) For each test run, determine the total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rates for the inlet and the outlet of the add­ on control device, using Equation 1 of this section. If there is more than one inlet or outlet to the addon control device, you must calculate the total gaseous organic mass flow rate using Equation 1 of this section for each inlet and each outlet and then total all of the inlet emissions and total all of the outlet emissions. M Q C Eq f sd c = ( )( )( ) 12 0 0416 10 6 . (. 1) Where: Mf = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate, kg/ per hour ( h). Cc = concentration of organic compounds as carbon in the vent gas, as determined by Method 25 or Method 25A, ppmv, dry basis. Qsd = volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting the add­ on control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G, dry standard cubic meters/ hour ( dscm/ h). 0.0416 = conversion factor for molar volume, kg­ moles per cubic meter ( mol/ m3) (@ 293 Kelvin ( K) and 760 millimeters of mercury ( mmHg)). ( e) For each test run, determine the add­ on control device organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency using Equation 2 of this section: DRE M M M Eq fi fo fi = ( ) 100 ( . 2) Where: DRE = organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device, percent. Mfi = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at the inlet( s) to the add­ on control device, using Equation 1 of this section, kg/ h. Mfo = total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate at the outlet( s) of the add­ on control device, using Equation 1 of this section, kg/ h. ( f) Determine the emission destruction or removal efficiency of the add­ on control device as the average of the efficiencies determined in the three test runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this section. § 63.3167 How do I establish the add­ on control device operating limits during the performance test? During the performance test required by § 63.3160 and described in § § 63.3164 and 63.3166, you must establish the operating limits required by § 63.3193 according to this section, unless you have received approval for alternative monitoring and operating limits under § 63.8( f) as specified in § 63.3193. ( a) Thermal oxidizers. If your add­ on control device is a thermal oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the combustion temperature at least once VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 EP24DE02.027</ GPH> EP24DE02.028</ GPH> EP24DE02.029</ GPH> 78653 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. ( 2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the performance test. This average combustion temperature is the minimum operating limit for your thermal oxidizer. ( b) Catalytic oxidizers. If your add­ on control device is a catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to either paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( 2) or paragraphs ( b)( 3) and ( 4) of this section. ( 1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. ( 2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained during the performance test. These are the minimum operating limits for your catalytic oxidizer. ( 3) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet to the catalyst bed and implement a site­ specific inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph ( b)( 4) of this section. During the performance test, you must monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer. ( 4) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer( s) for which you elect to monitor according to paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section. The plan must address, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs ( b)( 4)( i) through ( iii) of this section. ( i) Annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity ( i. e., conversion efficiency) following the oxidizer manufacturer's or catalyst supplier's recommended procedures. ( ii) Monthly inspection of the oxidizer system, including the burner assembly and fuel supply lines for problems and, as necessary, adjustment of the equipment to assure proper air­ to­ fuel mixtures. ( iii) Annual internal and monthly external visual inspection of the catalyst bed to check for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If problems are found, you must replace the catalyst bed and conduct a new performance test to determine destruction efficiency according to § 63.3166. ( c) Carbon adsorbers. If your add­ on control device is a carbon adsorber, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) You must monitor and record the total regeneration desorbing gas ( e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle and the carbon bed temperature after each carbon bed regeneration and cooling cycle for the regeneration cycle either immediately preceding or immediately following the performance test. ( 2) The operating limits for your carbon adsorber are the minimum total desorbing gas mass flow recorded during the regeneration cycle and the maximum carbon bed temperature recorded after the cooling cycle. ( d) Condensers. If your add­ on control device is a condenser, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs ( d)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the condenser outlet ( product side) gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. ( 2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average condenser outlet ( product side) gas temperature maintained during the performance test. This average condenser outlet gas temperature is the maximum operating limit for your condenser. ( e) Concentrators. If your add­ on control device includes a concentrator, you must establish operating limits for the concentrator according to paragraphs ( e)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the desorption concentrate stream gas temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. ( 2) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average temperature. This is the minimum operating limit for the desorption concentrate gas stream temperature. ( 3) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three runs of the performance test. ( 4) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the average pressure drop. This is the maximum operating limit for the dilute stream across the concentrator. ( f) Emission capture systems. For each capture device that is not part of a PTE that meets the criteria of § 63.3165( a), establish an operating limit for either the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure, as specified in paragraphs ( f)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. The operating limit for a PTE is specified in Table 1 to this subpart. ( 1) During the capture efficiency determination required by § 63.3160 and described in § § 63.3164 and 63.3165, you must monitor and record either the gas volumetric flow rate or the duct static pressure for each separate capture device in your emission capture system at least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs at a point in the duct between the capture device and the add­ on control device inlet. ( 2) Calculate and record the average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for the three test runs for each capture device. This average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure is the minimum operating limit for that specific capture device. § 63.3168 What are the requirements for continuous parameter monitoring system installation, operation, and maintenance? ( a) General. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraphs ( c), ( e), ( f), and ( g) of this section according to paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraphs ( b) and ( d) of this section according to paragraphs ( a)( 3) through ( 5) of this section. ( 1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15­ minute period. You must have a minimum of four equally spaced successive cycles of CPMS operation in 1 hour. ( 2) You must determine the average of all recorded readings for each successive 3­ hour period of the emission capture system and add­ on control device operation. ( 3) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check of the CPMS. ( 4) You must maintain the CPMS at all times and have available necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment. ( 5) You must operate the CPMS and collect emission capture system and add­ on control device parameter data at VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78654 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules all times that a controlled coating operation is operating, except during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities ( including, if applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). ( 6) You must not use emission capture system or add­ on control device parameter data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out­ of­ control periods, or required quality assurance or control activities when calculating data averages. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in calculating the data averages for determining compliance with the emission capture system and add­ on control device operating limits. ( 7) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the CPMS 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 is a deviation from the monitoring requirements. ( b) Capture system bypass line. You must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( 2) of this section for each emission capture system that contains bypass lines that could divert emissions away from the add­ on control device to the atmosphere. ( 1) You must monitor or secure the valve or closure mechanism controlling the bypass line in a nondiverting position in such a way that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be opened without creating a record that the valve was opened. The method used to monitor or secure the valve or closure mechanism must meet one of the requirements specified in paragraphs ( b)( 1)( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) Flow control position indicator. Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications a flow control position indicator that takes a reading at least once every 15 minutes and provides a record indicating whether the emissions are directed to the add­ on control device or diverted from the add­ on control device. The time of occurrence and flow control position must be recorded, as well as every time the flow direction is changed. The flow control position indicator must be installed at the entrance to any bypass line that could divert the emissions away from the addon control device to the atmosphere. ( ii) Car­ seal or lock­ and­ key valve closures. Secure any bypass line valve in the closed position with a car­ seal or a lock­ and­ key type configuration. You must visually inspect the seal or closure mechanism at least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position, and the emissions are not diverted away from the add­ on control device to the atmosphere. ( iii) Valve closure monitoring. Ensure that any bypass line valve is in the closed ( nondiverting) position through monitoring of valve position at least once every 15 minutes. You must inspect the monitoring system at least once every month to verify that the monitor will indicate valve position. ( iv) Automatic shutdown system. Use an automatic shutdown system in which the coating operation is stopped when flow is diverted by the bypass line away from the add­ on control device to the atmosphere when the coating operation is running. You must inspect the automatic shutdown system at least once every month to verify that it will detect diversions of flow and shut down the coating operation. ( 2) If any bypass line is opened, you must include a description of why the bypass line was opened and the length of time it remained open in the semiannual compliance reports required in § 63.3120. ( c) Thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers. If you are using a thermal oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer as an addon control device ( including those used to treat desorbed concentrate streams from concentrators or carbon adsorbers), you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 3) of this section: ( 1) For a thermal oxidizer, install a gas temperature monitor in the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. ( 2) For a catalytic oxidizer, install gas temperature monitors both upstream and downstream of the catalyst bed. The temperature monitors must be in the gas stream immediately before and after the catalyst bed to measure the temperature difference across the bed. ( 3) For all thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) and ( c)( 3)( i) through ( vii) of this section for each gas temperature monitoring device. ( i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a representative temperature. ( ii) Use a temperature sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 4 degrees Fahrenheit or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger. ( iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic interference and chemical contaminants. ( iv) If a gas temperature chart recorder is used, it must have a measurement sensitivity in the minor division of at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit. ( v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading within 30 degrees Fahrenheit of the process temperature sensor reading. ( vi) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor. ( vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity and electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic corrosion. ( d) Carbon adsorbers. If you are using a carbon adsorber as an add­ on control device, you must monitor the total regeneration desorbing gas ( e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle, the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and cooling cycle, and comply with paragraphs ( a)( 3) through ( 5) and ( d)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) The regeneration desorbing gas mass flow monitor must be an integrating device having a measurement sensitivity of plus or minus 10 percent, capable of recording the total regeneration desorbing gas mass flow for each regeneration cycle. ( 2) The carbon bed temperature monitor must have a measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature ( as expressed in degrees Fahrenheit) recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater, and must be capable of recording the temperature within 15 minutes of completing any carbon bed cooling cycle. ( e) Condensers. If you are using a condenser, you must monitor the condenser outlet ( product side) gas temperature and comply with paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) and ( e)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) The gas temperature monitor must have a measurement sensitivity of 1 percent of the temperature ( expressed in degrees Fahrenheit) recorded or 1 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. ( 2) The temperature monitor must provide a gas temperature record at least once every 15 minutes. ( f) Concentrators. If you are using a concentrator, such as a zeolite wheel or VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78655 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules rotary carbon bed concentrator, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs ( f)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) You must install a temperature monitor in the desorption gas stream. The temperature monitor must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) and ( c)( 3) of this section. ( 2) You must install a device to monitor pressure drop across the zeolite wheel or rotary carbon bed. The pressure monitoring device must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) and ( f)( 2)( i) through ( vii) of this section. ( i) Locate the pressure sensor( s) in a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure. ( ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. ( iii) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range. ( iv) Check the pressure tap daily. ( v) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. ( vi) Conduct calibration checks anytime the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. ( vii) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for leakage. ( g) Emission capture systems. The capture system monitoring system must comply with the applicable requirements in paragraphs ( g)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) and ( g)( 1)( i) through ( iv) of this section. ( i) Locate a flow sensor in a position that provides a representative flow measurement in the duct from each capture device in the emission capture system to the add­ on control device. ( ii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. ( iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually. ( iv) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for leakage. ( 2) For each pressure drop measurement device, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 6) and ( g)( 2)( i) through ( vi) of this section. ( i) Locate the pressure tap( s) in a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure drop across each opening you are monitoring. ( ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. ( iii) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. ( iv) Using an inclined manometer with a measurement sensitivity of 0.0002 inch water, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. ( v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. ( vi) At least monthly, inspect components for integrity, electrical connections for continuity, and mechanical connections for leakage. Compliance Requirements for the Combined Primer Surfacer, Topcoat, Final Repair, Glass Bonding Primer, and Glass Bonding Adhesive Emission Rates and the Separate Electrodeposition Primer Emission Rates § 63.3170 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? ( a) New and reconstructed affected sources. For a new or reconstructed affected source, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 4) of § 63.3160. ( b) Existing affected sources. For an existing affected source, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 3) of § 63.3160. § 63.3171 How do I demonstrate initial compliance? ( a) You must meet all of the requirements of this section to demonstrate initial compliance. To demonstrate initial compliance, the organic HAP emissions from the combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations must meet the applicable emission limitation in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b); and the organic HAP emissions from the electrodeposition primer operation must meet the applicable emissions limitations in § 63.3092( a) or ( b). ( b) Compliance with operating limits. Except as provided in § 63.3160( a)( 4), you must establish and demonstrate continuous compliance during the initial compliance period with the operating limits required by § 63.3093, using the procedures specified in § § 63.3167 and 63.3168. ( c) Compliance with work practice requirements. You must develop, implement, and document your implementation of the work practice plans required by § 63.3094( b) and ( c) during the initial compliance period, as specified in § 63.3130. ( d) Compliance with emission limits. You must follow the procedures in § 63.3161( e) through ( n), excluding materials used in electrodeposition primer operations, to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b). You must follow the procedures in paragraph ( e) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit in § 63.3092( a), or paragraphs ( f) through ( g) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations in § 63.3092( b). ( e) Determine the mass fraction of each organic HAP in each material used in the electrodeposition primer operation. You must determine the mass fraction of each organic HAP for each material used in the electrodeposition primer operation during the compliance period by using one of the options in paragraphs ( e)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Method 311 ( appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). You may use Method 311 for determining the mass fraction of each organic HAP. ( 2) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP once the Administrator has approved it. You must follow the procedure in § 63.7( f) to submit an alternative test method for approval. ( 3) Information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material. You may rely on information other than that generated by the test methods specified in paragraphs ( e)( 1) and ( 2) of this section, such as manufacturer's formulation data, if it represents each organic HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass or more for OSHAdefined carcinogens, as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200( d)( 4), and at 1.0 percent by mass or more for other compounds. If there is a disagreement between such information and results of a test conducted according to paragraph ( e)( 1) or ( 2) of this section, then the test method results will take precedence. ( f) Capture of electrodeposition bake oven emissions. You must show that the electrodeposition bake oven meets the criteria in sections 5.3 through 5.5 of Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 and directs all of the exhaust gases from the bake oven to an add­ on control device. ( g) Control of electrodeposition bake oven emissions. Determine the efficiency of each control device on each electrodeposition bake oven using the procedures in § § 63.3164 and 63.3166. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78656 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( h) Compliance demonstration. To demonstrate initial compliance, the organic HAP emissions from the combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations must meet the applicable emission limitation in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b); the organic HAP emissions from the electrodeposition primer operation must meet the applicable emissions limitations in § 63.3092( a) or ( b). You must keep all records as required by § § 63.3130 and 63.3131. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by § 63.3110, you must submit a statement that the coating operation( s) was ( were) in compliance with the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because the organic HAP emission rate from the combined primer­ surfacer, topcoat, final repair, glass bonding primer, and glass bonding adhesive operations was less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b), and the organic HAP emissions from the electrodeposition primer operation met the applicable emissions limitations in § 63.3092( a) or ( b), and you achieved the operating limits required by § 63.3093 and the work practice standards required by § 63.3094. § 63.3172 [ Reserved] § 63.3173 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations? ( a) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b), the organic HAP emission rate for each compliance period determined according to the procedures in § 63.3171 must be equal to or less than the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b). A compliance period consists of 1 month. Each month after the end of the initial compliance period described in § 63.3170 is a compliance period consisting of that month. You must perform the calculations in § 63.3171 on a monthly basis. ( b) If the organic HAP emission rate for any 1 month compliance period exceeded the applicable emission limit in § 63.3090( b) or § 63.3091( b), this is a deviation from the emission limitation for that compliance period and must be reported as specified in § § 63.3110( c)( 6) and 63.3120( a)( 6). ( c) You must meet the requirements of § 63.3163( c) through ( j). Other Requirements and Information § 63.3175 Who implements and enforces this subpart? ( a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency ( as well as EPA) has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your 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 subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph ( c) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency. ( c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 4) of this section: ( 1) Approval of alternatives to the work practice standards in § 63.3094 under § 63.6( g). ( 2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under § 63.7( e)( 2)( ii) and ( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under § 63.8( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10( f) and as defined in § 63.90. § 63.3176 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in 40 CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part, and in this section as follows: Add­ on control device means an air pollution control device, such as a thermal oxidizer or carbon adsorber, that reduces pollution in an air stream by destruction or removal before discharge to the atmosphere. Add­ on control device efficiency means the ratio of the emissions collected or destroyed by an add­ on air pollution control device to the total emissions that are introduced into the control device, expressed as a percentage. Adhesive means any chemical substance that is applied for the purpose of bonding two surfaces together. Anti­ chip coating means a specialty type of coating designed to reduce stone chipping damage. It is applied on selected vehicle surfaces that are exposed to impingement by stones and other road debris. It is typically applied after the electrodeposition primer and before the topcoat coating materials ( may be used as a type of primersurfacer Anti­ chip coatings are included in the primer­ surfacer operation. As applied means the condition of a coating material after any dilution as it is being applied to the substrate. As supplied means the condition of the coating material as provided by the manufacturer to the user, either before or after reducing for application. Automobile means a motor vehicle designed to carry up to eight passengers, excluding vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of property. See also Light­ duty truck. Automobile and/ or light­ duty truck assembly plant means facilities involved primarily in assembly of automobiles and light­ duty trucks, including coating facilities and processes. Basecoat/ clearcoat means a topcoat system applied to exterior and selected interior vehicle surfaces primarily to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance and acceptable durability performance. It consists of a layer of pigmented basecoat color coating, followed directly by a layer of a clear or semitransparent coating. It may include multiple layers of color coats or tinted clear materials. Blackout coating means a type of specialty coating applied on selected vehicle surfaces ( including areas of the engine compartment visible through the grill, and window and pillar trim) to provide a cosmetic appearance. Typically black or dark gray color. Blackout coating may be included in either the primer­ surfacer or topcoat operations. Capture device means a hood, enclosure, room, floor sweep, or other means of containing or collecting emissions and directing those emissions into an add­ on air pollution control device. Capture efficiency or capture system efficiency means the portion ( expressed as a percentage) of the pollutants from an emission source that is delivered to an add­ on control device. Capture system means one or more capture devices intended to collect emissions generated by a coating operation in the use of coatings, both at the point of application and at subsequent points where emissions from the coatings occur, such as flashoff drying, or curing. As used in this subpart, multiple capture devices that collect emissions generated by a coating operation are considered a single capture system. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78657 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules Catalytic oxidizer means a device for oxidizing pollutants or waste materials via flame and heat incorporating a catalyst to aid the combustion at lower operating temperature. Cleaning material means a solvent used to remove contaminants and other materials such as dirt, grease, oil, and dried ( e. g., depainting) or wet coating from a substrate before or after coating application; or from equipment associated with a coating operation, such as spray booths, spray guns, tanks, and hangers. Thus, it includes any cleaning material used on substrates or equipment or both. Coating means a material applied to a substrate for decorative, protective, or functional purposes. Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks, adhesives, primers, deadeners, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or functional materials that consist only of protective oils for metal, acids, bases, or any combination of these substances are not considered coatings for the purposes of this subpart. Coating operation means equipment used to apply coating to a substrate ( coating application) and to dry or cure the coating after application. A single coating operation always includes at least the point at which a coating is applied and all subsequent points in the affected source where organic HAP emissions from that coating occur. There may be multiple coating operations in an affected source. Coating application with hand­ held nonrefillable aerosol containers, touchup markers, marking pens, or pinstriping equipment is not a coating operation for the purposes of this subpart. Coating solids means the nonvolatile portion of the coating that makes up the dry film. Continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) means the total equipment that may be required to meet the data acquisition and availability requirements of this subpart; used to sample, condition ( if applicable), analyze, and provide a record of coating operation, or capture system, or add­ on control device parameters. Controlled coating operation means a coating operation from which some or all of the organic HAP emissions are routed through an emission capture system and add­ on control device. Day tank means tank with agitation and pumping system used for mixing and continuous circulation of coatings from the paint storage area to the spray booth area of the paintshop. Deadener means a specialty coating applied to selected vehicle underbody surfaces for the purpose of reducing the sound of road noise in the passenger compartment. Deposited solids means the solids component of the coating remains on the substrate or object being painted. 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 limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or ( 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 ( 3) Fails to meet any emission limit or operating limit or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. Electrodeposition primer or electrocoating primer means a process of applying a protective, corrosionresistant waterborne primer on exterior and interior surfaces that provides thorough coverage of recessed areas. It is a dip coating method that uses an electrical field to apply or deposit the conductive coating material onto the part. The object being painted acts as an electrode that is oppositely charged from the particles of paint in the dip tank. Also referred to as E­ Coat, Uni­ Prime, and ELPO Primer. Emission limitation means an emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard. Final repair means the operations performed and coating( s) applied outside of the paint shop to completelyassembled motor vehicles or in lowbake off­ line operations within the paint shop to correct damage or imperfections in the coating. Flash­ off area means the portion of a coating process between the coating application station and the next coating application station or drying oven where solvent begins to evaporate from the coated vehicle. Glass bonding adhesive means an adhesive used to bond windshield or other glass to an automobile or lightduty truck body. Glass bonding primer means a primer applied to windshield or other glass, or to body openings to prepare the glass or body openings for the application of glass bonding adhesive, or the installation of adhesive bonded glass. Guide coat means Primer­ surfacer. In­ line repair operation means the process of surface preparation and application of coatings on the paint line in the paint shop to correct damage or imperfections in the coating finish. Also referred to as high bake repair or high bake reprocess. Light­ duty truck means vans, sport utility vehicles, and motor vehicles designed primarily to transport light loads of property with gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 lbs or less. Manufacturer's formulation data means data on a material ( such as a coating) that are supplied by the material manufacturer based on knowledge of the ingredients used to manufacture that material, rather than based on testing of the material with the test methods specified in § § 63.3151 and 63.3161. Manufacturer's formulation data may include, but are not limited to, information on density, organic HAP content, volatile organic matter content, and coating solids content. Mass fraction of organic HAP means the ratio of the mass of organic HAP to the mass of a material in which it is contained, expressed as kg of organic HAP per kg of material. Month means a calendar month or a pre­ specified period of 28 days to 35 days to allow for flexibility in recordkeeping when data are based on a business accounting period. Organic HAP content means the mass of organic HAP per mass of coating material. Paint shop means that area of an automobile assembly plant in which vehicle bodies are cleaned, phosphated, and coatings ( including electrodeposition primer, primersurfacer topcoat, and deadener) are applied. Permanent total enclosure ( PTE) means a permanently installed enclosure that meets the criteria of Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR part 51, for a PTE and that directs all the exhaust gases from the enclosure to an add­ on control device. Primer­ surfacer means an intermediate protective coating applied on the electrodeposition primer and under the topcoat. It provides adhesion, protection, and appearance properties to the total finish. Also called a guide coat or surfacer. Purge/ clean operation means the process of flushing paint out and cleaning the spray lines when changing colors or to remove undesired material. It includes use of air and solvents to clean the lines. Purge capture means the capture of purge solvent and materials into a closed collection system immediately after purging the system. It is used to VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78658 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules prevent the release of organic HAP emissions and includes the disposal of the captured purge material. Purge material means the coating and associated cleaning solvent materials expelled from the spray system during the process of cleaning the spray lines and applicators when color­ changing or to maintain the cleanliness of the spray system. Protective oil means an organic material that is applied to metal for the purpose of providing lubrication or protection from corrosion without forming a solid film. This definition of protective oil includes, but is not limited to, lubricating oils, evaporative oils ( including those that evaporate completely), and extrusion oils. Research or laboratory facility means a facility whose primary purpose is for research and development of new processes and products, that is conducted under the close supervision of technically trained personnel, and is not engaged in the manufacture of final or intermediate products for commercial purposes, except in a de minimis manner. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2. Spraybooth means a ventilated structure housing automatic and/ or manual spray application equipment for coating operations. Includes facilities for the capture and entrapment of particulate overspray. Startup, initial means the first time equipment is brought online in a facility. Surface preparation means use of a cleaning material on a portion of or all of a substrate. This includes use of a cleaning material to remove dried coating, which is sometimes called `` depainting.'' Surfacer means Primer­ surfacer. Tack­ wipe means solvent impregnated cloth used to remove dust from surfaces prior to application of coatings. Temporary total enclosure means an enclosure constructed for the purpose of measuring the capture efficiency of pollutants emitted from a given source as defined in Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR part 51. Thermal oxidizer means a device for oxidizing air pollutants or waste materials via flame and heat. Thinner means an organic solvent that is added to a coating after the coating is received from the supplier. Topcoat means the final coating system applied to provide the final color and/ or a protective finish. May be a Monocoat color or Basecoat/ Clearcoat system. Total volatile hydrocarbon ( TVH) means the total amount of nonaqueous volatile organic matter determined according to Methods 204 and 204A through F of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 and substituting the term TVH each place in the methods where the term VOC is used. The TVH includes both VOC and non­ VOC. Transfer efficiency means the ratio of the amount of coating solids deposited onto the surface of the object to the total amount of coating solids sprayed while applying the coating to the object. Uncontrolled coating operation means a coating operation from which none of the organic HAP emissions are routed through an emission capture system and add­ on control device. Volatile organic compound ( VOC) means any compound defined as VOC in 40 CFR 51.100( s). Volume fraction of coating solids means the ratio of the volume of coating solids ( also known as volume of nonvolatiles) to the volume of coating; liters of coating solids per liter of coating. Tables to Subpart IIII of Part 63 TABLE 1 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63. OPERATING LIMITS FOR CAPTURE SYSTEMS AND ADD­ ON CONTROL DEVICES [ If you are required to comply with operating limits by § 63.3093, you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following table] For the following device . . . You must meet the following operating limit . . . And you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit by 1. thermal oxidizer ............... a. the average combustion temperature in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the combustion temperature limit established according to § 63.3167( a). i. collecting the combustion temperature data according to § 63.3168( c); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average combustion temperature at or above the temperature limit. 2. catalytic oxidizer .............. a. the average temperature measured just before the catalyst bed in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the limit established according to § 63.3167( b); and either. i. collecting the temperature data according to § 63.3168( c); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average temperature before the catalyst bed at or above the temperature limit. b. ensure that the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed in any 3­ hour period does not fall below the temperature difference limit established according to § 63.3167( b)( 2); or. i. collecting the temperature data according to § 63.3168( c); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average temperature difference at or above the temperature difference limit; or c. develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan according to § 63.3167( b)( 4). i. maintaining an up­ to­ date inspection and maintenance plan, records of annual catalyst activity checks, records of monthly inspections of the oxidizer system, and records of the annual internal inspections of the catalyst bed. If a problem is discovered during a monthly or annual inspection required by § 63.3167( b)( 4), you must take corrective action as soon as practicable consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78659 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63. OPERATING LIMITS FOR CAPTURE SYSTEMS AND ADD­ ON CONTROL DEVICES Continued [ If you are required to comply with operating limits by § 63.3093, you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following table] For the following device . . . You must meet the following operating limit . . . And you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit by 3. carbon adsorber ............... a. the total regeneration desorbing gas ( e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each carbon bed regeneration cycle must not fall below the total regeneration desorbing gas mass flow limit established according to § 63.3167( c). i. measuring the total regeneration desorbing gas ( e. g., steam or nitrogen) mass flow for each regeneration cycle according to § 63.3168( d); and ii. maintaining the total regeneration desorbing gas mass flow at or above the mass flow limit. b. the temperature of the carbon bed after completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle must not exceed the carbon bed temperature limit established according to § 63.3167( c). i. measuring the temperature of the carbon bed after completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle according to § 63.3168( d); and ii. operating the carbon beds such that each carbon bed is not returned to service until completing each regeneration and any cooling cycle until the recorded temperature of the carbon bed is at or below the temperature limit. 4. condenser ........................ a. the average condenser outlet ( product side) gas temperature in any 3­ hour period must not exceed the temperature limit established according to § 63.3167( d). i. collecting the condenser outlet ( product side) gas temperature according to § 63.3168( e); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average gas temperature at the outlet at or below the temperature limit. 5. concentrators, including zeolite wheels and rotary carbon adsorbers. a. the average gas temperature of the desorption concentrate stream in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the limit established according to § 63.3167( e). i. collecting the temperature data according to § 63.3168( f); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average temperature at or above the temperature limit. b. the average pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the limit established according to § 63.3167( e). i. collecting the pressure drop data according to § 63.3168( f); and ii. reducing the pressure drop data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average pressure drop at or above the pressure drop limit. 6. emission capture system that is a PTE. a. the direction of the air flow at all times must be into the enclosure; and either. i. collecting the direction of air flow, and either the facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings according to § 63.3168( g)( 1) or the pressure drop across the enclosure according to § 63.3168( g)( 2); and ii. maintaining the facial velocity of air flow through all natural draft openings or the pressure drop at or above the facial velocity limit or pressure drop limit, and maintaining the direction of air flow into the enclosure at all times. b. the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings in the enclosure must be at least 200 feet per minute; or. i. collecting the direction of air flow, and either the facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings according to § 63.3168( g)( 1) or the pressure drop across the enclosure according to § 63.3168( g)( 2); and ii. maintaining the facial velocity of air flow through all natural draft openings or the pressure drop at or above the facial velocity limit or pressure drop limit, and maintaining the direction of air flow into the enclosure at all times. c. the pressure drop across the enclosure must be at least 0.007 inch water, as established in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51. i. collecting the direction of air flow, and either the facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings according to § 63.3168( g)( 1) or the pressure drop across the enclosure according to § 63.3168( g)( 2); and ii. maintaining the facial velocity of air flow through all natural draft openings or the pressure drop at or above the facial velocity limit or pressure drop limit, and maintaining the direction of air flow into the enclosure at all times. 7. emission capture system that is not a PTE. a. the average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure in each duct between a capture device and add­ on control device inlet in any 3­ hour period must not fall below the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure limit established for that capture device according to § 63.3167( f). i. collecting the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each capture device according to § 63.3168( g); ii. reducing the data to 3­ hour block averages; and iii. maintaining the 3­ hour average gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each capture device at or above the gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure limit. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78660 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63 [ You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table] Citation Subject Applicable to subpart IIII Explanation § 63.1( a)( 1) ( 14) General Applicability .............................................. Yes § 63.1( b)( 1) ( 3) Initial Applicability Determination ........................... Yes Applicability to subpart IIII is also specified in § 63.3181. § 63.1( c)( 1) Applicability After Standard Established ................ Yes § 63.1( c)( 2) ( 3) Applicability of Permit Program for Area Sources No Area sources are not subject to or subpart IIII. § 63.1( c)( 4) ( 5) Extensions and Notifications .................................. Yes § 63.1( e) Applicability of Permit Program Before Relevant Standard is Set. Yes § 63.2 Definitions ............................................................... Yes Additional definitions are specified in § 63.3176. § 63.3( a) ( c) Units and Abbreviations ......................................... Yes § 63.4( a)( 1) ( 5) Prohibited Activities ................................................ Yes § 63.4( b) ( c) Circumvention/ Severability ..................................... Yes § 63.5( a) Construction/ Reconstruction .................................. Yes § 63.5( b)( 1) ( 6) Requirements for Existing, Newly Constructed, and Reconstructed Sources. Yes § 63.5( d) Application for Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction Yes § 63.5( e) Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction ............... Yes § 63.5( f) Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction Based on Prior State Review. Yes § 63.6( a) Compliance With Standards and Maintenance Requirements Applicability. Yes § 63.6( b)( 1) ( 7) Compliance Dates for New and Reconstructed Sources. Yes § 63.3083 specifies the compliance dates. § 63.6( c)( 1) ( 5) Compliance Dates for Existing Sources ................ Yes § 63.3083 specifies the compliance dates. § 63.6( e)( 1) ( 2) Operation and Maintenance ................................... Yes § 63.6( e)( 3) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan ............. Yes Only sources using an add­ on control device to comply with the standard must complete startup shutdown, and malfunction plans. § 63.6( f)( 1) Compliance Except During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. Yes Applies only to sources using an add­ on control device to comply with the standards. § 63.6( f)( 2) ( 3) Methods for Determining Compliance ................... Yes § 63.6( g)( 1) ( 3) Use of an Alternative Standard .............................. Yes § 63.6( h) Compliance With Opacity/ Visible Emission Standards No Subpart IIII does not establish opacity standards and does not require continuous opacity monitoring systems ( COMS). § 63.6( i)( 1) ( 16) Extension of Compliance ....................................... Yes § 63.6( j) Presidential Compliance Exemption ...................... Yes § 63.7( a)( 1) Performance Test Requirements Applicability .... Yes Applies to all affected sources. Additional requirements for performance testing are specified in § § 63.3164 and 63.3166. § 63.7( a)( 2) Performance Test Requirements Dates .............. Yes Applies only to performance tests for capture system and control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. § 63.3160 specifies the schedule for performance test requirements that are earlier than those specified in § 63.7( a)( 2). § 63.7( a)( 3) Performance Tests Required By the Administrator Yes § 63.7( b) ( e) Performance Test Requirements Notification, Quality Assurance, Facilities Necessary for Safe Testing Conditions During Test. Yes Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards § 63.7( f) Performance Test Requirements Use of Alternative Test Method. Yes Applies to alltest methods except those used to determine capture system efficiency. § 63.7( g) ( h) Performance Test Requirements Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, Reporting, Waiver of Test. Yes Applies only to performance tests for capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards § 63.8( a)( 1) ( 3) Monitoring Requirements Applicability ................ Yes Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for monitoring are specified in § 63.3168. § 63.8( a)( 4) Additional Monitoring Requirements ...................... No Subpart IIII does not have monitoring requirements for flares. § 63.8( b) Conduct of Monitoring ............................................ Yes VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78661 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63 Continued [ You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table] Citation Subject Applicable to subpart IIII Explanation § 63.8( c)( 1) ( 3) Continuous Monitoring Systems ( CMS) Operation and Maintenance. Yes Applies only to monitoring of capture system and add­ on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standards. Additional requirements for CMS operations and maintenance are specified in § 63.3168. § 63.8( c)( 4) CMS ....................................................................... No § 63.3168 specifies the requirements for the operation of CMS for capture systems and add­ on control devices at sources using these to comply with the standards. § 63.8( c)( 5) COMS ..................................................................... No Subpart IIII does not have opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.8( c)( 6) CMS Requirements ................................................ No § 63.3168 specifies the requirements for monitoring systems for capture systems and add­ on control devices at sources using these to comply with the standards. § 63.8( c)( 7) CMS Out­ of­ Control Periods .................................. No § 63.8( c)( 8) CMS Out­ of­ Control Periods Reporting ................. No § 63.3120 requires reporting of CMS out­ of­ control periods. § 63.8( d) ( e) Quality Control Program and CMS Performance Evaluation. No Subpart IIII does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.8( f)( 1) ( 5) Use of an Alternative Monitoring Method .............. Yes § 63.8( f)( 6) Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test .................... No Subpart IIII does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.8( g)( 1) Data Reduction ...................................................... No § § 63.3167 and ( 5) 63.3168 specify monitoring data reduction. § 63.9( a) ( d) Notification Requirements ...................................... Yes § 63.9( e) Notification of Performance Test ........................... Yes Applies only to capture system and add­ on control device performance tests at sources using these to comply with the standards. § 63.9( f) Notification of Visible Emissions/ Opacity Test ..... No Subpart IIII does not have opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.9( g)( 1) ( 3) Additional Notifications When Using CMS ............. No Subpart IIII does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.9( h) Notification of Compliance Status .......................... Yes § 63.3110 specifies the dates for submitting the notification of compliance status. § 63.9( i) Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines ........................ Yes § 63.9( j) Change in Previous Information ............................ Yes § 63.10( a) Recordkeeping/ Reporting Applicability and General Information. Yes § 63.10( b)( 1) General Recordkeeping Requirements .................. Yes Additional are requirements specified in § § 63.3130 and 63.3131. § 63.10( b)( 2)( i) ( v) Recordkeeping Relevant to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Periods and CMS. Yes Requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunction records only apply to capture systems and add­ on control devices used to comply with the standards. § 63.10( b)( 2)( vi) ( xi) ................................................................................. Yes § 63.10( b)( 2)( xii) Records .................................................................. Yes § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiii) ................................................................................. No Subpart IIII does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv) ................................................................................. Yes § 63.10( b)( 3) Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations Yes § 63.10( c)( 1) ( 6) Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Yes § 63.10( c)( 7) 8) ................................................................................. No The same records are required in § 63.3120( a)( 6). § 63.10( c)( 9) ( 15) ................................................................................. Yes § 63.10( d)( 1) General Reporting Requirements .......................... Yes Additional requirements are specified in § 63.3120. § 63.10( d)( 2) Report of Performance Test Results ..................... Yes Additional requirements are specified in § 63.3120( b). § 63.10( d)( 3) Reporting Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations No Subpart IIII does not require opacity or visible emissions observations. § 63.10( d)( 4) Progress Reports for Sources With Compliance Extensions. Yes § 63.10( d)( 5) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports ........ Yes Applies only to capture systems and add­ on control devices used to comply with the standards. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78662 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63. APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63 Continued [ You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table] Citation Subject Applicable to subpart IIII Explanation § 63.10( e)( 1) ( 2) Additional CMS Reports ......................................... No Subpart IIII does not require the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems. § 63.10( e)( 3) Excess Emissions/ CMS Performance Reports ...... No § 63.3120( b) specifies the contents of periodic compliance reports. § 63.10( e)( 4) COMS Data Reports .............................................. No Subpart IIII does not specify requirements for opacity or COMS. § 63.10( f) Recordkeeping/ Reporting Waiver .......................... Yes § 63.11 Control Device Requirements/ Flares ..................... No Subpart IIII does not specify use of flares for compliance § 63.12 State Authority and Delegations ............................ Yes § 63.13 Addresses .............................................................. .................... Yes § 63.14 Incorporation by Reference .................................... Yes § 63.15 Availability of Information/ Confidentiality ............... Yes TABLE 3 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63. DEFAULT ORGANIC HAP MASS FRACTION FOR SOLVENTS AND SOLVENT BLENDS [ You may use the mass fraction values in the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test data or manufacturer's formulation data] Solvent/ Solvent blend CAS. No. Average organic HAP mass fraction Typical organic HAP, percent by mass 1. Toluene ....................................................................... 108 88 3 1.0 Toluene. 2. Xylene( s) ..................................................................... 1330 20 7 1.0 Xylenes, ethylbenzene. 3. Hexane ....................................................................... 110 54 3 0.5 n­ hexane. 4. n­ Hexane .................................................................... 110 54 3 1.0 n­ hexane. 5. Ethylbenzene .............................................................. 100 41 4 1.0 Ethylbenzene. 6. Aliphatic 140 ............................................................... ...................... 0 None. 7. Aromatic 100 .............................................................. ...................... 0.02 1% xylene, 1% cumene. 8. Aromatic 150 .............................................................. ...................... 0.09 Naphthalene. 9. Aromatic naphtha ....................................................... 64742 95 6 0.02 1% xylene, 1% cumene. 10. Aromatic solvent ....................................................... 64742 94 5 0.1 Naphthalene. 11. Exempt mineral spirits .............................................. 8032 32 4 0 None. 12. Ligroines ( VM & P) ................................................... 8032 32 4 0 None. 13. Lactol spirits .............................................................. 64742 89 6 0.15 Toluene. 14. Low aromatic white spirit .......................................... 64742 82 1 0 None. 15. Mineral spirits ........................................................... 64742 88 7 0.01 Xylenes. 16. Hydrotreated naphtha ............................................... 64742 48 9 0 None. 17. Hydrotreated light distillate ....................................... 64742 47 8 0.001 Toluene. 18. Stoddard solvent ....................................................... 8052 41 3 0.01 Xylenes. 19. Super high­ flash naphtha ......................................... 64742 95 6 0.05 Xylenes. 20. Varsol solvent ........................................................ 8052 49 3 0.01 0.5% xylenes, 0.5% ethylbenzene. 21. VM & P naphtha ....................................................... 64742 89 8 0.06 3% toluene, 3% xylene. 22. Petroleum distillate mixture ...................................... 68477 31 6 0.08 4% naphthalene, 4% biphenyl. TABLE 4 TO SUBPART IIII OF PART 63. DEFAULT ORGANIC HAP MASS FRACTION FOR PETROLEUM SOLVENT GROUPS a [ You may use the mass fraction values in the following table for solvent blends for which you do not have test data or manufacturer's formulation data] Solvent type Average organic HAP mass fraction Typical organic HAP, percent by mass Aliphatic b ..................................... 0.03 1% Xylene, 1% Toluene, and 1% Ethylbenzene. Aromatic c ..................................... 0.06 4% Xylene, 1% Toluene, and 1% Ethylbenzene. a Use this table only if the solvent blend does not match any of the solvent blends in Table 3 to this subpart, and you only know whether the blend is aliphatic or aromatic. b e. g., Mineral Spirits 135, Mineral Spirits 150 EC, Naphtha, Mixed Hydrocarbon, Aliphatic Hydrocarbon, Aliphatic Naphtha, Naphthol Spirits, Petroleum Spirits, Petroleum Oil, Petroleum Naphtha, Solvent Naphtha, Solvent Blend. c e. g., Medium­ flash Naphtha, High­ flash Naphtha, Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic Naphtha, Light Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Aromatic Hydrocarbons Light Aromatic Solvent. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2 78663 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules PART 264 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6924, 6925, 6927, 6928( h), and 6974. 2. Section 264.1050 is amended by adding paragraph ( h) to read as follows: § 264.1050 Applicability. * * * * * ( h) Purged coatings and solvents from automobile and light­ duty truck, separate non­ body plastic parts, and separate non­ body metal parts surface coating operations at facilities subject to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, are not subject to the requirements of this subpart. * * * * * PART 265 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, and 6937, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 265.1050 is amended by adding paragraph ( g) to read as follows: § 265.1050 Applicability. * * * * * ( g) Purged coatings and solvents from automobile and light­ duty truck, separate non­ body plastic parts, and separate non­ body metal parts surface coating operations at facilities subject to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, are not subject to the requirements of this subpart. [ FR Doc. 02 31420 Filed 12 23 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 20: 02 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEP2. SGM 24DEP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.772093

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0095-0001

Rule

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2003; Final Rule

Friday, December 27, 2002 Part X Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 82 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2003; Final Rule VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 05: 20 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DER5. SGM 27DER5 79508 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 1 `` Consumption'' is defined as the amount of a substance produced in the United States, plus the amount imported into the United States, minus the amount exported to Parties to the Montreal Protocol ( see section 601( 6) of the Clean Air Act). Stockpiles of class I ODSs produced or imported prior to the 1996 phase out may be used for purposes not expressly banned at 40 CFR part 82. 2 Class I ozone depleting substances are listed at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix A. 3 According to section 614( b) of the Act, Title VI `` shall be construed, interpreted, and applied as a supplement to the terms and conditions of the Montreal Protocol * * * and shall not be construed, interpreted, or applied to abrogate the responsibilities or obligations of the United States to implement fully the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. In the case of conflict between any provision of this title and any provision of the Montreal Protocol, the more stringent provision shall govern.'' EPA's regulations implementing the essential use provisions of the Act and the Protocol are located in 40 CFR part 82. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [ FRL 7430 7] RIN 2060 AK48 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2003 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is allocating essential use allowances for import and production of class I stratospheric ozone depleting substances ( ODSs) for calendar year 2003. Essential use allowances enable a person to obtain controlled class I ODSs as an exemption to the regulatory ban of production and import of these chemicals, which became effective on January 1, 1996. EPA allocates essential use allowances for exempted production or import of a specific quantity of class I ODS solely for the designated essential purpose. Today EPA is finalizing the allocations proposed in the Federal Register on November 6, 2002 ( 67 FR 67581). These allocations total 3,270 metric tons of chlorofluorocarbons for use in metered dose inhalers, and 13.2 metric tons of methyl chloroform for use in the U. S. Space Shuttle and Titan Rocket programs. DATES: This final rulemaking is effective December 27, 2002. ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in EPA Air Docket No. A 93 39. The Air Docket is located at EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460. The Air Docket is open from 8: 30 a. m. until 4: 30 p. m. Monday through Friday. EPA may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Monroe, by regular mail: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Programs Division ( 6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20460; by telephone: ( 202) 564 9712; or by email: monroe. scott@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Basis for Allocating Essential Use Allowances A. What Are Essential Use Allowances? B. Under What Authority Does EPA Allocate Essential Use Allowances? C. What Is the Process for Allocating Essential Use Allowances? II. Response to Comments III. Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2003 IV. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Congressional Review Act V. Judicial Review I. Basis for Allocating Essential use Allowances A. What Are Essential Use Allowances? Essential use allowances are allowances to produce or import certain ozone­ depleting chemicals in the U. S. for purposes that have been deemed `` essential'' by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and the U. S. Government. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer ( Protocol) is the international agreement to reduce and eventually eliminate the production and consumption 1 of all stratospheric ozone depleting substances ( ODSs). The elimination of production and consumption of class I ODSs is accomplished through adherence to phase­ out schedules for specific class I ODSs, 2 including: chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and methyl bromide. As of January 1, 1996, production and import of most class I ODSs were phased out in developed countries, including the United States. However, the Protocol and the Clean Air Act ( Act) provide exemptions that allow for the continued import and/ or production of class I ODS for specific uses. Under the Protocol, exemptions may be granted for uses that are determined by the Parties to be `` essential.'' Decision IV/ 25, taken by the Parties to the Protocol in 1992, established criteria for determining whether a specific use should be approved as essential, and set forth the international process for making determinations of essentiality. The criteria for an essential use, as set forth in paragraph 1 of Decision IV/ 25, are the following: ``( a) that a use of a controlled substance should qualify as `` essential'' only if: ( i) it is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of society ( encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects); and ( ii) there are no available technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health; ( b) that production and consumption, if any, of a controlled substance for essential uses should be permitted only if: ( i) all economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the essential use and any associated emission of the controlled substance; and ( ii) the controlled substance is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled controlled substances, also bearing in mind the developing countries' need for controlled substances.'' B. Under What Authority Does EPA Allocate Essential Use Allowances? Title VI of the Act implements the Protocol for the United States. 3 Section 604( d) of the Act authorizes EPA to allow the production of limited quantities of class I ODSs after the phase out date for the following essential uses: ( 1) Methyl Chloroform, `` solely for use in essential applications ( such as nondestructive testing for metal fatigue and corrosion of existing airplane engines and airplane parts susceptible to metal fatigue) for which no safe and effective substitute is available.'' EPA issues methyl chloroform allowances to the U. S. Space Shuttle and Titan Rocket programs. ( 2) Medical Devices ( as defined in section 601( 8) of the Act), `` if such authorization is determined by the Commissioner [ of the Food and Drug Administration], in consultation with the Administrator [ of EPA] to be necessary for use in medical devices.'' EPA issues allowances to manufacturers of metered­ dose inhalers, which use CFCs as propellant for the treatment of VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 05: 20 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DER5. SGM 27DER5 79509 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Rules and Regulations asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. ( 3) Aviation Safety, for which limited quantities of halon­ 1211, halon­ 1301, and halon 2402 may be produced `` if the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with the Administrator [ of EPA] determines that no safe and effective substitute has been developed and that such authorization is necessary for aviation safety purposes.'' Neither EPA nor the Parties have ever granted a request for essential use allowances for halon, because alternatives are available, or because existing quantities of this substance are large enough to provide for any needs for which alternatives have not yet been developed. The Protocol, under Decision X/ 19, additionally allows a general exemption for laboratory and analytical uses through December 31, 2005. This exemption is reflected in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. While the Act does not specifically provide for this exemption, EPA has determined that an allowance for essential laboratory and analytical uses is allowable under the Act as a de minimis exemption. The de minimis exemption is addressed in EPA's final rule of March 13, 2001 ( 66 FR 14760 14770). The Parties to the Protocol subsequently agreed ( Decision XI/ 15) that the general exemption does not apply to the following uses: testing of oil and grease, and total petroleum hydrocarbons in water; testing of tar in road­ paving materials; and forensic finger­ printing. EPA incorporated this exclusion at appendix G to subpart A of 40 CFR part 82 on February 11, 2002 ( 67 FR 6352). C. What Is the Process for Allocating Essential Use Allowances? Before EPA may allocate essential use allowances, the Parties to the Protocol must first approve the United States' request to produce or import essential class I ODSs. The procedure set out by Decision IV/ 25 calls for individual Parties to nominate essential uses and the total amount of ODSs needed for those essential uses on an annual basis. The Protocol's Technology and Economic Assessment Panel evaluates the nominated essential uses and makes recommendations to the Protocol Parties. The Parties make the final decisions on whether to approve a Party's essential use nomination at their annual meeting. This nomination cycle occurs approximately two years before the year in which the allowances would be in effect. The allowances allocated through today's action were first nominated by the United States in January 2001. Once the U. S. nomination is approved by the Parties, EPA allocates essential use exemptions to specific entities through notice­ and­ comment rulemaking in a manner consistent with the Act. For medical devices, EPA requests information from manufacturers about the number and type of devices they plan to produce, as well as the amount of CFCs necessary for production. EPA then forwards the information to the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA), which determines the amount of CFCs necessary for metered­ dose inhalers in the coming calendar year. Based on FDA's assessment, EPA proposes allocations to each eligible entity. Under the Act and the Protocol, EPA may allocate essential use allowances in quantities that together are below or equal to the total amount approved by the Parties. EPA may not allocate essential use allowances in amounts higher than the total approved by the Parties. For methyl chloroform, Decision X/ 6 by the Parties to the Protocol established that ``* * * the remaining quantity of methyl chloroform authorized for the United States at previous meetings of the Parties [ will] be made available for use in manufacturing solid rocket motors until such time as the 1999 2001 quantity of 176.4 tons ( 17.6 ODPweighted tons) allowance is depleted, or until such time as safe alternatives are implemented for remaining essential uses.'' Section 604( d)( 1) of the Act terminates the exemption period for methyl chloroform on January 1, 2005. Therefore, between 1999 and 2004 EPA may allow production or import up to a total of 176.4 metric tons of methyl chloroform for authorized essential uses. According to EPA's tracking system, the total amount of methyl chloroform produced or imported by essential use allowance holders in the years 1999 2001 was 28.3 metric tons. With today's allocation totaling 13.2 tons, the U. S. remains well below the established cap on allowances for methyl choloroform. II. Response to Comments EPA received one comment in response to the proposed rule. The commenter supported the proposed allocations. III. Allocation of Essential Use Allowances for Calendar Year 2003 With today's action, EPA is allocating essential use allowances for calendar year 2003 to entities listed in Table 1. These allowances are for the production or import of the specified quantity of class I controlled substances solely for the specified essential use. TABLE I. ESSENTIAL USE ALLOCATION FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2003 Company Chemical Quantity ( metric tons) ( i) Metered Dose Inhalers ( for oral inhalation) for Treatment of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Armstrong Pharmaceuticals ........................................................ CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 574 Aventis ........................................................................................ CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 48 Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals ...................................... CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 907 Glaxo SmithKline ........................................................................ CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 535 Schering­ Plough Corporation ...................................................... CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 937 Sidmak Laboratories 4 ................................................................. CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 136 3M Pharmaceuticals ................................................................... CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 133 ( ii) Cleaning, Bonding and Surface Activation Applications for the Space Shuttle Rockets and Titan Rockets National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA)/ Thiokol Rocket. Methyl Chloroform ...................................................................... 9.8 VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 05: 20 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DER5. SGM 27DER5 79510 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE I. ESSENTIAL USE ALLOCATION FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2003 Continued Company Chemical Quantity ( metric tons) United States Air Force/ Titan Rocket ......................................... Methyl Chloroform ...................................................................... 3.4 4 EPA proposed to allocate allowances to Sidmak Laboratories, Inc. for 136 metric tons for use in 2003. Following publication of the proposal, Sidmak was purchased by the pharmaceutical firm PLIVA d. d. In 2003, a subsidiary of PLIVA d. d. reportedly will replace Sidmak Laboratories, thereby acquiring Sidmak's essential use allowances. A letter to EPA describing the purchase and PLIVA's commitment to execute essential use allowances in accordance with EPA regulations and Sidmak's application for allowances has been filed in Air Docket A 93 39, Category XII A. IV. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether this 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 Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that this action is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not add any information collection requirements or increase burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. OMB previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the final rule promulgated on May 10, 1995, and assigned OMB control number 2060 0170 ( EPA ICR No. 1432.21). 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 instruction; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 1. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of assessing the impact of today's rule on small entities, small entities are defined as: ( 1) Pharmaceutical preparations manufacturing businesses ( NAICS code 325412) that have less than 750 employees; ( 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 forprofit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives `` which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U. S. C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This rule provides an otherwise unavailable benefit to those companies that are receiving essential use allowances. We have therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Pub. L. 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, EPA 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 one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA 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 EPA 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 EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed a small government agency plan under section 203 of the VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 05: 20 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DER5. SGM 27DER5 79511 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates ( under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector, since it merely provides exemptions from the 1996 phase out of class I ODSs. Similarly, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, because this rule merely allocates essential use exemptions to entities as an exemption to the ban on production and import of class I ODSs. E. 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 final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. 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 9, 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.'' This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's rule affects only the companies that requested essential use allowances. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health risks and Safety Risks'' ( 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 and safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency 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 considered by the Agency. EPA interprets 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 Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it implements the phase­ out schedule and exemptions established by Congress in Title VI of the Clean Air Act. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA), Pub. L. 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in this regulatory 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, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Therefore, EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). This rule will be effective December 27, 2002. V. Judicial Review Under section 307( b)( 1) of the Act, EPA finds that these regulations are of national applicability. Accordingly, judicial review of the action is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within sixty days of publication of the action in the Federal Register. Under section 307( b)( 2), the requirements of this rule may not be challenged later in judicial proceedings brought to enforce those requirements. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports, Imports, Laboratory and Analytical Uses, Methyl Chloroform, Ozone layer, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 19, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. 40 CFR Part 82 is amended as follows: PART 82 PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7414, 7601, 7671 7671q. Subpart A Production and Consumption Controls 2. Section 82.4 is amended by revising the table in paragraph ( t)( 2) to read as follows: VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 05: 20 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DER5. SGM 27DER5 79512 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Rules and Regulations § 82.4 Prohibitions. * * * * * ( t) * * * ( 2) * * * TABLE I. ESSENTIAL USE ALLOCATION FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2003 Company Chemical Quantity ( metric tons) ( i) Metered Dose Inhalers ( for oral inhalation) for Treatment of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Armstrong Pharmaceuticals ........................................................ CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 574 Aventis ........................................................................................ CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 48 Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals ...................................... CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 907 GlaxoSmithKline .......................................................................... CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 535 Schering­ Plough Corporation ...................................................... CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 937 Sidmak Laboratories ................................................................... CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 136 3M Pharmaceuticals ................................................................... CFC 11 or CFC 12 or CFC 114 .............................................. 133 ( ii) Cleaning, Bonding and Surface Activation Applications for the Space Shuttle Rockets and Titan Rockets National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA)/ Thiokol Rocket. Methyl Chloroform ...................................................................... 9.8 United States Air Force/ Titan Rocket ......................................... Methyl Chloroform ...................................................................... 3.4 * * * * * [ FR Doc. 02 32719 Filed 12 26 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 05: 20 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DER5. SGM 27DER5

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.823318

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0096-0001

Proposed Rule

National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Particulate Matter

80329 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 58 [ AD FRL 7388 3] RIN 2060 AK05 National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Particulate Matter AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to revise the national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. This requirement describes the number of collocated sites required within a reporting organization. In the `` Rules and Regulations'' section of today's Federal Register, we are approving revisions to `` Quality Assurance Requirements for State and Local Air Monitoring Stations'' ( SLAMS) as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this approval in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 3, 2003. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted ( in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( 6102), Attention: Docket No. A96 51, 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 A96 51, U. S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. We request that you send a separate copy of your comments to Mr. Michael Papp, Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group ( C339 02), Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the proposed rule, contact Mr. Michael Papp, Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group ( C339 02), Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 2408. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns revising the national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter, 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, section 3.5.2. For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the `` Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication. Dated: December 18, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. [ FR Doc. 02 32385 Filed 12 30 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 51 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DEP4. SGM 31DEP4

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.828633

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0097-0001

Rule

National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Particulate Matter; Direct Final Rule

Tuesday, December 31, 2002 Part VI Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 58 National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Particulate Matter; Final Rule and Proposed Rule VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 49 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DER5. SGM 31DER5 80326 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 58 [ AD FRL 7388 4] RIN 2060 AK05 National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Particulate Matter AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to amend the national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. The revision reduces to 15 percent the requirement that reporting organizations collocate 25 percent of State and local air monitoring station ( SLAMS) sites with a second sampler in order to estimate precision at a reporting organization level. The regulations describe the number of collocated sites required within a reporting organization. With today's action, EPA is making a simple change in the regulations by changing the requirement to collocate 25 percent of reporting organizations sites to 15 percent of the reporting organizations sites. The effect of this change will be to reduce the number of monitors which must be collocated. This in turn will reduce the cost of implementing and maintaining monitoring networks but without significantly affecting our confidence in the precision at the reporting organization level or in providing acceptable estimates of achievement of the precision Data Quality Objectives ( DQOs). Since reporting organizations are of unequal size in the number of monitors they implement, 15 percent was considered an acceptable limit of providing enough precision information for smaller reporting organizations while not unduly burdening larger reporting organizations. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on March 31, 2003 without further notice, unless significant adverse comments are received by January 30, 2003. If significant adverse comments are received, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted ( in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center ( 6102), Attention: Docket No. A96 51, 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 A96 51, U. S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. We request that you send a separate copy of your comments to Mr. Michael Papp, Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group ( C339 02), Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the direct final rule, contact Mr. Michael Papp, Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group ( C339 02), Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541 2408. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are publishing this direct final without prior proposal because we view this as noncontroversial and do not anticipate adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rule section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal in the event that adverse comments are filed. If we receive any significant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this direct final rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of information compiled by EPA in developing this direct final 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 docket contains the record in the case of judicial review. The docket number for this rulemaking is A 96 51. Worldwide Web ( WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, electronic copies of this action will be posted on the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Following signature, we will post a copy of the supplemental proposal on the Air Monitoring Technology Information Center's TTN Web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ amtic/ pmcfr. html under the title `` PM 2.5 Collocated Precision Reduction.'' The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If you need more information regarding the TTN, call the TTN HELP line at ( 919) 541 5384. Authority. Sections 110, 301( a), and 319 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 7410, 7601 ( a), 7619. I. Background The Clean Air Act as amended ( 1990 Amendments), established requirements for States to prepare and submit State Implementation plans ( SIPs) to EPA to implement and enforce national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS). 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Specifically, section 110 of the Clean Air Act ( Act) identifies particular requirements for these SIPs and lists the elements which each must contain in order to be approvable by EPA. Included in these provisions is the requirement that each SIP: provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to ( i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and ( ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator; 42 U. S. C 7410( a)( 2)( B). Any air quality monitoring systems required in such SIP's were further required to utilize standard criteria and methodologies established by regulations to be promulgated by EPA pursuant to section 319 of the Act. When EPA promulgated NAAQS for fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5), it also adopted regulations for air sampling ( 62 FR 38833, July 18, 1997). These regulations included quality assurance ( QA) requirements in Appendix A based on data quality objectives developed using PM 2.5 data available in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) and other sources prior to the July 18, 1997 rulemaking. These QA objectives were developed to ensure that decision makers would have PM 2.5 data of adequate quality to support important decisions such as the comparison to the PM 2.5 NAAQS. In response to complaints that arose under previous regulations about the burden of QA requirements, 62 FR 38767, July 18, 1997 section IV, `` Discussion of Regulatory Revisions and Major Comments on Part 58,'' EPA stated that ``[ i] n an effort to assist State and local agencies in achieving the data quality objectives of the PM 2.5 monitoring program, an incentive program has been established that is based on network performance and VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 49 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DER5. SGM 31DER5 80327 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Rules and Regulations maturity that can reduce these QA requirements.'' Within 40 CFR part 58, appendix A data quality objectives for precision ( 10 percent) and bias ( ± 10 percent) were identified. In order to meet the precision data quality objective, reporting organizations are currently required by the regulations to collocate 25 percent of the monitoring sites with a second federal reference method monitor. This second monitor would collect a sample every 6 days. The data quality objective is assessed using 3 years of this collocated information, which would provide approximately 182 values for any one site. Over the data collection years of 1999 and 2000, EPA performed data quality assessments on PM 2.5 data and found that the majority of the reporting organizations are achieving the precision data quality objective. In 2001, EPA also reviewed the original 1997 data quality objectives using the 1999 and 2000 PM 2.5 data set. Using this more robust data set, EPA determined that the precision data quality objective was less influential on decision errors than the bias data quality objective and therefore greater imprecision could be tolerated in the network without adverse effect on overall uncertainty and therefore decision making. Based on the data quality assessments and the evaluation of the original data quality objective, EPA concluded that a reduction in the precision siting requirement would not significantly affect confidence in precision estimates at the reporting organization level or in providing acceptable estimates of achievement of the precision DQO. Therefore, in keeping with the commitment established in the July 18, 1997 Federal Register document, EPA has determined that it would be appropriate to reduce the monitor collocation requirements. We view these amendments as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comments, and we are publishing these amendments in a direct final rule. II. 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) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The 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. We have determined that this direct final rule does not qualify as a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and therefore, is not subect to review by OMB. B. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use. This direct final 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. C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires that we 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.'' Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the State and local governments, or we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule is a revision to an existing rule governing the requirements for State and local monitoring networks and reduces the burden on affected States. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this direct final rule. D. 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 9, 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.'' This direct final rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs but lessens the existing requirements on the tribal governments. This rule revises an existing regulation which details the requirements for State, local and tribal air monitoring networks. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this action. E. 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 we determine ( 1) is `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency 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 considered by the Agency. 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 Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this does not establish an environmental VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 49 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DER5. SGM 31DER5 80328 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / Rules and Regulations standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Pub. L. 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, EPA 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 an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective 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 EPA 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 EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA 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 direct final rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $ 100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. This rule does not impose new requirements, but rather reduces somewhat the requirements of existing regulations for State and local air monitoring networks. We have also determined that this rule does not significantly or uniquely impact small governments. Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this rule. 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 that we conduct 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. This direct final rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because no additional cost will be incurred by such entities because of the changes specified by the rule. The rule reduces the requirements for the number of sites at which collocated monitors are required. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. H. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Pub. L. 104 113, § 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 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, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. In this direct final rule there is no consensus standard for the setting of a precision requirement for a monitoring network. The determination of the confidence needed in the estimates derived for a particular monitoring network determine the amount and quality of the precision information. EPA used accepted statistical practices for the generation of the number of collocated sites it felt was appropriate for use in the network and used similar techniques for determining that the requirement could be reduced. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. We will submit a report containing this direct final rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this direct final rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This direct final is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 58 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 18, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, is amended as follows: PART 58 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 58 continues to read as follows: 42 U. S. C. 7401, 7416, 7601, and 7619. 2. In Appendix A to part 58, section 3.5.2 is amended by revising paragraph ( a)( 1) to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 58 Quality Assurance Requirements for State and Local Air Monitoring Stations ( SLAMS) * * * * * 3.5.2 * * * ( a) * * * ( 1) Have 15 percent of the monitors collocated ( values of .5 and greater round up). * * * * * [ FR Doc. 02 32384 Filed 12 30 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 09: 49 Dec 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 31DER5. SGM 31DER5

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.831260

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0017-0001

Supporting & Related Material

Y " 4 Jz­­ B­ U/ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 Application for Critical Use Exemption of Methyl Bromide for Use in 2005 in the United States WHY IS THIS I N F 0 RM AT I 0 N NEEDED? Under the Clean Air Act and the international treaty to protect the ozone layer ( the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer), the production and import of methyl bromide will be phased out in the United States on January 1, 2005. This application seeks information to support a U. S. request to produce and import methyl bromide for certain critical uses and circumstances beyond this 2005 phaseout date. The information in this application will be used to review whether your use of methyl bromide is " critical" because no technically and economically feasible alternatives are available. In order to estimate the loss as a result of not having methyl bromide available, EPA needs to compare data ( yields, cropkommodity prices, revenues and costs) for your use of methyl bromide with uses of alternative pest control regimens. If you submit a well documented application with sound reasons why alternatives are not technically and economically feasible, the U. S. government can be a better advocate for your exemption request internationally. Click on the Instructions tab located at the bottom of the screen for additional information. h , " , EPA AIR DOCKET . I 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 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. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 324 hours per response and assumes a large portion of applications will be submitted by consortia on behalf of many individual users of methyl bromide. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB control number. OMB Control # 2060­ 0482 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 INSTRUCTIONS The information provided by you in this application will be used to evaluate the requested methyl bromide use. The US. and other countries that are parties to the Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer decided that: " a use of methyl bromide should qualify as " critical" only if the nominating Party determines that: ( i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and ( ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination ...' I APPLIES? r CONTACTS I APPLY? I L OMB Control # If you anticipate that you will need methyl bromide in 2005 because you believe there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives, then you should apply for the critical use exemption. This application may be submitted either by a consortium representing multiple users or by individual users. We encourage users with similar circumstances of use to submit a single application ( for example, any number of pre­ plant users with similar soil, pest, and climactic conditions can submit a single application.) If a consortium is applying for multiple methyl bromide users, the economic data should be for a representativc or typical user within the consortium unless otherwise noted. If economic or technical factors ( such as size of the farm) affecting the ability of this " representative user" to use alternatives are significantly different than other users in the consortium, more than one application should be submitted to reflect these differences. Please contact your local, state, regional or national commodity association and/ or state representative agenc; to find out if they plan on submitting an application on behalf of your commodity group. States that have agreed to participate in the exemption process are listed on EPA's website at www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ cueqa. html You may either complete an electronic ( Microsoft Excel) or a printed version of the application. Please fill out each form or worksheet in the application as completely as possible. If you are completing the printed version and need extra space you may attach additional sheets as needed. Additional information may be available from your local state department of agriculture or at the sites listed below or by calling 1­ 800­ 296­ 1996, Each worksheet number corresponds to the tab number in the electronic version of the application. Instructions specific to each worksheet are provided at the top of each sheet. A header row is included on each worksheet to include an application ID number that EPA will assign. Instructions Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information Worksheet 2. Methyl Bromide ­ Historical Data 2­ A. Methyl Bromide Use 1997­ 2000 2­ B. Methyl Bromide ­ CroplCommodity Yield and Revenue 1997­ 2000 2­ C. Methyl Bromide ­ CroplCommodity Yield and Revenue 2001 2­ D. Methyl Bromide Use and Costs for 2001 ?­ E. Methyl Bromide ­ Other Operating Costs for 2001 2­ F. Methyl Bromide ­ Fixed and Overhead Costs , .. Worksheet 3. Alternatives ­ Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 3­ A. Alternatives ­ Technical Feasibility Research Summary Worksheet Example Research Sum ( Summary) Worksheet 3­ B. Alternatives ­ Pest Control Regimen Costs 3­ C. Alternatives ­ Crop/ Commodity Yield and Revenue 3­ D. Alternatives ­ Other Operating Costs Worksheet 4. Alternatives ­ Research Plans Worksheet 5. Additional Information Worksheet 6. Application Summary Fumigation Cycle Climate Zone Map 2060­ 0482 IS MY INFORMATION > ONFIDENTIAL? WHEN IS THE INFORMATION NEEDED? WHERE DO I SUBMIT THE APPLICATION? HOW CAN I RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 The applicant may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all'of the information in the application by placing on ( or attaching to) the information, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or other suitable form of notice employing language such as trade secret, proprietary, or company confidential. Allegedly confidential portions of otherwise non­ confidential documents should be clearly identified by the applicant, and may be submitted separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the applicant desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures set forth under 40 CFR Part 2 Subpart B; 41 FR 36902,43 FR 400000. 50 FR 51 661. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the applicant. Applicants submitting their application via e­ mail assume responsibility for the confidentiality of the electronic rn This application must be postmarked to the EPA address below no later than 120 days after the Notice was published in the Federal Reaister requesting critical use exemption applications. Electronic Address for applications: methyl. bromide@ epa. gov ( When submitting an application electronically, you should also print a hard copy, sign the copy, and submit it by mail) Mailing Address for applications being submitted by mail directly to the EPA: US Environmental Protection Agency Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Global Programs Division, Mail Code 6205J 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460­ 0001 Address for applications being sent by courier or non­ U. S. Postal overniaht express delivery to EPA: US Environmental Protection Agency Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Global Programs Division 501 3rd St. NW Washington, DC 20001 phone: ( 202) 564­ 9410 If you have general questions about this application call: Stratospheric Ozone Hotline 1­ 800­ 296­ 1 996 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. For EPA Use Only ID# Worksheet I. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information The following information will be used to determine the amount of methyl bromide requested and the contact person for this request. It is important that we know whom to contact in case we need additional information during the review of the application. Location ( Enter the state, region, or county. Provide more detail about the location if relevant to the feasibility of alternatives to methyl bromide.) Croplcommodity ( Include all crops/ commodities that benefit from the application of methyl bromide in a fumigation cycle. A fumigation cycle is the period of time between methyl bromide fumigations.) Climate ( Individual users should enter their climate zone designation by reviewing the U. S. climate zone map. If a consortium is submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of consortium users in each climate zone. This map is located at the end of this workbook or it can be reviewed online at http:// www. usna. usda. gov/ Hardzone/ ushzmap. htmI). Soil type Check the box( es) for the soil types and percent organic matter that apply to your area. If a consortium is submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of consortium users in each soil type. Soil Type: Light Medium Heavy over 5% Organic Matter: 0 to 2% 2 t 0 5 % Other geographic factors that may affect croplcommodity yield ( e. g., water table). Consortium name Specialty ( check one) Contact name agronomic Address economic ~ ~ Daytime phone IO. FAX 11. E­ mail List an additional contact person if available. Specialty ( check one) 12. Contact name agronomic 13. Address economic 14. Daytime phone 15. FAX 16. E­ mail , Year 2006 2007 For EPA Use Only ID# Worksheet I. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information Quantity ai ( Ib.) of Methyl Bromide Area to be Treated Unit of Area Treated 17. How much active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide are you requesting for 2005? Ibs. If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for question 17 and 17a. should be the total for the consortium. In the question below, area is defined as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications. 17a. How much area will this be applied to? Please list units. units 18. Are you requesting methyl bromide for additional years beyond 2005? Yes No 18a' If yes, please list year and quantity active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide requested in the table below and explain why you need authorization for multiple years. 19. Target Pest@) or Pest Problem( s): ( Be as specific as possible about the species or classes of pests relevant to the feasibility of alternatives.) 20. If applying as a consortium for many users of methyl bromide, please define a representative user. Define exactly, issues such as size of the operation ( acres treated with methyl bromide for growers, cubic feet for post­ harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications), whether the representative user owns or rents the land or operation, intensity of methyl bromide use ( treat regularly or only when pest reaches a threshold), pest pressure, etc. 20a. Explain why this user represents the typical user in the consortium. OMB Control # 2060­ 0482 0 0 0 i l Q, rn .­ E e m U e Lc a, x U m 5 n 8 P 2 c m ­ c c ! a, 5 a, n 0 = 0 ­ c ln a, Ll L E E u) .­ 8 0 z L L I E z 8 5 2 0 ln C a, L v) rn f 2 ­ m 3 0 a, V a, c) 5 e! " ­ + 9 3 0 S m a, Q ­ I I?! 5 2 L m m U a, I 5 K­ 0 0 c m a a m 2 5 E t: E n I?! E 2 r 0 C 0 0 m e ­ a 3 m ­ L m % z E L c 0 ( 0 a 8 ­ m L 2 a, 3 K a, 6 a, a U x Q E E k % B F a, K 2 ­ m 0 a, c c 5 L I a, c u 0 0 D x m m r L e z al S C 0 K m 0 c ­ w 7 0 0 hl Q) 3 C Q) 2i .­ ! 1 E i m m P L Q 3 S Q Y L L .. 5 L) c a, m .­ E 2 m . cI a, a, c tn E P 9 a, m U 3 Q m m m U .­ c c 8 0 2 i a, 0 Q a, 0 . c 3 2 b e n I 0 c ­ e 2 3 0 c 1 I. E a I I c m 3 U m U != m U ti 0 3 fn . c, B 0 L 0 L e U S w Q) Q 0 J J 2 e cn 5 5 n 3 I Q) E E 0 m" 3 R c c I n 0 m a rc I o I ­ . I I Q I c, j CI Q) Q) x v) Y L P ? 3 For EPA Use Only init Worksheet 3­ A. Alternatives ­ Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to'Methyl 3romide In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3­ A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need. For worksheet 3­ A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative. for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3­ A( l)( a). For the samc alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3­ A( l)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3­ A( l)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3­( A)( Z)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3­( A)( 2)( b). When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1,5, and 8. Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet. If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed. BACKGROUND EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non­ pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1­ 800­ 296­ 1 996. There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency website. The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area. In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no researcr has been conducted ( Le. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area. Use additional pages as needed. Alternative: Study: [ in Section 1. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives I. Are there any location­ specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site? l a . Full use permitted 1 b. Township caps 1 c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country I d . Other ( Please describe) If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. For EPA Use Only ID# Worksheet S­ A. Alternatives ­ Technical Feasibility ot Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No la. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy. 2. Author( s) or researcher( s) 3. Publication and Date of Publication 4. Location of research study 5. Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss. 6. Was crop yield measured in the study? Yes No 7. Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study. 8. Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool? OMB Control # 2060­ 0482 m ­ m 2 u c a, e b U­ 9 P I a c ._ P a, x 0 n E 8 5 P 2 W + 0­ 5 a u > I i 1 > 1 > ? I I I ! h I ! ! tt a 2 E 0 s rc 0 > I U .­ ­ ! g u) m a LL m 0 S c 0 a .­ v 0 a I m n U .­ W x U ­ 5 , o z, a, L m c > I­ I U a a c rn z 3 ­­. C 0 i D W $ 1 ­ C C ­ a c N $ E L .. .­ P 2 CI m a E b c v) v) 0 0 CI c .­ E a 2 ­ 0 S L CI s C v) Q P I v) z m a P f 2 4 m C Q Q c v) Y L 2 I L s 3 9 m 5 0 Q W " Q 5' E. b ( 0 3 _. s 3 a 3 8' 0 3 m 2 s 3 Y a 4 g P U m s 8' 5 L 3' P 8 a 3 V a ; a 10 ? m 5' 0 s 8' 3 C 3, 2 s 8' 0) 3 W ­. e a P , , ; I a 1 W Q m Lc I LI a, v) S ­ E! 2 0 S v) c L c ­ 2 . m c v) . a, $ e 7­ 0 0 e 0 a a b c N 0) 8 w 1 I > 5 Qi L. 7 n I For EPA Use Only I D# Worksheet 4. Alternatives ­ Future Research Plans Please describe future plans to test alternatives to methyl bromide. ( All available methyl bromide alternatives from the alternatives list should have been tested or have future tests planned.) There is no need to complete a separate worksheet for future research plans for each alternative ­ you may use this worksheet to describe dl future research plans. I. Name of study: 2. Researcher( s): 3. Your test is planned for: 4. Location: 5. Name of alternative to be tested: 6. Will crop yield be measured in the study? Yes No 7 ­ If additional testing is not planned, please explain why. ( For example, the available alternatives have been tested and found unsuitable, an alternative has been identified but is not yet registered for this crop, available alternatives are too expensive for this crop, etc.) OMB Control # 2060­ 0482 j m m o 01 asayl padxa noA op uayM ' sql jspunod Aueu M O ~ ' saA 41 :( Aqads aseald) : spoyiau ie3! uay3­ uou Jaylo ' 3 1 . Qpads aseald saA 41 For EPA Use Only ID# I Worksheet 5. Add i t i ona I In formation ( con t i n u ed) 8. Range of square feet of the area to which applicants included in this application will apply methyl bromide? ( insert number of users in each category) 0 ­ 5,000 Sq. ft. 5,001 ­ 10,000 Sq. ft. ­ 10,001 ­ 20,000 sq. ft. ­ 20,001 ­ 40,000 Sq. ft. ­ 40,001 ­ 80,000 Sq. ft. ­ 80,001 ­ 160,000 Sq. ft. over 160,000 sq. ft. ­ I certify that all information contained in this document is factual to the best of my knowledge. Signature Date Print Name Title information in this application may be aggregated with information from other applications and used by the United States government to justify claims in the national nomination package that a particular use of methyl bromide be considered " critical" and authorized for an exemption beyond the 2005 phaseout. Use of aggregate data will be crucial to making compelling arguments in favor of critical use exemptions. By signing below, you agree not to assert any claim of confidentiality that would affect the disclosure by EPA of aggregate information based in part on information contained in this application. Signature Date Print Name Title 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 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. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 324 hours per response and assumes a large portion of applications will be submitted by consortia on behalf of many individual users of methyl bromide. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person Is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB control number. OMB Control # 2060­ 0482 l 3 I

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.840735

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0017-0042

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.849912

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0017-0049

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.850592

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0017-0068

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.851223

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0045-0168

Supporting & Related Material

EMISSION FACTORS Cruise Load 0.8 RSZ Maneuver g/ hp­ hr HC CO NOx PM SO2 g/ hp­ hr HC CO NOx PM SO2 g/ hp­ hr 2 0.395 0.82 17.6 1.29 9.56 2 0.395 0.82 17.6 1.29 9.56 2 4 0.395 0.52 12.38 1.31 9.69 4 0.395 0.52 12.38 1.31 9.69 4 Steam 0.05 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.0 Steam 0.05 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.0 Steam Speed 6.5 knots Speed For SO2 calcs: Maneuverin BSFC ( g/ hp­ hr) 2­ stroke 253.7893025 163.3 slow 4­ stroke 260.1601133 165.5 medium Steam 255 255 Hotel Load 0.1 All Modes HC CO NOx PM SO2 g/ hp­ hr HC CO NOx PM SO2 2.085717 6.072741 23.9113 2.168337 23.02 2 0.1 1.85 9.96 0.239 1.07 2.172732 4.432346 16.87605 2.216072 23.87 4 0.1 1.85 9.96 0.239 1.07 0.05 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.0 Steam 0.05 0.22 2.09 1.86 1.65 4 knots ring Adjustment HC CO NOx PM CO2 5.28 7.41 1.36 1.68 1.55 5.500588 8.523742 1.36317 1.691658 1.571964 Lower Mississippi River Ports Emissions by Vessel Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Vessel Type Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO BARGE CARRIER 1 1 26 4 28 1 2 44 7 51 0 1 3 0 4 1 12 BULK CARRIER 68 139 2992 223 1651 93 192 4113 309 2289 24 69 271 25 266 70 1280 CONTAINER SHIP 5 10 206 25 194 6 13 255 32 247 2 6 24 3 31 3 43 GENERAL CARGO 8 14 313 25 185 18 35 761 60 446 4 10 38 4 39 8 155 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 9 1 5 0 0 1 0 1 1 10 PASSENGER 3 6 114 13 102 4 9 182 22 169 1 3 12 2 15 1 14 REEFER 0 0 7 1 4 0 1 12 1 7 0 0 1 0 1 1 12 RORO 2 3 71 5 40 3 7 142 11 79 1 2 8 1 8 1 19 TANKER 21 43 930 72 532 61 124 2668 205 1525 12 33 129 12 129 17 307 VEHICLE CARRIER 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Grand Total 107 218 4665 368 2741 188 382 8190 648 4820 43 123 487 47 495 101 1853 Lower Mississippi River Ports Emissions by Engine Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO 2­ stroke 99 206 4421 324 2401 172 358 7676 563 4169 40 116 457 41 440 91 1688 4­ stroke 7 9 204 22 160 14 18 439 46 343 3 7 25 3 36 8 144 Steam Engine 1 2 24 21 169 1 4 40 36 289 0 0 2 2 17 2 7 Grand Total 107 218 4665 368 2741 188 382 8190 648 4820 43 123 487 47 495 101 1853 New York Ports Emissions by Vessel Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Vessel Type Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO BARGE CARRIER 0 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 BULK CARRIER 5 10 215 17 128 6 12 249 19 143 3 8 32 3 32 6 110 CONTAINER SHIP 38 80 1683 155 1171 15 32 660 61 461 13 36 144 15 155 12 210 GENERAL CARGO 3 7 149 12 89 2 5 98 8 58 1 4 15 1 15 3 38 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 PASSENGER 5 8 164 24 181 2 4 82 12 94 2 4 17 3 27 1 12 REEFER 1 2 38 3 21 0 1 15 1 8 0 1 3 0 3 0 8 RORO 4 8 182 14 101 2 4 87 6 48 2 6 24 2 24 2 31 TANKER 16 33 703 64 479 11 23 484 44 333 13 36 143 15 153 9 165 VEHICLES CARRIER 5 9 188 15 109 2 4 91 7 53 2 6 25 2 26 1 19 Grand Total 77 157 3325 304 2286 41 84 1769 160 1201 36 102 404 42 436 34 595 New York Ports Emissions by Engine Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO 2­ stroke 67 139 2983 219 1620 36 74 1592 117 865 32 93 365 33 351 28 519 4­ stroke 9 12 280 30 219 5 6 146 15 114 4 9 33 4 47 3 63 Steam Engine 1 7 62 56 447 1 3 31 28 222 0 1 5 5 38 3 13 Grand Total 77 157 3325 304 2286 41 84 1769 160 1201 36 102 404 42 436 34 595 Delaware River Ports Emissions by Vessel Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Vessel Type Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO BULK CARRIER 5 11 238 18 131 10 20 420 31 231 2 6 23 2 23 5 90 CONTAINER SHIP 6 11 235 19 138 6 12 268 21 157 2 5 18 2 19 2 43 GENERAL CARGO 3 6 127 10 77 5 10 215 17 129 1 3 12 1 13 3 50 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PASSENGER 0 0 9 2 18 0 0 8 2 20 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 REEFER 3 6 136 10 76 4 7 155 12 86 1 3 13 1 13 2 42 RORO 1 1 21 2 14 1 1 30 3 19 0 0 1 0 2 0 6 TANKER 14 29 607 53 397 24 51 1071 94 702 8 23 89 9 93 13 227 VEHICLE CARRIER 1 2 39 3 22 1 1 31 2 18 0 1 3 0 3 0 4 Grand Total 33 66 1413 117 873 51 103 2200 183 1363 14 41 161 16 168 26 465 Delaware River Ports Emissions by Engine Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO 2­ stroke 28 59 1267 93 688 45 93 1999 147 1086 13 37 148 13 142 23 417 4­ stroke 4 6 135 14 105 6 8 182 19 142 2 3 12 2 17 2 44 Steam Engine 0 1 11 10 80 0 2 19 17 135 0 0 1 1 9 1 3 Grand Total 33 66 1413 117 873 51 103 2200 183 1363 14 41 161 16 168 26 465 Puget Sound Ports Emissions by Vessel Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Vessel Type Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO BULK CARRIER 10 21 452 34 256 0 36 75 1605 124 925 4 11 43 4 43 11 208 CONTAINER SHIP 27 57 1194 112 845 0 62 132 2747 255 1927 7 21 85 9 91 12 203 FISHING 1 1 17 2 170 2 3 65 9 67 0 1 4 1 6 3 50 GENERAL CARGO 3 7 142 11 84 0 11 21 466 38 280 1 3 12 1 13 3 46 MISCELANEOUS 0 0 2 0 20 0 1 11 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 PASSENGER 0 0 10 1 8 0 1 1 24 3 20 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 REEFER 0 1 16 1 90 1 2 50 4 29 0 1 3 0 3 1 15 RORO 1 3 39 14 1090 2 6 79 33 260 0 0 3 1 10 2 9 TANKER 4 11 190 47 370 0 13 34 575 145 1143 4 11 47 11 100 4 45 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 4 77 6 440 6 11 233 18 135 1 2 6 1 6 0 8 Grand Total 49 104 2140 229 1745 134 285 5857 629 4796 17 50 204 28 273 37 600 Puget Sound Ports Emissions by Engine Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO 2­ stroke 44 92 1980 145 1075 120 250 5367 393 2915 16 46 183 17 176 27 496 4­ stroke 2 3 75 8 59 8 11 256 27 200 1 3 10 1 14 4 79 Steam Engine 2 9 85 76 611 6 25 235 209 1681 0 1 12 10 84 6 25 Grand Total 49 104 2140 229 1745 134 285 5857 629 4796 17 50 204 28 273 37 600 Port of Corpus Christi Emissions by Vessel Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Vessel Type Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO BARGE CARRIER 0 0 0 0 2# 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BULK CARRIER 3 6 139 10 77 0 2 4 90 7 50 2 6 24 2 23 1 26 CONTAINER SHIP 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 TANKER 13 29 574 78 600 0 8 18 355 47 364 8 24 98 13 125 5 75 GENERAL CARGO 0 0 3 0 30 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 1 0 1# 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 17 36 720 89 684 10 22 449 54 418 11 31 123 15 150 6 103 Port of Corpus Christi Emissions by Engine Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO 2­ stroke 14 30 634 47 345 9 19 400 29 217 10 28 112 10 108 5 87 4­ stroke 1 2 43 5 33 1 1 24 3 19 1 2 6 1 9 1 11 Steam Engine 1 4 43 38 306 1 3 25 23 181 0 0 5 4 33 1 5 Grand Total 17 36 720 89 684 10 22 449 54 418 11 31 123 15 150 6 103 Port of Tampa Emissions by Vessel Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Vessel Type Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO BULK CARRIER 7 14 299 24 175 0 4 7 155 12 90 4 10 41 4 41 5 90 CONTAINER SHIP 0 0 4 0 20 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 GENERAL CARGO 2 3 70 6 460 1 2 39 3 26 1 1 5 1 6 1 20 PASSENGER 3 6 127 10 73 0 1 3 63 5 36 1 2 9 1 9 1 21 REEFER 0 1 20 1 11 0 0 7 0 4 0 1 2 0 2 0 9 RORO 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 TANKER 4 8 157 20 157 2 4 83 11 82 1 3 12 2 17 1 21 TUG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VEHICLES CARRIER 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 BARGE DRY CARGO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BARGE TANKER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 UNSPECIFIED MOTOR 0 0 0 0 0 # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 17 32 685 63 469 9 16 353 32 241 7 18 71 7 77 10 174 Port of Tampa Emissions by Engine Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO 2­ stroke 9 19 403 30 219 5 10 208 15 113 4 12 49 4 47 5 94 4­ stroke 1 1 23 2 18 0 0 11 1 9 0 0 2 0 3 1 16 Steam Engine 0 1 10 9 72 0 1 5 5 37 0 0 1 1 5 0 2 Grand Total 17 32 685 63 469 9 16 353 32 241 7 18 71 7 77 10 174 Port of Baltimore by Vessel Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Vessel Type Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO BULK CARRIER 7 14 302 24 182 31 64 1354 108 809 2 6 25 2 25 6 111 CONTAINER SHIP 11 24 510 40 299 31 66 1397 110 817 4 13 50 5 49 3 52 GENERAL CARGO 2 4 85 7 52 9 17 363 30 225 1 2 8 1 8 2 35 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 16 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 PASSENGER 0 0 9 2 12 1 1 20 4 29 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 REEFER 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 RORO 4 9 186 14 101 13 27 586 43 320 2 5 19 2 19 2 32 TANKER 2 3 70 6 45 7 14 291 25 191 1 2 6 1 7 1 13 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 7 155 12 90 10 20 434 34 253 2 5 19 2 20 1 19 Grand Total 30 62 1321 105 784 102 209 4463 356 2656 11 33 129 12 130 16 283 Port of Baltimore Emissions by Engine Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO 2­ stroke 28 58 1248 91 678 95 196 4217 309 2290 11 31 122 11 117 13 244 4­ stroke 2 3 65 7 51 7 9 219 23 171 1 2 6 1 9 2 37 Steam Engine 0 1 8 7 55 1 3 27 24 194 0 0 1 0 4 1 2 Grand Total 30 62 1321 105 784 102 209 4463 356 2656 11 33 129 12 130 16 283 Coos Bay Emissions by Vessel Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Vessel Type Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO BULK CARRIER 2 4 76 6 41 0 1 16 1 9 0 1 3 0 2 1 21 GENERAL CARGO 1 1 30 2 16 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 8 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 2 5 106 8 58 1 1 23 2 12 0 1 4 0 3 2 29 Coos Bay Emissions by Engine Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO 2­ stroke 2 5 106 8 57 1 1 23 2 12 0 1 4 0 3 2 28 4­ stroke 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Steam Engine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 2 5 106 8 58 1 1 23 2 12 0 1 4 0 3 2 29 Port of Cleveland Emissions by Vessel Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Vessel Type Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO BULK CARRIER, SALTY 0 1 16 1 9 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 5 0 5 1 15 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 1 3 60 5 41 0 1 15 1 10 5 13 51 5 55 0 0 CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXCURSION VESSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 9 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TANKER, SALTY 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 2 4 77 7 50 1 1 31 3 22 5 15 58 6 62 1 17 Port of Cleveland Emissions by Engine Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO 2­ stroke 1 3 63 5 34 0 1 15 1 8 4 12 47 4 45 1 16 4­ stroke 0 1 13 1 10 0 1 15 2 12 1 3 11 1 15 0 1 Steam Engine 0 0 1 1 60 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Grand Total 2 4 77 7 50 0 1 1 31 3 22 5 15 58 6 62 1 17 Burns Waterway Harbor Emissions by Vessel Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Vessel Type Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO BULK CARRIER, SALTY 0 0 10 1 6 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 5 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 1 1 23 2 14 0 0 5 0 3 1 1 5 1 6 0 1 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TANKER, SALTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 1 2 34 3 20 0 0 8 1 5 1 2 9 1 9 0 6 Burns Waterway Harbor Emissions by Engine Type ( TPY) EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Cruise HC Cruise CO Cruise NOx Cruise PM Cruise SO2 RSZ HC RSZ CO RSZ NOx RSZ PM RSZ SO2 Maneuve ring HC Maneuve ring CO Maneuve ring NOx Maneuve ring PM Maneuvir ing SO2 Hotelling HC Hotelling CO 2­ stroke 1 1 31 2 17 0 0 7 1 4 1 2 8 1 8 0 6 4­ stroke 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Steam Engine 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 1 2 34 3 200 0 0 8 1 5 1 2 9 1 9 0 6 Lower Mississippi River P Vessel Type BARGE CARRIER BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS PASSENGER REEFER RORO TANKER VEHICLE CARRIER Grand Total Lower Mississippi River P 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total New York Ports Emissions Vessel Type BARGE CARRIER BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS PASSENGER REEFER RORO TANKER VEHICLES CARRIER Grand Total Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 68 11 86 3 16 140 22 170 6901 181 865 254 1680 14277 737 5071 240 23 170 16 72 724 84 643 838 22 108 38 214 1950 111 778 54 1 6 1 11 68 3 15 78 7 52 9 32 386 44 338 65 2 7 1 13 85 3 18 102 2 11 7 31 323 19 138 1654 45 222 111 506 5381 334 2408 4 0 0 0 1 10 1 4 10002 296 1527 439 2576 23344 1358 9583 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 Transit Modes HC Transit Modes CO Transit Modes NOx Transit Modes PM Transit Modes SO2 9089 218 974 403 2368 21642 1146 7983 311 680 12,553 928 7,009 Slow 774 19 83 32 178 1443 90 622 24 34 669 71 539 Medium 64 57 462 3 14 131 116 937 3 14 131 116 937 Steamship 10002 296 1527 439 2576 23344 1358 9583 99 1,832 9,863 237 1,057 category 2 total 437 2,559 23,215 1,352 9,543 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 9 8 65 0 1 10 9 73 594 16 79 19 140 1091 56 381 1150 68 454 78 358 3636 300 2241 217 33 252 10 53 479 54 414 5 0 1 0 1 11 1 5 69 6 41 10 28 332 45 343 42 1 4 2 11 98 5 36 170 14 96 10 49 463 36 269 898 40 243 49 258 2228 162 1208 102 2 11 10 38 406 27 199 3257 188 1246 189 938 8755 694 5170 New York Ports Emissions 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Delaware River Ports Emis Vessel Type BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS PASSENGER REEFER RORO TANKER VEHICLE CARRIER Grand Total Delaware River Ports Emis 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Puget Sound Ports Emissi Vessel Type Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 Transit Modes HC Transit Modes CO Transit Modes NOx Transit Modes PM Transit Modes SO2 2793 67 299 163 825 7733 435 3136 135 306 4,940 368 2,836 Slow 337 8 36 21 89 796 58 416 18 27 459 49 380 Medium 127 113 911 5 24 225 201 1618 5 24 225 201 1,618 Steamship 3257 188 1246 189 938 8755 694 5170 31 581 3,130 75 336 category 2 total 189 938 8,755 694 5,170 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 484 12 53 22 127 1166 63 437 233 6 25 16 71 754 47 339 270 6 29 12 69 623 35 247 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 8 2 16 1 2 25 7 56 228 5 24 10 59 531 29 199 33 1 4 2 9 86 5 38 1234 55 339 59 329 3002 210 1532 24 1 3 2 8 96 6 45 2515 88 493 124 674 6288 403 2896 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 Transit Modes HC Transit Modes CO Transit Modes NOx Transit Modes PM Transit Modes SO2 2244 54 241 109 606 5658 307 2156 86 190 3,414 253 1,916 Slow 239 6 26 14 61 568 41 291 12 16 329 35 265 Medium 32 28 226 2 7 63 56 449 2 7 63 56 449 Steamship 2515 88 493 124 674 6288 403 2896 25 461 2,483 60 266 category 2 total 124 674 6,288 403 2,896 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP FISHING GENERAL CARGO MISCELANEOUS PASSENGER REEFER RORO TANKER VEHICLES CARRIER Grand Total Puget Sound Ports Emissi 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Port of Corpus Christi Em Vessel Type BARGE CARRIER BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP TANKER GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS Grand Total Port of Corpus Christi Em 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine 1122 30 142 62 315 3223 192 1366 1115 70 474 108 413 5141 446 3336 275 23 161 6 54 361 34 252 249 6 31 19 77 869 57 408 73 2 10 1 14 87 4 23 16 1 7 1 5 50 5 36 79 2 8 3 18 149 7 50 76 55 440 4 18 197 102 819 285 93 737 25 101 1098 296 2349 44 1 5 8 24 360 26 190 3334 283 2015 237 1041 11535 1170 8830 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 Transit Modes HC Transit Modes CO Transit Modes NOx Transit Modes PM Transit Modes SO2 2672 64 286 208 885 10201 619 4453 181 389 7,530 555 4,166 Slow 428 10 46 16 96 768 46 318 12 16 340 36 272 Medium 234 209 1683 14 60 566 504 4059 14 60 566 504 4,059 Steamship 3334 283 2015 237 1041 11535 1170 8830 31 576 3,100 74 332 category 2 total 237 1,041 11,535 1,170 8,830 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 1 1 7 0 0 1 1 10 138 3 15 9 42 391 23 166 4 0 0 0 1 7 0 3 423 47 350 35 146 1450 185 1439 4 0 1 0 1 10 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 571 52 373 44 191 1863 210 1624 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 Transit Modes HC Transit Modes CO Transit Modes NOx Transit Modes PM Transit Modes SO2 469 11 50 38 164 1615 97 720 33 77 1,146 86 669 Slow 58 1 6 4 15 131 9 68 3 5 74 8 62 Medium 44 39 317 3 12 117 104 837 3 12 117 104 837 Steamship Grand Total Port of Tampa Emissions Vessel Type BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP GENERAL CARGO PASSENGER REEFER RORO TANKER TUG VEHICLES CARRIER BARGE DRY CARGO BARGE TANKER MISCELLANEOUS UNSPECIFIED MOTOR Grand Total Port of Tampa Emissions 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Port of Baltimore by Vesse Vessel Type BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS PASSENGER REEFER 571 52 373 44 191 1863 210 1624 5 98 527 13 57 category 2 total 44 191 1,863 210 1,624 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 487 12 57 20 122 981 52 363 17 0 2 0 4 24 1 6 107 3 15 4 26 222 13 93 115 3 12 6 32 314 18 130 46 1 6 1 10 75 3 23 16 0 2 0 3 25 1 8 121 17 127 8 36 373 50 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 1 3 0 6 36 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 946 38 225 41 241 2055 140 1013 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 Transit Modes HC Transit Modes CO Transit Modes NOx Transit Modes PM Transit Modes SO2 503 12 54 23 134 1164 61 433 18 41 660 49 379 Slow 89 2 10 2 18 125 6 40 1 2 36 4 30 Medium 17 15 125 1 4 33 30 239 1 4 33 30 239 Steamship 946 38 225 41 241 2055 140 1013 6 110 592 14 64category 2 total 26 156 1,322 97 713 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 600 18 91 46 195 2281 153 1107 281 10 53 50 154 2238 164 1219 192 11 69 13 58 648 49 354 68 2 7 1 14 88 4 22 31 7 54 1 7 61 12 96 15 0 2 0 3 19 1 3 RORO TANKER VEHICLES CARRIER Grand Total Port of Baltimore Emission 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Coos Bay Emissions by V Vessel Type BULK CARRIER GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS Grand Total Coos Bay Emissions by E 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Port of Cleveland Emissio Vessel Type BULK CARRIER, SALTY BULK CARRIER, LAKER 174 4 19 21 73 966 63 458 68 2 14 10 31 436 35 257 101 2 11 17 51 709 51 373 1532 56 320 160 586 7444 530 3889 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 Transit Modes HC Transit Modes CO Transit Modes NOx Transit Modes PM Transit Modes SO2 1311 31 141 146 529 6898 443 3226 133 285 5,586 412 3,085 Slow 199 5 21 12 51 490 36 253 10 14 291 31 232 Medium 22 20 158 1 6 57 51 410 1 6 57 51 410 Steamship 1532 56 320 160 586 7444 530 3889 15 280 1,510 36 162 category 2 total 160 586 7,444 530 3,889 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 110 3 12 3 25 205 10 65 42 1 5 1 10 79 4 25 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 154 4 16 5 36 287 14 90 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 Transit Modes HC Transit Modes CO Transit Modes NOx Transit Modes PM Transit Modes SO2 152 4 16 5 35 284 13 89 3 7 132 10 73 Slow 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 1Medium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Steamship 154 4 16 5 36 287 14 90 2 29 154 4 16category 2 total 5 36 287 14 90 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 82 2 9 2 17 106 4 24 0 0 0 7 16 126 12 106 CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY EXCURSION VESSEL GENERAL CARGO, SALTY TANKER, SALTY Grand Total Port of Cleveland Emissio 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Burns Waterway Harbor E Vessel Type BULK CARRIER, SALTY BULK CARRIER, LAKER GENERAL CARGO, SALTY TANKER, SALTY Grand Total Burns Waterway Harbor E 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 1 11 7 0 1 0 1 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 90 2 10 9 36 255 18 143 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 Transit Modes HC Transit Modes CO Transit Modes NOx Transit Modes PM Transit Modes SO2 87 2 9 7 32 212 12 97 6 15 125 10 87 Slow 3 0 0 2 5 42 4 38 2 4 39 4 37Medium 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 0 0 1 1 9Steamship 90 2 10 9 36 255 18 143 1 17 90 2 10category 2 total 9 36 255 18 143 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 27 1 5 1 6 43 2 15 3 0 1 1 3 37 3 23 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 32 1 6 2 10 82 5 39 Hotelling NOx Hotelling PM Hotelling SO2 All Modes HC All Modes CO All Modes NOx All Modes PM All Modes SO2 Transit Modes HC Transit Modes CO Transit Modes NOx Transit Modes PM Transit Modes SO2 30 1 3 2 9 76 4 32 2 4 46 4 28Slow 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 4 0 0 4 0 4Medium 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 4Steamship 32 1 6 2 10 82 5 39 0 6 31 1 3category 2 total 2 10 82 5 39 Lower Mississippi River P Vessel Type BARGE CARRIER BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS PASSENGER REEFER RORO TANKER VEHICLE CARRIER Grand Total Lower Mississippi River P 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total New York Ports Emissions Vessel Type BARGE CARRIER BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS PASSENGER REEFER RORO TANKER VEHICLES CARRIER Grand Total 2 New York Ports Emissions 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Delaware River Ports Emis Vessel Type BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS PASSENGER REEFER RORO TANKER VEHICLE CARRIER Grand Total Delaware River Ports Emis 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Puget Sound Ports Emissi Vessel Type 2 2 BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP FISHING GENERAL CARGO MISCELANEOUS PASSENGER REEFER RORO TANKER VEHICLES CARRIER Grand Total Puget Sound Ports Emissi 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Port of Corpus Christi Em Vessel Type BARGE CARRIER BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP TANKER GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS Grand Total Port of Corpus Christi Em 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine 2 Grand Total Port of Tampa Emissions Vessel Type BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP GENERAL CARGO PASSENGER REEFER RORO TANKER TUG VEHICLES CARRIER BARGE DRY CARGO BARGE TANKER MISCELLANEOUS UNSPECIFIED MOTOR Grand Total Port of Tampa Emissions 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Port of Baltimore by Vesse Vessel Type BULK CARRIER CONTAINER SHIP GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS PASSENGER REEFER 2 2 RORO TANKER VEHICLES CARRIER Grand Total Port of Baltimore Emission 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Coos Bay Emissions by V Vessel Type BULK CARRIER GENERAL CARGO MISCELLANEOUS Grand Total Coos Bay Emissions by E 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Port of Cleveland Emissio Vessel Type BULK CARRIER, SALTY BULK CARRIER, LAKER 2 2 CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY EXCURSION VESSEL GENERAL CARGO, SALTY TANKER, SALTY Grand Total Port of Cleveland Emissio 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total Burns Waterway Harbor E Vessel Type BULK CARRIER, SALTY BULK CARRIER, LAKER GENERAL CARGO, SALTY TANKER, SALTY Grand Total Burns Waterway Harbor E 2­ stroke 4­ stroke Steam Engine Grand Total 2 2 Table 6­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Lower Mississippi River Ship Type Engine Type DWT Range Calls DWT ( Tonnes) Power ( hp) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) BARGE CARRIER 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 9 44,799 26,100 18 ND ND 1972 2.8 18.3 1.7 BARGE CARRIER 2 > 45,000 10 49,835 26,000 18 ND ND 1969 2.8 18.6 1.6 BARGE CARRIER ST 35,000 ­ 45,000 10 41,578 31,565 22 ND ND 1974 2.3 18.2 1.8 BARGE CARRIER ST > 45,000 6 47,036 31,565 22 ND ND 1975 2.3 18.8 1.9 BARGE CARRIER 0 0 3 45,701 28,570 20 ND ND 1972 2.3 19.9 2.5 BARGE CARRIER Total 38 45,701 28,570 20 # N/ A # N/ A 1972 2.5 18.6 1.8 BULK CARRIER 2 < 25,000 438 18,138 8,060 15 140 39% 1979 3.4 20.7 2.4 BULK CARRIER 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 717 29,492 10,768 15 132 51% 1978 3.3 19.9 2.5 BULK CARRIER 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 507 39,596 11,266 15 114 15% 1982 3.4 20.8 2.5 BULK CARRIER 2 > 45,000 1,183 72,142 14,501 15 98 0% 1984 7.8 18.4 2.7 BULK CARRIER 4 < 25,000 70 15,614 6,606 14 479 100% 1975 3.5 21.7 2.4 BULK CARRIER 4 25,000 ­ 35,000 13 27,092 9,528 14 278 100% 1987 3.5 21.5 2.6 BULK CARRIER 4 35,000 ­ 45,000 10 38,731 12,650 16 464 100% 1981 3.3 21.6 2.7 BULK CARRIER 4 > 45,000 26 63,419 13,531 14 342 73% 1983 3.5 16.9 2.8 BULK CARRIER ST < 25,000 5 18,314 8,384 15 123 21% 1975 5.0 14.1 1.9 BULK CARRIER ST 25,000 ­ 35,000 1 33,373 11,837 15 123 21% 1983 3.3 35.1 2.5 BULK CARRIER ST > 45,000 21 54,624 17,614 18 123 21% 1970 2.9 16.2 2.7 BULK CARRIER 0 0 10 46,560 11,904 15 123 21% 1981 3.7 20.4 2.5 BULK CARRIER Total 3,001 46,560 11,904 15 123 21% 1981 5.1 19.6 2.6 CONTAINER SHIP 2 < 25,000 120 18,707 15,717 19 117 27% 1987 2.7 14.6 1.7 CONTAINER SHIP 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 6 28,019 19,411 19 111 0% 1984 2.8 14.5 2.0 CONTAINER SHIP 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 66 38,743 27,387 21 91 0% 1987 2.5 12.9 1.8 CONTAINER SHIP 2 > 45,000 4 53,726 28,845 19 97 0% 1985 3.1 13.1 1.8 CONTAINER SHIP 4 < 25,000 84 10,063 12,157 17 425 100% 1991 2.8 12.8 1.6 CONTAINER SHIP ST < 25,000 58 21,711 25,280 22 242 53% 1974 2.3 12.4 1.7 CONTAINER SHIP ST 25,000 ­ 35,000 37 26,803 32,787 22 242 53% 1974 2.3 12.8 1.6 CONTAINER SHIP ST 35,000 ­ 45,000 1 38,656 31,565 21 242 53% 1971 2.3 18.5 1.5 CONTAINER SHIP 0 0 3 22,127 20,366 20 242 53% 1984 3.5 12.7 2.8 CONTAINER SHIP Total 379 22,127 20,366 20 242 53% 1984 2.6 13.4 1.7 GENERAL CARGO 2 < 15,000 247 9,246 6,166 15 178 91% 1981 3.5 19.9 2.2 GENERAL CARGO 2 15,000 ­ 30,000 265 20,223 11,344 16 134 30% 1982 3.1 19.0 2.0 GENERAL CARGO 2 30,000 ­ 45,000 41 40,358 12,943 15 97 0% 1983 3.3 22.9 2.2 GENERAL CARGO 2 > 45,000 4 46,648 14,313 17 105 0% 1995 3.0 13.9 1.9 GENERAL CARGO 4 < 15,000 308 5,180 3,047 12 493 100% 1979 4.1 20.2 2.2 GENERAL CARGO 4 15,000 ­ 30,000 43 18,775 8,922 15 460 100% 1979 3.3 21.1 2.2 GENERAL CARGO ST 15,000 ­ 30,000 2 22,536 23,673 21 212 64% 1969 3.0 16.8 3.0 6­ 8 Table 6­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Lower Mississippi River Ship Type Engine Type DWT Range Calls DWT ( Tonnes) Power ( hp) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) GENERAL CARGO 0 0 1 13,112 7,128 15 212 64% 1980 3.6 15.2 2.5 GENERAL CARGO Total 911 13,112 7,128 15 212 64% 1980 3.6 19.9 2.1 MISCELLANEOUS 2 < 1500 1 879 3,000 12 ND ND 1978 4.2 36.8 2.5 MISCELLANEOUS 2 > 4,500 1 9,360 10,330 18 ND ND 1980 2.8 19.7 1.5 MISCELLANEOUS 4 < 1500 11 878 3,478 14 ND ND 1980 3.9 11.4 2.0 MISCELLANEOUS 4 > 4,500 1 9,950 13,800 15 ND ND 1982 3.3 13.0 1.5 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 7 2,132 4,670 14 ND ND 1980 5.0 17.2 2.7 MISCELLANEOUS Total 21 2,132 4,670 14 # N/ A # N/ A 1980 4.2 14.9 2.2 PASSENGER 2 < 5,000 26 4,217 29,370 21 363 53% 1983 2.4 18.7 1.7 PASSENGER 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 54 6,473 30,083 19 363 53% 1985 2.6 18.7 1.5 PASSENGER 2 > 15,000 9 19,830 14,726 18 102 0% 1988 2.8 11.5 1.6 PASSENGER 4 < 5,000 4 1,358 9,167 17 750 100% 1967 3.1 18.5 1.9 PASSENGER 4 5,000 ­ 10,000 7 6,620 36,706 20 533 100% 1991 2.6 18.7 1.6 PASSENGER ST 5,000 ­ 10,000 52 8,721 25,504 23 363 53% 1958 2.4 18.5 1.5 PASSENGER Total 152 7,519 27,240 21 363 53% 1976 2.5 18.2 1.6 REEFER 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 5 8,467 10,440 18 141 50% 1982 2.9 16.3 1.9 REEFER 2 10,000 ­ 15,000 8 11,457 14,812 20 123 0% 1980 2.6 18.1 1.6 REEFER 4 < 5,000 1 4,196 4,400 15 128 14% 1981 3.3 10.9 3.0 REEFER Total 14 9,871 12,507 19 128 14% 1980 2.8 17.0 1.8 RORO 2 < 5,000 4 4,613 6,100 17 451 86% 1979 3.0 19.4 1.5 RORO 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 7 6,521 7,014 17 451 86% 1983 3.0 19.2 1.9 RORO 2 10,000 ­ 15,000 10 12,777 11,512 17 157 100% 1989 3.0 16.6 2.1 RORO 2 > 15,000 45 37,027 27,881 19 102 0% 1982 2.8 19.7 1.8 RORO 4 < 5,000 8 3,262 3,336 12 1800 100% 1980 4.0 18.4 2.2 RORO 4 5,000 ­ 10,000 26 9,883 5,998 14 500 100% 1984 3.4 13.0 1.8 RORO Total 100 21,412 16,259 17 451 86% 1983 3.1 17.5 1.8 TANKER 2 < 30,000 314 16,943 7,930 15 168 76% 1984 3.4 25.9 2.5 TANKER 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 304 40,559 12,593 15 111 2% 1984 3.3 21.7 2.5 TANKER 2 60,000 ­ 90,000 303 77,606 15,455 15 97 0% 1984 3.4 27.0 2.4 TANKER 2 90,000 ­ 120,000 287 97,851 15,067 15 95 0% 1990 3.4 27.5 2.4 TANKER 2 120,000 ­ 150,000 49 134,806 23,453 15 99 0% 1983 3.3 10.4 1.9 TANKER 2 > 150,000 4 157,345 19,605 14 85 0% 1992 3.5 19.8 2.5 TANKER 4 < 30,000 103 9,575 5,240 14 414 74% 1981 3.7 23.1 2.6 TANKER 4 30,000 ­ 60,000 19 46,237 15,072 16 132 20% 1979 3.2 25.2 2.6 TANKER 4 60,000 ­ 90,000 53 81,275 14,394 15 296 58% 1982 3.4 25.3 2.4 TANKER ST 30,000 ­ 60,000 10 40,102 15,190 16 132 20% 1967 3.2 25.7 2.7 TANKER ST 60,000 ­ 90,000 3 71,694 19,728 16 132 20% 1971 3.1 14.0 2.3 TANKER ST 90,000 ­ 120,000 3 92,809 24,167 16 132 20% 1977 3.0 26.6 2.7 TANKER ST 120,000 ­ 150,000 1 122,249 25,647 16 132 20% 1973 3.1 29.0 2.5 TANKER 0 0 5 57,586 12,699 15 132 20% 1985 3.4 16.5 2.5 TANKER Total 1,458 57,586 12,699 15 132 20% 1985 3.4 24.7 2.4 TUG 2 < 1,000 3 669 6,717 15 ND ND 1978 3.4 18.4 2.2 TUG 2 < 500 28 6 3,631 12 ND ND 1970 4.3 18.7 2.5 TUG 4 < 500 4 0 3,628 13 ND ND 1966 3.9 17.7 2.8 TUG 0 0 44 62 3,895 13 ND ND 1970 4.0 14.1 2.6 TUG Total 79 62 3,895 13 # N/ A # N/ A 1970 4.1 16.1 2.6 6­ 9 Table 6­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Lower Mississippi River Ship Type Engine Type DWT Range Calls DWT ( Tonnes) Power ( hp) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) VEHICLE CARRIER 2 > 35,000 2 40,999 14,000 15 ND ND ND 3.3 26.4 2.5 VEHICLE CARRIER Total 2 40,999 14,000 15 # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A 3.3 26.4 2.5 Grand Total 6,155 40,829 12,393 15 154 30% 1982 4.2 20.3 2.4 6­ 10 Table 6­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Lower Mississippi River Hotel ( hr/ call) 80.1 81.4 107.7 76.7 134.0 91.4 144.7 172.9 153.8 195.2 124.7 193.2 252.9 200.2 81.7 38.7 198.4 206.7 173.9 58.4 66.6 25.5 30.0 20.5 28.7 31.8 250.8 190.0 38.6 141.7 88.4 84.2 32.8 193.2 138.1 230.8 6­ 11 Table 6­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Lower Mississippi River Hotel ( hr/ call) 24.9 140.4 1276.3 1072.3 502.4 234.7 355.5 512.1 25.5 16.9 36.1 188.5 26.7 20.3 25.7 251.1 383.5 186.9 322.2 89.4 120.7 192.2 44.9 101.7 25.5 66.2 81.8 91.6 71.0 66.6 76.3 107.7 79.8 454.9 66.2 96.0 73.9 73.1 134.5 143.7 83.0 280.2 558.6 1420.6 847.7 752.7 6­ 12 Table 6­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Lower Mississippi River Hotel ( hr/ call) 117.3 117.3 142.1 6­ 13 Table 7­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Consolidated Port of New York and Ports on the Hudson River Ship Type Stroke DWT Category Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( hp) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr) Man. ( hr) Hotel ( hr) BARGE CARRIER ST 35,000 ­ 45,000 6 46,153 31,541 22 ND ND 1974 2.3 3.4 1.6 209.4 BARGE CARRIER Total 6 46,153 31,541 22 ND ND 1974 2.3 3.4 1.6 209.4 BULK CARRIER 2 < 25,000 69 19,957 8,666 15 152 62% 1982 3.3 14.3 2.2 120.0 BULK CARRIER 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 85 29,401 10,766 15 130 63% 1979 3.3 11.6 2.6 184.6 BULK CARRIER 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 64 39,241 10,891 15 118 10% 1982 3.4 14.8 2.4 102.0 BULK CARRIER 2 > 45,000 122 71,583 14,107 14 102 0% 1986 3.5 5.9 2.9 115.6 BULK CARRIER 4 < 25,000 16 18,260 6,523 15 573 100% 1979 3.4 7.3 2.7 219.2 BULK CARRIER 4 25,000 ­ 35,000 1 25,739 8,200 14 157 100% 1992 3.6 4.9 1.3 104.4 BULK CARRIER 4 35,000 ­ 45,000 1 41,513 10,000 14 ND ND 1982 3.6 2.4 5.0 226.2 BULK CARRIER 4 > 45,000 4 70,719 12,075 14 ND ND 1980 3.6 4.6 2.5 83.1 BULK CARRIER ST < 25,000 28 18,314 8,378 15 ND ND 1975 3.3 5.6 1.3 39.9 BULK CARRIER Total 390 41,733 11,119 15 132 24% 1982 3.4 10.1 2.5 127.5 CONTAINER SHIP 2 < 25,000 396 20,258 16,922 19 117 10% 1987 2.7 4.2 1.2 24.9 CONTAINER SHIP 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 167 30,162 22,994 20 102 0% 1984 2.6 4.1 1.2 22.3 CONTAINER SHIP 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 348 40,772 40,589 23 99 0% 1982 2.2 4.2 1.1 19.7 CONTAINER SHIP 2 > 45,000 491 51,853 38,622 22 95 0% 1988 2.3 4.2 1.1 22.2 CONTAINER SHIP 4 < 25,000 92 9,833 8,018 17 481 100% 1989 3.0 4.2 1.1 22.1 CONTAINER SHIP 4 25,000 ­ 35,000 5 27,396 15,962 18 386 100% 1980 2.7 4.0 1.4 16.0 CONTAINER SHIP 4 > 45,000 24 62,685 50,235 24 99 0% 1993 2.1 4.2 1.1 31.0 CONTAINER SHIP ST < 25,000 234 20,521 25,642 22 ND ND 1971 2.3 4.1 1.1 25.5 CONTAINER SHIP ST 25,000 ­ 35,000 33 26,207 31,541 22 ND ND 1973 2.3 4.2 1.1 20.5 CONTAINER SHIP ST 35,000 ­ 45,000 14 39,433 35,483 25 ND ND 1976 2.0 4.1 1.1 15.7 CONTAINER SHIP ST > 45,000 16 47,864 79,967 23 ND ND 1973 2.2 4.2 1.1 16.2 CONTAINER SHIP Total 1,820 34,197 29,929 21 131 10% 1984 2.4 4.2 1.1 22.7 GENERAL CARGO 2 < 15,000 49 11,029 7,586 16 146 25% 1986 3.2 4.3 1.9 70.3 GENERAL CARGO 2 15,000 ­ 30,000 122 20,397 13,611 17 132 32% 1982 2.9 6.5 1.7 54.6 GENERAL CARGO 2 30,000 ­ 45,000 54 39,365 13,689 15 ND ND 1981 3.2 4.7 1.5 21.1 GENERAL CARGO 2 > 45,000 2 46,865 10,345 15 111 0% 1993 3.3 4.5 2.1 29.7 GENERAL CARGO 4 < 15,000 79 5,539 3,765 13 616 100% 1987 3.9 7.0 1.7 78.9 GENERAL CARGO 4 15,000 ­ 30,000 11 19,019 8,896 17 ND ND 1982 3.0 7.6 1.9 124.3 GENERAL CARGO ST < 15,000 9 12,931 14,746 19 ND ND 1962 2.6 4.0 1.3 1060.7 GENERAL CARGO Total 326 18,440 10,184 16 336 58% 1983 3.3 5.9 1.7 81.4 MISCELLANEOUS 2 < 1500 2 24,713 2,200 12 ND ND 1968 4.2 21.1 4.3 146.4 MISCELLANEOUS 2 > 4,500 2 23,945 9,000 16 ND ND 1987 3.1 5.2 2.3 77.6 MISCELLANEOUS 4 < 1500 18 11,783 2,320 14 ND ND 1987 3.6 4.7 1.6 53.7 MISCELLANEOUS 4 > 4,500 1 5,009 13,581 14 720 100% 1992 3.6 2.3 0.5 1.5 MISCELLANEOUS Total 23 13,670 5,860 14 720 100% 1985 3.6 6.1 1.9 61.5 PASSENGER 2 < 5,000 26 4,300 29,370 21 ND ND 1984 2.4 5.2 1.3 6.3 PASSENGER 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 4 5,830 19,500 19 ND ND 1971 2.7 5.2 1.3 15.6 PASSENGER 4 < 5,000 22 1,896 15,080 18 646 100% 1987 2.9 6.0 1.5 24.1 PASSENGER 4 5,000 ­ 10,000 97 6,467 21,809 19 588 100% 1974 2.7 5.2 1.4 8.8 PASSENGER 4 10,000 ­ 15,000 1 8,600 86,140 18 514 100% 1996 2.8 5.2 1.3 72.1 PASSENGER 4 > 15,000 19 15,521 130,005 28 ND ND 1969 1.8 5.2 1.3 8.1 PASSENGER ST 5,000 ­ 10,000 14 9,102 41,479 25 ND ND 1963 2.0 5.2 1.3 10.5 PASSENGER ST 10,000 ­ 15,000 1 13,960 40,177 18 ND ND 1961 2.8 5.2 1.3 6.2 PASSENGER ST > 15,000 43 16,604 43,369 24 ND ND 1961 2.1 5.1 1.3 7.8 PASSENGER Total 227 8,648 36,700 21 600 100% 1973 2.4 5.2 1.4 10.2 REEFER 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 3 9,864 14,865 22 ND ND 1980 2.3 4.7 0.8 24.9 REEFER 2 10,000 ­ 15,000 60 11,757 16,661 22 114 0% 1988 2.3 4.4 1.2 36.9 7­ 7 Table 7­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Consolidated Port of New York and Ports on the Hudson River Ship Type Stroke DWT Category Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( hp) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr) Man. ( hr) Hotel ( hr) REEFER 2 > 15,000 1 15,100 20,500 22 ND ND 1979 2.3 4.7 0.5 8.2 REEFER Total 64 11,721 16,637 22 114 0% 1987 2.3 4.4 1.1 35.8 RORO 2 < 10,000 73 16,968 11,478 17 97 0% 1981 3.0 4.4 1.8 28.2 RORO 2 10,000 ­ 20,000 13 15,302 11,338 16 159 100% 1990 3.1 4.5 1.7 25.5 RORO 2 20,000 ­ 30,000 3 23,242 20,271 19 ND ND 1981 2.6 4.2 4.1 277.1 RORO 2 > 30,000 119 46,217 25,750 19 97 0% 1983 2.7 4.7 2.1 17.0 RORO 4 < 10,000 14 5,979 7,851 15 425 100% 1977 3.3 7.5 2.0 93.7 RORO 4 20,000 ­ 30,000 1 20,303 25,920 19 ND ND 1971 2.6 4.0 1.3 1490.5 RORO ST 10,000 ­ 20,000 1 15,946 29,570 24 ND ND 1970 2.1 3.2 3.2 1625.7 RORO Total 224 31,817 19,088 18 104 3% 1982 2.9 4.7 2.0 43.2 TANKER 2 < 30,000 202 22,271 8,766 15 135 27% 1985 3.4 6.1 3.4 45.6 TANKER 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 489 34,820 12,546 15 117 7% 1985 3.4 6.3 3.9 61.6 TANKER 2 60,000 ­ 90,000 155 74,752 15,612 15 101 0% 1984 3.3 5.8 3.6 64.5 TANKER 2 90,000 ­ 120,000 81 95,769 13,993 14 98 0% 1991 3.5 6.1 3.2 62.6 TANKER 2 120,000 ­ 150,000 31 140,266 20,709 15 86 0% 1987 3.4 4.4 2.7 72.3 TANKER 2 > 150,000 9 137,489 20,940 14 85 0% 1991 3.6 6.3 3.2 72.2 TANKER 4 < 30,000 65 15,402 7,551 15 351 65% 1984 3.4 5.6 3.1 29.5 TANKER 4 30,000 ­ 60,000 21 43,052 14,917 16 ND ND 1979 3.2 5.5 3.3 57.0 TANKER 4 60,000 ­ 90,000 29 71,780 13,598 14 256 39% 1985 3.5 6.2 3.7 58.8 TANKER ST < 30,000 14 26,459 14,784 18 ND ND 1964 2.8 5.4 3.2 26.4 TANKER ST 30,000 ­ 60,000 82 36,889 15,108 16 ND ND 1964 3.1 6.1 3.6 50.1 TANKER ST 60,000 ­ 90,000 2 63,000 19,713 16 ND ND 1971 3.1 5.6 3.9 85.4 TANKER ST > 150,000 23 35,605 35,293 16 ND ND 1975 3.1 5.5 2.6 23.8 TANKER Total 1,203 45,538 13,120 15 128 12% 1983 3.4 6.0 3.6 56.0 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 < 12,500 76 11,461 11,243 18 119 6% 1982 2.8 5.1 1.6 13.9 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 12,500 ­ 15,000 73 13,788 13,961 19 107 0% 1986 2.7 4.9 1.9 17.7 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 15,000 ­ 17,500 72 17,041 13,984 18 113 0% 1985 2.7 4.8 1.9 15.7 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 > 17,500 54 22,727 16,382 19 106 0% 1985 2.6 4.9 2.3 22.9 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 < 12,500 51 10,566 13,240 18 518 100% 1980 2.7 5.0 2.2 30.0 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 12,500 ­ 15,000 19 13,498 14,287 18 520 100% 1980 2.9 4.9 1.9 24.7 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 15,000 ­ 17,500 2 15,396 12,555 18 ND ND 1982 2.8 4.9 1.3 6.1 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 > 17,500 2 19,422 16,880 18 ND ND 1981 2.8 5.1 2.1 6.8 VEHICLES CARRIER Total 349 14,890 13,670 18 178 18% 1984 2.7 4.9 2.0 19.3 Grand Total 4,632 33,449 20,932 18 162 18% 1983 2.8 5.4 2.0 45.0 7­ 8 Table 8­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Delaware River Ports Including Philadelphia, PA Ship Type Engine Type DWT Range Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( HP) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) BULK CARRIER 2 < 25,000 109 18,365 9,665 14 144 68% 1981 3.5 14.9 1.8 BULK CARRIER 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 126 29,721 9,696 15 126 52% 1982 3.4 14.7 1.7 BULK CARRIER 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 77 38,659 10,320 14 113 11% 1983 3.5 15.2 1.8 BULK CARRIER 2 > 45,000 81 79,616 16,328 15 113 0% 1983 3.4 15.3 1.7 BULK CARRIER 4 < 25,000 17 13,853 7,504 15 473 100% 1977 3.3 14.4 1.6 BULK CARRIER ST < 25,000 1 18,314 8,300 15 131 36% 1975 3.3 12.3 1.5 BULK CARRIER Total 411 40,274 11,018 15 131 36% 1982 3.4 14.9 1.7 CONTAINER SHIP 2 < 25,000 242 18,425 17,757 19 106 0% 1987 2.6 11.4 1.2 CONTAINER SHIP 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 27 27,503 16,327 18 229 38% 1977 2.8 12.9 1.0 CONTAINER SHIP 4 < 25,000 129 12,143 10,898 18 429 100% 1989 2.8 12.5 1.2 CONTAINER SHIP Total 398 18,208 15,383 19 229 38% 1987 2.7 11.9 1.1 GENERAL CARGO 2 < 15,000 132 6,833 5,784 14 437 89% 1985 3.7 13.3 1.4 GENERAL CARGO 2 15,000 ­ 30,000 90 18,918 10,456 16 140 63% 1980 3.2 14.6 2.0 GENERAL CARGO 2 30,000 ­ 45,000 8 38,907 12,876 14 96 0% 1981 3.5 12.3 1.2 GENERAL CARGO 2 > 45,000 1 46,956 12,170 14 117 0% 1992 3.6 12.4 1.0 GENERAL CARGO 4 < 15,000 166 5,316 3,944 14 743 100% 1988 3.7 12.9 1.6 GENERAL CARGO 4 15,000 ­ 30,000 16 18,775 7,536 15 561 90% 1981 3.4 15.1 1.7 GENERAL CARGO ST < 15,000 1 10,538 6,284 14 561 90% 1918 3.6 14.2 1.0 GENERAL CARGO Total 414 10,538 6,284 14 561 90% 1985 3.6 13.4 1.6 MISCELLANEOUS 2 < 1,000 8 0 2,400 14 ND ND 1943 3.6 10.9 1.2 MISCELLANEOUS 4 < 1,000 4 448 1,293 14 ND ND 1978 3.6 12.4 1.4 MISCELLANEOUS Total 12 149 2,031 14 # N/ A # N/ A 1955 3.6 11.4 1.3 PASSENGER 4 < 5,000 6 1,332 16,108 18 532 100% 1983 2.9 11.4 1.0 PASSENGER 4 5,000 ­ 10,000 6 7,257 20,776 18 616 100% 1966 2.7 11.4 1.0 PASSENGER ST 5,000 ­ 10,000 9 9,076 40,649 26 582 100% 1964 2.0 12.6 1.0 PASSENGER ST 10,000 ­ 15,000 1 13,016 169,708 30 582 100% 1952 1.7 5.5 3.5 PASSENGER Total 22 7,828 34,403 22 582 100% 1969 2.4 11.6 1.1 REEFER 2 < 5,000 28 4,988 9,553 18 146 65% 1984 2.7 10.7 1.6 REEFER 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 87 7,667 9,706 18 141 59% 1988 2.7 10.7 1.3 REEFER 2 10,000 ­ 15,000 153 11,833 12,500 19 116 0% 1987 2.6 12.2 1.4 REEFER 2 > 15,000 3 15,696 18,467 20 155 41% 1979 2.6 11.4 1.3 8­ 8 Table 8­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Delaware River Ports Including Philadelphia, PA Ship Type Engine Type DWT Range Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( HP) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) REEFER 4 < 5,000 16 4,880 7,048 16 202 100% 1992 3.1 13.6 2.5 REEFER 4 5,000 ­ 10,000 15 6,555 6,837 17 402 100% 1989 3.0 13.0 1.9 REEFER 4 10,000 ­ 15,000 3 11,087 15,672 22 428 100% 1992 2.3 11.2 1.0 REEFER Total 305 10,137 10,958 19 155 41% 1987 2.7 11.7 1.5 RORO 2 < 15,000 26 7,074 8,280 17 242 100% 1981 2.9 13.2 1.2 RORO 2 15,000 ­ 30,000 5 22,845 12,852 18 102 0% 1988 2.8 8.8 1.0 RORO 4 < 15,000 26 7,601 8,553 14 720 100% 1981 3.7 13.3 1.2 RORO Total 57 9,142 8,805 16 456 69% 1982 3.3 12.9 1.2 TANKER 2 < 30,000 237 13,261 10,008 14 132 30% 1984 3.6 14.4 2.1 TANKER 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 78 43,461 12,616 15 125 41% 1982 3.4 14.2 2.4 TANKER 2 60,000 ­ 90,000 111 77,375 16,026 15 95 0% 1983 3.3 14.9 2.2 TANKER 2 90,000 ­ 120,000 91 98,373 15,451 15 97 0% 1991 3.4 13.8 2.4 TANKER 2 120,000 ­ 150,000 150 137,083 23,046 15 93 0% 1982 3.4 16.5 3.2 TANKER 2 > 150,000 32 155,676 25,559 15 85 0% 1983 3.3 16.3 3.2 TANKER 4 < 30,000 57 15,655 7,077 14 413 89% 1981 3.7 14.0 2.0 TANKER 4 30,000 ­ 60,000 5 44,153 15,360 15 133 19% 1980 3.3 15.7 2.8 TANKER 4 60,000 ­ 90,000 17 80,320 14,305 15 416 75% 1981 3.4 14.7 2.6 TANKER ST < 30,000 24 26,755 14,646 16 133 19% 1959 3.1 14.0 2.3 TANKER ST 30,000 ­ 60,000 54 35,574 15,498 16 133 19% 1962 3.1 13.8 2.0 TANKER ST 90,000 ­ 120,000 2 92,760 23,923 16 133 19% 1976 3.1 14.6 2.3 TANKER ST > 150,000 10 276,808 36,324 16 133 19% 1973 3.2 15.4 3.0 TANKER Total 868 74,084 15,137 15 133 19% 1982 3.4 14.8 2.4 VEHICLE CARRIER 2 < 12,500 39 12,115 11,877 18 117 0% 1982 2.8 7.6 1.2 VEHICLE CARRIER 2 12,500 ­ 15,000 5 13,813 12,859 18 111 0% 1986 2.7 10.1 1.3 VEHICLE CARRIER 2 15,000 ­ 17,500 7 16,209 13,911 18 111 0% 1984 2.7 9.0 1.0 VEHICLE CARRIER 2 > 17,500 13 18,558 15,224 19 101 0% 1987 2.7 6.9 1.0 VEHICLE CARRIER 4 < 12,500 8 10,382 13,150 18 527 100% 1977 2.8 13.2 1.4 VEHICLE CARRIER 4 12,500 ­ 15,000 1 14,501 14,770 18 143 8% 1983 2.7 9.5 1.0 VEHICLE CARRIER Total 73 13,678 12,914 18 143 8% 1983 2.7 8.4 1.2 Grand Total 2,560 38,991 12,476 16 236 0 1984 3.2 13.5 1.8 8­ 9 Table 8­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Delaware River Ports Including Philadelphia, PA Ship Type Engine Type DWT Range Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( HP) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) Ship Type Engine Type DWT Range Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( HP) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) 8­ 10 Table 8­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Delaware River Ports Including Philadelphia, PA Hotel ( hr/ call) 81.0 100.8 95.1 110.9 86.3 64.3 95.8 37.4 35.7 25.8 33.5 63.0 119.3 62.3 33.0 98.1 122.6 18.1 91.3 45.4 41.1 44.0 24.3 23.4 15.9 20.5 20.5 51.4 56.8 64.8 33.6 8­ 11 Table 8­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Delaware River Ports Including Philadelphia, PA Hotel ( hr/ call) 87.8 81.7 54.0 63.0 67.1 43.0 57.7 60.7 72.3 62.8 70.8 83.0 137.4 122.6 61.6 63.9 77.3 88.4 65.8 70.2 104.1 85.1 17.7 27.2 23.9 25.2 39.9 18.0 22.7 74.1 8­ 12 Table 8­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Delaware River Ports Including Philadelphia, PA Hotel ( hr/ call) Hotel ( hr/ call) 8­ 13 Table 9­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for Puget Sound Area Ports Including Seattle, WA Ship Type ­ Manip Stroke type DWT Range Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( HP) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) BULK CARRIER 2 < 25,000 165 22,130 7,073 14 150 94% 1990 3.6 15.4 1.4 BULK CARRIER 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 306 27,887 8,155 14 124 32% 1988 3.5 16.5 1.5 BULK CARRIER 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 167 40,489 10,752 15 107 3% 1985 3.4 16.3 1.6 BULK CARRIER 2 > 45,000 216 66,419 12,646 15 98 0% 1987 3.5 15.8 2.0 BULK CARRIER 4 < 25,000 8 6,436 3,625 13 ND ND 1977 4.0 17.7 5.1 BULK CARRIER 4 25,000 ­ 35,000 2 32,019 10,400 15 518 100% 1983 3.5 14.6 1.4 BULK CARRIER 4 35,000 ­ 45,000 2 41,642 10,943 14 117 0% 1989 3.6 13.4 0.9 BULK CARRIER 4 > 45,000 13 63,029 14,806 15 400 100% 1983 3.4 16.6 2.1 BULK CARRIER ST > 45,000 13 82,035 17,111 16 ND ND 1968 3.1 21.5 1.4 BULK CARRIER Total 892 39,661 9,727 14 123 34% 1987 3.5 16.2 1.7 CONTAINER SHIP 2 < 25,000 184 19,019 18,365 19 135 77% 1985 2.7 17.9 1.0 CONTAINER SHIP 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 135 31,480 26,364 20 101 0% 1984 2.5 16.6 0.9 CONTAINER SHIP 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 363 40,261 31,808 22 93 0% 1987 2.3 16.4 1.0 CONTAINER SHIP 2 > 45,000 276 56,958 51,033 23 95 0% 1992 2.2 16.0 0.9 CONTAINER SHIP 4 < 25,000 8 19,987 12,405 19 428 100% 1988 2.7 16.0 1.1 CONTAINER SHIP ST < 25,000 3 19,800 26,797 21 ND ND 1980 2.4 18.2 1.5 CONTAINER SHIP ST 25,000 ­ 35,000 93 28,628 30,080 20 ND ND 1973 2.5 16.5 0.9 CONTAINER SHIP ST 35,000 ­ 45,000 64 38,988 31,565 21 ND ND 1973 2.4 15.5 0.9 CONTAINER SHIP ST > 45,000 24 47,851 80,006 23 ND ND 1972 2.2 16.2 0.9 CONTAINER SHIP Total 1,150 38,791 34,337 21 98 5% 1985 2.4 16.5 0.9 FISHING 2 < 1500 12 789 1,897 12 ND ND 1973 4.3 21.1 5.9 FISHING 2 1,500 ­ 3,000 3 1,883 3,626 14 150 100% 1987 3.5 15.9 1.8 FISHING 2 3,000 ­ 4,500 1 4,500 10,768 18 660 100% 1996 2.8 16.7 0.9 FISHING 2 > 4,500 2 9,360 10,331 18 ND ND 1984 2.8 16.0 3.7 FISHING 4 < 1500 20 698 1,702 12 773 100% 1983 4.3 20.1 4.3 FISHING 4 1,500 ­ 3,000 10 1,861 5,159 16 720 100% 1978 3.1 13.2 1.8 FISHING 4 3,000 ­ 4,500 2 3,372 14,398 15 500 100% 1991 3.3 16.3 7.9 FISHING 4 > 4,500 27 5,805 8,048 14 720 100% 1993 3.6 14.8 4.3 FISHING ST > 4,500 4 19,286 37,976 20 ND ND 1964 2.5 13.0 4.1 FISHING Total 81 3,846 6,774 14 686 100% 1984 3.7 16.9 4.2 GENERAL CARGO 2 < 15,000 7 3,540 3,647 12 200 100% 1987 4.3 17.9 2.8 GENERAL CARGO 2 15,000 ­ 30,000 73 21,745 11,495 16 130 29% 1981 3.1 18.4 1.5 GENERAL CARGO 2 30,000 ­ 45,000 52 41,323 12,006 15 104 5% 1984 3.3 13.3 1.0 GENERAL CARGO 2 > 45,000 77 45,539 10,164 15 98 0% 1988 3.3 16.2 1.1 GENERAL CARGO 4 < 15,000 21 9,063 9,493 15 278 100% 1982 3.5 17.9 2.1 GENERAL CARGO 4 15,000 ­ 30,000 32 20,039 20,164 18 ND ND 1985 2.9 17.6 2.1 GENERAL CARGO ST < 15,000 1 14,897 15,289 19 ND ND 1966 2.6 18.3 0.9 GENERAL CARGO Total 263 30,851 11,907 16 122 17% 1984 3.2 16.6 1.4 MISCELANEOUS 2 ( blank) 3 7,900 9,387 14 ND ND 1991 3.6 19.3 2.4 MISCELANEOUS 2 ( blank) 1 1,200 1,860 12 ND ND 1990 4.2 22.4 0.9 MISCELANEOUS 4 ( blank) 4 761 3,486 13 1225 100% 1986 3.8 16.1 3.2 MISCELANEOUS ST ( blank) 3 3,988 8,483 15 ND ND 1940 3.3 15.4 0.9 MISCELANEOUS Total 11 3,548 5,827 14 1225 100% 1983 3.7 17.3 2.1 PASSENGER 2 < 5,000 3 4,226 29,370 21 ND ND 1983 2.4 14.5 1.4 PASSENGER 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 1 5,340 32,350 19 ND ND 1986 2.6 17.5 0.9 9­ 8 Table 9­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for Puget Sound Area Ports Including Seattle, WA Ship Type ­ Manip Stroke type DWT Range Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( HP) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) PASSENGER 4 < 5,000 4 850 9,906 16 788 100% 1983 3.2 17.1 0.9 PASSENGER 4 5,000 ­ 10,000 3 7,089 45,589 21 514 100% 1993 2.4 16.2 0.9 PASSENGER ST 5,000 ­ 10,000 2 8,706 25,154 23 ND ND 1958 2.2 17.6 0.9 PASSENGER Total 13 4,623 26,704 19 670 100% 1982 2.6 16.4 1.0 REEFER 2 < 5,000 17 3,307 4,767 15 155 100% 1986 3.3 15.6 3.9 REEFER 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 21 6,642 6,945 17 163 100% 1988 3.0 14.1 3.4 REEFER 2 10,000 ­ 15,000 7 11,746 11,969 20 115 0% 1988 2.6 15.6 2.4 REEFER 4 < 5,000 7 2,004 1,730 11 230 100% 1970 4.7 22.1 1.5 REEFER 4 5,000 ­ 10,000 8 5,804 5,676 16 634 100% 1991 3.1 16.7 1.0 REEFER Total 60 5,640 6,136 16 272 88% 1986 3.3 16.0 2.9 RORO 2 < 10,000 11 7,976 6,738 16 174 75% 1988 3.3 22.1 1.3 RORO 2 10,000 ­ 20,000 16 11,346 8,004 16 162 81% 1992 3.3 19.9 0.9 RORO 2 20,000 ­ 30,000 16 26,787 18,649 19 ND ND 1983 2.6 17.9 0.9 RORO 2 > 30,000 4 41,856 15,136 14 ND ND 1981 3.5 14.2 0.9 RORO ST 10,000 ­ 20,000 121 17,084 29,764 25 ND ND 1976 2.0 17.0 1.4 RORO Total 168 17,455 24,777 23 166 79% 1979 2.3 17.6 1.3 TANKER 2 < 30,000 66 19,629 9,104 15 176 79% 1986 3.5 19.0 4.3 TANKER 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 79 46,934 12,451 15 107 0% 1984 3.4 15.9 4.0 TANKER 2 60,000 ­ 90,000 18 71,315 15,262 15 89 0% 1984 3.3 16.0 3.3 TANKER 2 90,000 ­ 120,000 20 100,679 14,738 14 94 0% 1991 3.5 15.8 2.6 TANKER 2 120,000 ­ 150,000 26 123,742 26,146 16 ND ND 1974 3.1 14.5 7.2 TANKER 4 < 30,000 12 10,056 4,864 13 245 33% 1976 4.0 15.6 0.9 TANKER 4 30,000 ­ 60,000 1 37,350 11,700 14 520 100% 1981 3.6 17.0 4.2 TANKER ST < 30,000 18 19,992 14,795 18 ND ND 1964 2.8 14.4 3.8 TANKER ST 30,000 ­ 60,000 35 39,541 13,809 16 ND ND 1969 3.1 15.4 3.5 TANKER ST 60,000 ­ 90,000 125 71,997 19,286 17 ND ND 1970 3.0 16.6 3.4 TANKER ST 90,000 ­ 120,000 29 91,915 23,095 16 ND ND 1977 3.2 15.9 5.3 TANKER ST 120,000 ­ 150,000 119 122,732 26,360 16 ND ND 1974 3.1 14.7 6.2 TANKER ST > 150,000 5 189,978 27,620 14 ND ND 1978 3.5 11.1 1.9 TANKER Total 553 73,490 18,099 16 129 22% 1977 3.2 16.0 4.4 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 < 12,500 27 10,286 10,289 17 158 82% 1983 3.0 20.0 0.9 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 12,500 ­ 15,000 33 13,709 14,049 18 109 9% 1985 2.7 18.6 1.2 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 15,000 ­ 17,500 49 16,272 14,023 18 120 0% 1984 2.8 17.3 1.5 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 > 17,500 7 19,783 15,501 18 98 0% 1985 2.7 18.4 1.7 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 < 12,500 19 10,981 13,118 18 ND ND 1981 2.7 20.2 0.9 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 12,500 ­ 15,000 4 12,917 13,600 19 ND ND 1980 2.6 20.2 0.9 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 15,000 ­ 17,500 2 17,224 16,880 19 450 100% 1978 2.6 18.9 0.9 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 > 17,500 1 19,712 16,880 18 ND ND 1981 2.8 19.4 3.1 VEHICLES CARRIER Total 142 13,946 13,319 18 137 22% 1984 2.8 18.7 1.2 Grand Total 3,333 40,347 20,617 18 139 25% 1984 2.9 16.5 1.9 9­ 9 Table 9­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for Puget Sound Area Ports Including Seattle, WA Hotel ( hr/ call) 70.6 128.1 88.1 154.1 84.4 96.8 64.3 177.9 58.8 115.4 34.3 25.9 30.9 28.4 59.5 138.7 40.4 17.8 30.3 30.8 1291.8 33.4 1432.0 654.3 915.6 321.5 1405.4 399.2 534.6 686.4 65.2 52.4 32.0 23.2 353.6 112.5 163.9 71.9 2189.6 472.8 300.1 49.0 762.6 67.1 7.7 9­ 10 Table 9­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for Puget Sound Area Ports Including Seattle, WA Hotel ( hr/ call) 9.5 54.6 67.5 42.0 315.7 163.2 201.5 259.8 51.5 207.3 30.1 24.4 25.0 10.3 73.8 60.1 43.7 67.6 45.2 64.0 63.9 16.2 84.7 59.7 45.3 62.4 52.1 62.8 103.4 58.3 32.2 19.0 19.6 19.9 20.2 13.5 22.0 21.1 21.8 83.9 9­ 11 Table 10­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Corpus Christi, TX Port of Corpus Christ, TX SOURCE: EPA document Commercial Marine Activity of Deep Sea Ports , Table 10­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Corpus Christi, TX Ship Type Manip Stroke type DWT Category DWT Range Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( HP) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) BARGE CARRIER ST 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 2 30,298 31,564 22 ND ND 1972 2.3 5.0 BARGE CARRIER Total 2 30,298 31,564 22 ND ND 1972 2.3 5.0 BULK CARRIER 2 1 < 25,000 38 14,322 6,448 13 151 67% 1974 3.9 5.0 BULK CARRIER 2 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 35 28,117 11,029 15 150 100% 1977 3.3 5.0 BULK CARRIER 2 3 35,000 ­ 45,000 21 39,326 11,298 15 108 17% 1981 3.3 5.0 BULK CARRIER 2 4 45,000 ­ 90,000 60 68,076 14,830 15 93 0% 1982 3.4 5.0 BULK CARRIER 2 5 > 90,000 36 133,928 19,693 15 91 0% 1989 3.4 6.6 BULK CARRIER 4 1 < 25,000 5 18,600 8,100 15 ND ND 1978 3.3 5.0 BULK CARRIER 4 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 6 29,485 11,036 14 460 100% 1979 3.6 5.0 BULK CARRIER 4 3 35,000 ­ 45,000 1 36,414 15,600 17 ND ND 1981 2.9 5.0 BULK CARRIER 4 4 45,000 ­ 90,000 7 70,656 12,057 14 440 100% 1981 3.6 5.0 BULK CARRIER Total 209 57,708 12,793 15 162 28% 1981 3.5 5.3 CONTAINER SHIP 2 4 > 45,000 1 65,642 66,398 24 100 0% 1996 2.1 5.0 CONTAINER SHIP Total 1 65,642 66,398 24 100 0% 1996 2.1 5.0 TANKER 2 1 < 30,000 66 19,231 8,852 15 183 88% 1983 3.4 5.0 TANKER 2 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 276 44,487 11,085 15 123 44% 1984 3.4 5.0 TANKER 2 3 60,000 ­ 90,000 161 76,375 15,241 15 99 0% 1984 3.3 5.0 TANKER 2 4 90,000 ­ 120,000 171 98,320 15,403 15 89 0% 1991 3.4 6.6 TANKER 2 5 120,000 ­ 150,000 31 139,846 21,270 15 85 0% 1987 3.4 6.6 TANKER 2 6 above 150,000 5 155,042 20,124 14 85 0% 1991 3.5 6.6 TANKER 4 1 < 30,000 34 8,311 4,828 14 532 78% 1984 3.7 5.0 TANKER 4 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 24 43,869 15,369 16 ND ND 1975 3.2 5.0 TANKER 4 3 60,000 ­ 90,000 27 77,584 14,563 15 275 50% 1983 3.4 5.0 TANKER ST 1 < 30,000 2 25,943 10,968 16 ND ND 1954 3.2 5.0 TANKER ST 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 522 37,414 13,060 16 ND ND 1957 3.2 5.0 TANKER ST 3 60,000 ­ 90,000 4 63,000 19,727 16 ND ND 1971 3.1 5.0 TANKER ST 4 90,000 ­ 120,000 9 91,898 24,166 16 ND ND 1977 3.1 6.6 TANKER Total 1,332 53,948 13,178 15 128 24% 1974 3.3 5.3 GENERAL CARGO 2 1 < 25,000 6 9,861 5,483 15 200 100% 1319 3.4 5.0 10­ 5 Table 11­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Tampa, FL Tampa Harbor, FL SOURCE: EPA document Commercial Marine Activity of Deep Sea Ports , Table 11­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Tampa, FL Ship­ type Engine Type DWT CAT DWT RANGE Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( HP) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) BULK CARRIER 2 1 < 25,000 52 18,828 8,478 15 158 56% 1979 3.4 5.6 BULK CARRIER 2 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 82 29,575 9,367 15 125 32% 1983 3.4 5.5 BULK CARRIER 2 3 35,000 ­ 45,000 66 39,389 10,670 15 114 14% 1983 3.4 5.4 BULK CARRIER 2 4 > 45,000 117 57,952 13,451 15 110 0% 1979 3.4 5.4 BULK CARRIER 4 1 < 25,000 8 15,900 6,581 14 124 23% 1975 3.5 5.5 BULK CARRIER 4 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 2 29,089 8,198 14 157 100% 1995 3.6 5.4 BULK CARRIER 4 3 35,000 ­ 45,000 1 41,455 11,336 14 117 0% 1995 3.6 5.3 BULK CARRIER ST 4 > 45,000 1 92,854 10,876 16 124 23% 1975 3.1 5.3 BULK CARRIER 0 0 0 229 39,830 10,876 15 124 23% 1981 3.4 5.4 BULK CARRIER Total 558 39,830 10,876 15 124 23% 1981 3.4 5.4 CONTAINER SHIP 2 3 35,000 ­ 45,000 2 36,750 23,945 21 259 50% 1986 2.4 5.7 CONTAINER SHIP 2 4 > 45,000 1 60,639 51,920 24 90 0% 1990 2.1 5.3 CONTAINER SHIP 4 1 < 25,000 1 21,540 16,993 20 428 100% 1993 2.5 4.4 CONTAINER SHIP Total 4 38,920 29,201 22 259 50% 1989 2.3 5.3 GENERAL CARGO 2 1 < 15,000 37 6,769 4,048 14 197 100% 1979 3.7 5.5 GENERAL CARGO 2 2 15,000 ­ 30,000 22 21,512 9,736 16 130 50% 1982 3.2 5.8 GENERAL CARGO 2 3 30,000 ­ 45,000 2 34,336 10,300 15 95 0% 1980 3.5 5.7 GENERAL CARGO 2 4 > 45,000 1 46,641 8,950 15 105 0% 1995 3.3 5.3 GENERAL CARGO 4 1 < 15,000 70 3,158 2,322 13 554 100% 1978 3.9 5.8 GENERAL CARGO 4 2 15,000 ­ 30,000 5 19,880 10,120 15 280 86% 1981 3.5 5.9 GENERAL CARGO ST 1 < 15,000 14 14,897 4,428 19 280 86% 1966 2.6 5.4 GENERAL CARGO 0 0 0 191 9,060 4,428 14 280 86% 1978 3.6 5.8 GENERAL CARGO Total 342 9,060 4,428 14 280 86% 1978 3.6 5.8 PASSENGER 2 1 < 5,000 26 4,243 29,370 21 559 75% 1984 2.4 6.0 PASSENGER 2 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 55 6,456 29,961 19 120 0% 1984 2.6 6.0 PASSENGER 4 1 < 5,000 5 1,254 9,313 17 769 100% 1979 3.0 6.0 PASSENGER 4 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 2 5,500 20,934 18 580 100% 1987 2.8 6.0 PASSENGER 0 0 0 32 5,485 28,408 20 559 75% 1984 2.5 6.0 PASSENGER Total 120 5,485 28,408 20 559 75% 1984 2.5 6.0 REEFER 2 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 46 6,417 8,160 18 158 70% 1986 2.8 4.0 11­ 7 Table 11­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Tampa, FL Tampa Harbor, FL REEFER 2 3 10,000 ­ 15,000 6 11,054 12,983 20 120 0% 1976 2.6 3.5 REEFER 4 1 < 5,000 1 3,536 3,002 14 600 100% 1978 3.6 3.5 REEFER 4 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 1 6,502 6,933 16 168 100% 1995 3.1 3.5 REEFER Total 54 6,880 8,578 18 168 70% 1985 2.8 3.9 RORO 2 1 < 5,000 30 872 1,948 14 650 100% 1959 3.6 5.6 RORO 4 1 < 5,000 12 2,697 2,849 13 750 100% 1977 3.9 6.0 RORO 4 2 5,000 ­ 10,000 2 7,440 9,000 15 600 100% 1993 3.3 6.0 RORO Total 44 1,668 2,514 14 650 100% 1966 3.7 5.8 TANKER 2 1 < 30,000 111 19,007 11,871 16 136 47% 1978 3.1 5.5 TANKER 2 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 17 39,778 16,976 17 122 0% 1977 3.0 5.5 TANKER 4 1 < 30,000 45 3,121 1,542 11 459 100% 1972 4.5 5.6 TANKER 4 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 3 37,874 16,000 16 150 44% 1971 3.1 5.4 TANKER ST 1 < 30,000 37 24,854 9,794 14 150 44% 1947 3.5 5.7 TANKER ST 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 121 37,075 9,794 15 150 44% 1955 3.3 5.4 TANKER ST 6 > 150,000 1 228,274 9,794 17 150 44% 1977 2.9 6.0 TANKER 0 0 0 148 25,893 9,794 15 150 44% 1966 3.4 5.4 TANKER Total 483 25,893 9,794 15 150 44% 1966 3.4 5.5 TUG 2 0 0 701 75 4,905 12 ND ND 1976 4.3 5.4 TUG 4 0 0 166 157 9,206 14 ND ND 1978 3.7 5.6 TUG 0 0 0 459 91 5,768 13 ND ND 1976 4.2 5.5 TUG Total 1,326 91 5,768 13 # N/ A # N/ A 1976 4.2 5.4 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 2 12,500 ­ 15,000 2 13,208 11,500 18 111 0% 1984 2.8 5.7 VEHICLES CARRIER Total 2 13,208 11,500 18 111 0% 1984 2.8 5.7 BARGE DRY CARGO 0 0 0 525 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 5.4 BARGE DRY CARGO Total 525 # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A 5.4 BARGE TANKER 0 0 0 852 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 5.5 BARGE TANKER Total 852 # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A 5.5 MISCELLANEOUS 2 1 < 1,000 4 113 895 12 430 100% 1977 4.2 5.9 MISCELLANEOUS 2 3 5,000 ­ 10,000 1 9,360 10,332 18 430 100% 1984 2.8 3.5 11­ 8 Table 11­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Tampa, FL Man. ( hr/ call) Hotel ( hr/ call) 1.9 76.2 2.8 87.4 2.7 96.1 3.4 71.9 1.4 346.8 3.3 64.6 3.0 223.2 9.0 265.3 1.5 56.3 2.3 75.6 3.3 276.3 1.0 7.1 3.0 125.9 2.6 171.4 1.8 46.2 1.4 80.8 1.0 43.5 5.7 120.8 1.2 98.7 1.7 51.4 1.2 35.7 1.2 62.3 1.3 68.0 1.1 15.1 1.0 10.2 1.8 224.3 1.0 9.5 1.0 71.8 1.0 36.6 1.0 38.8 11­ 9 Table 11­ 6: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Tampa, FL 5.0 352.4 1.0 86.2 1.0 81.8 1.5 75.3 2.0 60.3 1.5 216.1 1.5 199.9 1.9 110.3 1.3 34.3 1.7 37.0 1.4 86.0 1.8 35.9 1.1 21.1 1.9 47.7 2.4 640.7 1.2 21.9 1.4 39.0 2.1 55.7 2.1 64.9 1.6 49.6 1.9 54.7 1.3 203.3 1.3 203.3 1.8 91.8 1.8 91.8 2.0 149.6 2.0 149.6 1.1 83.5 1.0 319.7 11­ 10 Table 12­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for Baltimore Harbor, MD Ship Type Engine Type DWT Range Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( hp) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Biuld Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) Hotel ( hr/ call) BULK CARRIER 2 < 25,000 50 18,690 8,707 15 146 63% 1981 3.4 16.0 1.5 113.5 BULK CARRIER 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 85 29,958 10,618 15 131 61% 1982 3.3 16.7 1.5 167.7 BULK CARRIER 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 73 39,143 10,435 15 109 5% 1984 3.4 16.6 1.6 133.1 BULK CARRIER 2 45,000 ­ 90,000 144 68,715 13,970 14 100 3% 1986 3.5 17.4 1.5 79.1 BULK CARRIER 2 > 90,000 76 133,223 18,241 14 86 0% 1985 3.5 18.9 1.4 49.5 BULK CARRIER 4 < 25,000 10 12,466 5,700 14 ND ND 1974 3.7 14.7 1.5 63.6 BULK CARRIER 4 25,000 ­ 35,000 3 32,322 8,602 13 157 100% 1984 4.0 20.1 1.3 181.8 BULK CARRIER 4 45,000 ­ 90,000 3 89,127 12,600 14 404 100% 1982 3.6 17.5 1.3 91.0 BULK CARRIER 4 > 90,000 2 158,526 17,850 14 399 100% 1986 3.6 17.2 2.5 64.7 BULK CARRIER ST < 25,000 29 18,232 9,115 15 ND ND 1975 3.3 14.2 1.3 30.3 BULK CARRIER ST 25,000 ­ 35,000 1 33,373 11,837 15 ND ND 1983 3.3 10.7 1.3 1.2 BULK CARRIER ST > 90,000 5 159,743 27,126 16 ND ND 1970 3.1 17.2 1.3 61.4 BULK CARRIER Total 481 59,304 12,611 15 111 16% 1983 3.4 17.0 1.5 98.8 CONTAINER SHIP 2 < 25,000 247 21,107 18,352 19 118 16% 1987 2.6 14.1 1.3 23.7 CONTAINER SHIP 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 96 29,065 16,979 19 102 0% 1984 2.7 14.5 1.3 17.2 CONTAINER SHIP 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 92 39,319 46,221 23 105 0% 1979 2.2 16.9 1.4 16.1 CONTAINER SHIP 2 45,000 ­ 90,000 72 55,730 41,379 22 94 0% 1988 2.2 17.1 1.3 13.7 CONTAINER SHIP 4 < 25,000 13 8,793 6,508 16 475 100% 1984 3.2 13.4 1.3 105.4 CONTAINER SHIP ST < 25,000 3 18,832 28,112 23 ND ND 1973 2.2 14.1 1.3 12.7 CONTAINER SHIP ST 25,000 ­ 35,000 18 26,826 35,181 20 ND ND 1973 2.5 15.5 1.3 20.7 CONTAINER SHIP Total 541 30,106 26,242 20 117 10% 1985 2.5 15.1 1.3 21.7 GENERAL CARGO 2 < 25,000 114 16,545 10,516 16 154 55% 1982 3.1 16.7 1.5 108.3 GENERAL CARGO 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 13 30,370 10,302 15 108 0% 1984 3.3 16.5 2.0 96.8 GENERAL CARGO 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 9 41,141 13,058 16 ND ND 1984 3.1 14.3 1.3 29.8 GENERAL CARGO 2 45,000 ­ 90,000 1 45,000 12,300 16 93 0% 1994 3.1 17.4 1.3 180.0 GENERAL CARGO 4 < 25,000 80 5,301 3,469 13 642 100% 1988 3.8 19.0 1.4 55.7 GENERAL CARGO 4 25,000 ­ 35,000 4 29,719 12,000 14 ND ND 1974 3.6 18.0 2.1 107.2 GENERAL CARGO ST < 25,000 5 13,264 16,709 20 ND ND 1962 2.6 17.4 1.3 358.9 GENERAL CARGO Total 226 14,626 8,281 15 435 78% 1984 3.4 17.4 1.5 91.7 Miscellaneous 2 < 10,000 4 6,450 3,500 15 ND ND 1982 3.3 15.9 2.0 509.1 12­ 8 Table 12­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for Baltimore Harbor, MD Ship Type Engine Type DWT Range Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( hp) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Biuld Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) Hotel ( hr/ call) Miscellaneous 4 < 10,000 6 7,053 11,671 14 720 100% 1990 3.5 18.3 1.8 790.1 Miscellaneous Total 10 6,812 10,503 15 720 100% 1987 3.4 17.3 1.9 677.7 PASSENGER 2 < 10,000 3 6,291 22,000 20 ND ND 1976 2.5 15.1 1.3 81.9 PASSENGER 4 < 10,000 6 5,478 32,171 20 524 100% 1986 2.6 15.1 1.3 85.7 PASSENGER ST < 10,000 6 7,942 35,363 24 ND ND 1961 2.1 16.1 1.3 146.7 PASSENGER Total 15 6,626 31,413 21 524 100% 1974 2.4 15.5 1.3 109.4 REEFER 2 10,000 ­ 20,000 2 11,560 13,100 19 117 0% 1987 2.6 10.9 1.6 531.4 REEFER Total 2 11,560 13,100 19 117 0% 1987 2.6 10.9 1.6 531.4 RORO 2 < 10,000 66 5,420 9,650 16 96 0% 1981 3.1 17.1 1.5 47.8 RORO 2 10,000 ­ 20,000 46 15,272 14,935 19 98 0% 1985 2.7 15.1 2.0 30.3 RORO 2 20,000 ­ 30,000 51 26,522 16,952 20 102 0% 1984 2.6 14.6 1.9 32.6 RORO 2 > 30,000 83 45,016 26,562 19 98 0% 1983 2.7 17.4 1.3 19.8 RORO 4 < 10,000 3 8,903 10,332 15 425 100% 1979 3.3 15.8 1.3 33.6 RORO 4 20,000 ­ 30,000 1 24,106 27,000 22 ND ND 1972 2.3 16.2 1.3 1301.3 RORO Total 250 24,800 17,805 18 107 3% 1983 2.8 16.3 1.6 37.0 TANKER 2 < 30,000 53 19,174 8,165 14 157 52% 1984 3.5 15.6 1.6 34.3 TANKER 2 30,000 ­ 60,000 42 37,543 12,008 15 113 7% 1982 3.3 16.5 1.7 51.5 TANKER 2 60,000 ­ 90,000 13 64,867 14,170 15 108 0% 1985 3.3 15.9 1.4 34.3 TANKER 2 90,000 ­ 120,000 1 95,628 16,600 14 94 0% 1993 3.6 17.5 1.3 242.4 TANKER 2 > 150,000 1 281,559 29,460 15 75 0% 1995 3.3 17.2 2.3 93.3 TANKER 4 < 30,000 22 8,330 5,354 14 486 100% 1989 3.5 14.5 1.5 29.1 TANKER 4 30,000 ­ 60,000 7 36,753 14,760 16 ND ND 1983 3.2 16.8 1.7 39.0 TANKER ST 30,000 ­ 60,000 8 44,388 16,275 15 ND ND 1958 3.3 18.1 1.3 30.9 TANKER Total 147 31,354 10,331 15 222 46% 1983 3.4 15.9 1.6 40.3 TUG 2 < 10,000 15 177 4,713 13 900 100% 1975 4.0 16.6 1.3 52.9 TUG 4 < 10,000 27 430 15,252 16 750 100% 1978 3.2 14.9 1.4 29.3 TUG Total 42 340 11,488 15 825 100% 1977 3.4 15.5 1.4 37.8 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 < 10,000 3 9,352 10,978 18 124 33% 1984 2.8 16.1 2.9 35.4 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 10,000 ­ 20,000 225 14,660 13,308 18 110 0% 1985 2.7 14.7 1.8 22.8 VEHICLES CARRIER 2 20,000 ­ 30,000 3 26,342 13,963 19 101 0% 1990 2.7 17.0 1.7 17.0 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 < 10,000 12 8,246 11,830 18 530 100% 1980 2.8 14.2 1.5 21.7 VEHICLES CARRIER 4 10,000 ­ 20,000 50 12,863 13,649 18 502 100% 1981 2.8 15.5 1.9 28.1 VEHICLES CARRIER Total 293 14,156 13,289 18 173 17% 1984 2.7 14.9 1.8 23.7 Grand Total 2,007 31,529 16,493 17 172 23% 1984 3.0 16.0 1.5 56.4 12­ 9 Table 13­ 5: Summary of 1996 Deep­ Sea Vessel Data for the Port of Coos Bay, OR Ship­ type Engine Type DWT Range Calls DWT ( tonnes) Power ( HP) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) % RPM > 130 Date of Build Cruise ( hr/ call) RSZ ( hr/ call) Maneuver ( hr/ call) Hotel ( hr/ call) BULK CARRIER 2 < 25,000 26 22,978 7,007 14 149 96% 1993 3.6 3.6 0.6 64.0 BULK CARRIER 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 39 30,108 9,756 15 127 13% 1983 3.4 3.4 0.6 69.4 BULK CARRIER 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 60 42,436 9,136 14 105 6% 1987 3.5 3.0 0.6 58.9 BULK CARRIER 2 > 45,000 28 46,825 10,249 14 106 0% 1990 3.5 3.5 0.6 94.8 BULK CARRIER 2 ( blank) 2 36,790 9,136 14 117 24% 1987 3.5 4.0 0.3 179.7 BULK CARRIER Total 155 36,790 9,136 14 117 24% 1987 3 3.3 0.6 70.4 GENERAL CARGO 2 < 25,000 10 20,800 11,770 16 103 0% 1980 3.1 3.6 0.6 65.3 GENERAL CARGO 2 25,000 ­ 35,000 18 30,068 8,040 14 95 0% 1984 3.5 3.6 0.6 52.5 GENERAL CARGO 2 35,000 ­ 45,000 20 42,857 13,010 15 119 0% 1982 3.2 2.7 0.6 56.5 GENERAL CARGO 2 > 45,000 5 46,547 12,300 16 93 0% 1994 3.1 4.0 0.6 128.5 GENERAL CARGO 4 < 25,000 1 23,168 7,800 15 103 0% 1978 3.3 3.0 0.6 67.4 GENERAL CARGO Total 54 34,486 10,962 15 103 0% 1983 3 3.3 0.6 63.7 MISCELLANEOUS 4 ( blank) 1 36,189 9,612 15 ND ND ND 3.4 4.0 0.3 128.7 MISCELLANEOUS Total 1 # N/ A # N/ A 15 # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A # N/ A 4.0 0.3 128.7 Grand Total 210 36,189 9,612 15 116 21% 1986 3 3.3 0.6 69.0 13­ 5 Cleveland Harbor, OH SOURCE: EPA document Commercial Marine Activity for Lake and Rive Ship Type Engine Type DWT Category Trips Year Build DWT ( tonnes) BULK CARRIER, SALTY 2 < 10,00 2 ND 8,186 BULK CARRIER, SALTY 2 10,000 ­ 20,0 23 ND 15,866 BULK CARRIER, SALTY 2 20,000 ­ 30,0 134 1984 27,225 BULK CARRIER, SALTY 2 > 30,00 60 1981 35,125 BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total 219 1983 28,022 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 2 10,000 ­ 20,0 39 1943 17,500 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 2 20,000 ­ 30,0 717 1977 26,830 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 2 30,000 ­ 40,0 55 1974 37,107 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 2 > 40,00 37 1980 50,800 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 4 < 10,00 56 1959 7,686 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 4 10,000 ­ 20,0 350 1951 17,000 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 4 20,000 ­ 30,0 70 1973 21,303 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 4 30,000 ­ 40,0 16 1980 33,205 BULK CARRIER, LAKER ST 10,000 ­ 20,0 106 1943 15,047 BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total 1446 1967 23,445 CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY 2 < 10,00 4 ND 8,229 CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY 4 10,000 ­ 20,0 2 1995 10,187 CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY Total 6 1995 8,882 EXCURSION VESSEL 4 450 572 1981 ND EXCURSION VESSEL 4 1000 748 1990 ND EXCURSION VESSEL Total 1320 1986 ND GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 2 < 10,00 2 ND 7,805 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 2 10,000 ­ 20,0 6 1980 15,658 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 4 < 10,00 8 1963 7,251 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 4 10,000 ­ 20,0 2 ND 17,154 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 4 20,000 ­ 30,0 2 ND 23,000 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total 20 1972 12,394 TANKER, SALTY 2 < 10,00 5 1974 8,000 TANKER, SALTY 4 10,000 ­ 20,0 12 1978 11,420 TANKER, SALTY Total 17 1976 10,280 Grand Total 1665 1968 23,678 a ST refers to steam turbine b Category is dead weight tonnes for all ship­ types c Hotelling times are found in Table 3­ 7 Table 3­ 7. Average hotelling times by ship­ type for calls on Port of Cleveland in 1996 Ship­ type Category a Calls Hotelling ( hrs/ call) BULK CARRIER, SALTY 10,000 ­ 20 11 41.3 20,000 ­ 30 75 69.3 > 30,0 45 49.1 BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total 131 60 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 20,000 ­ 30 1 7.8 > 30,0 1 7 BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total 2 7.4 CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY < 10,0 1 24.7 10,000 ­ 20 1 111.5 CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY Total 2 68.1 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY < 10,0 9 55.1 10,000 ­ 20 6 78.9 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total 15 64.6 PASSENGER, SALTY all 2 30.5 TANKER, SALTY all 1 29 Grand Total 153 59.3 EMISSION FACT iver Ports , Table 3­ 4. Summary of trips for the Port of Cleveland for 1996 Cruise g/ hp­ hr 2 4 Steam Power ( hp) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM) Cruise ( hr/ trip) RSZ ( hr/ trip) Maneuver ( hr/ trip) Calls Hotel ( hr/ call) 6,200 14 ND 0.5 0.3 0.8 6,996 14 113 0.5 0.3 0.8 11 41.3 9,116 15 110 0.5 0.3 0.8 75 69.3 10,909 14 100 0.5 0.3 0.8 45 49.1 9,358 14 109 0.5 0.3 0.8 4,500 13 ND 0.5 0.3 0.8 7,098 13 750 0.5 0.3 2.4 0.911055 7.8 7,087 13 ND 0.5 0.4 1 0.774648 7 8,538 13 ND 0.5 0.3 0.9 4,303 14 ND 0.5 0.3 0.9 4,236 13 ND 0.5 0.3 2 5,503 14 ND 0.5 0.3 2.5 0.088945 7.8 9,601 12 ND 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.225352 7 8,269 15 ND 0.5 0.3 0.9 6,308 13 750 0.5 0.3 2 5,950 15 ND 0.5 0.3 0.8 1 24.7 7,382 16 500 0.4 0.3 0.8 1 111.5 6,427 15 500 0.5 0.3 0.8 460 10 ND 0 2 0.4 0.866667 30.5 850 12 ND 0 2 0.4 1.133333 30.5 655 11 ND 0 2 0.4 5,400 15 225 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.8 55.1 10,600 16 ND 0.4 0.3 0.8 4.5 78.9 3,391 12 550 0.6 0.4 0.8 7.2 55.1 6,000 14 ND 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.5 78.9 7,800 13 ND 0.5 0.4 0.8 6,456 14 442 0.5 0.3 0.8 2,950 12 750 0.5 0.3 2.6 0.294118 29 6,253 15 117 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.705882 29 5,152 14 328 0.5 0.3 1.4 6,664 13 519 0.5 0.3 1.8 Total Grams per Year 2­ stroke Tons per Year 4­ stroke Tons per Year Steam Engine Tons per Year Total Tons per Year Load 0.8 RSZ HC CO NOx PM SO2 g/ hp­ hr HC 0.395 0.82 17.6 1.29 9.56 2 0.395 0.395 0.52 12.38 1.31 9.69 4 0.395 0.05 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.0 Steam 0.05 Speed 9 Cruise HC g/ yr Cruise CO g/ yr Cruise NOx g/ yr Cruise PM g/ yr Cruise SO2 g/ yr RSZ Load RSZ HC g/ yr 1959 4067 87296 6398 47411 420 25423 52778 1132792 83029 615231 5453 193004 400666 8599670 630317 4670571 41395 103417 214689 4607962 337743 2502632 22181 323804 672201 14427720 1057486 7835845 0.29 69449 27729 57564 1235520 90558 671024 6910 804104 1669279 35828433 2626061 19458796 200386 61586 127849 2744086 201129 1490342 20463 49913 103617 2223978 163007 1207866 12439 38073 50121 1193274 126267 933784 9488 234251 308381 7341835 776882 5745277 58376 60863 80124 1907560 201850 1492741 15167 29126 38343 912848 96594 714339 8065 17530 77133 732064 652126 5245200 4369 1323175.00 2512411.51 54119598.15 4934475.64 36959369.04 0.33 335662.07 3760 7806 167552 12281 90999 708 1866 2457 58489 6189 45770 439 5627 10263 226041 18470 136769 0.25 1148 0 0 0 0 0 100481 0 0 0 0 0 242801 0 0 0 0 0 0.48 343282 1706 3542 76032 5573 41294 366 8039 16689 358195 26254 194540 2155 5143 6771 161205 17058 126150 1226 1896 2496 59424 6288 46502 407 2465 3245 77251 8174 60452 705 19250 32743 732108 63347 468937 0.29 4858 2331 4838 103840 7611 56397 500 11856 15607 371578 39319 290775 2543 14186 20445 475418 46930 347171 0.29 3043 1686041.41 3248063.69 69980884.99 6120709.01 45748091.69 757441.67 1.41 2.93 62.88 4.61 34.15 0.34 0.42 0.56 13.29 1.41 10.40 0.48 0.02 0.08 0.81 0.72 5.77 0.00 1.85 3.57 76.98 6.73 50.32 0.83 Maneuver CO NOx PM SO2 g/ hp­ hr HC 0.82 17.6 1.29 9.56 2 2.085717156 0.52 12.38 1.31 9.69 4 2.172732372 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.0 Steam 0.05 knots Speed 4 EMISSION RSZ CO g/ yr RSZ NOx g/ yr RSZ PM g/ yr RSZ SO2 g/ yr Maneuvering Load Maneuvering HC g/ yr 872 18723 1372 10169 2407 11320 242958 17808 131953 31232 85934 1844432 135188 1001730 237101 46046 988302 72438 536757 127046 144172 3094415 226807 1680609 0.12 397786 14345 307896 22567 167221 35255 415990 8928569 654424 4849199 3067026 42481 911781 66829 495198 97876 25822 554223 40622 301004 71392 12490 297368 31466 232702 56729 76850 1829611 193602 1431743 775632 19967 475371 50302 371996 251907 10617 252761 26746 197795 32146 19222 182433 162512 1307122 4749 637783.49 13740012.44 1249070.36 9353981.62 0.12 4392711.14 1471 31567 2314 17144 4498 579 13774 1458 10779 2907 2049 45341 3771 27923 0.11 7405 132279 3149253 333241 2464415 30565 319637 7609816 805239 5954982 73856 451916 10759069 1138480 8419397 0.13 104420 760 16307 1195 8857 2096 4474 96031 7039 52155 12345 1614 38417 4065 30062 5485 535 12745 1349 9974 2426 928 22091 2338 17287 3154 8311 185591 15985 118335 0.12 25507 1038 22271 1632 12096 9305 3347 79695 8433 62364 15172 4385 101966 10065 74460 0.12 24477 1248615.90 27926394.13 2644178.51 19674706.43 4952306.03 0.72 15.36 1.13 8.34 4.07 0.64 15.16 1.60 11.86 1.37 0.02 0.20 0.18 1.44 0.01 1.37 30.72 2.91 21.64 5.45 Hotel Load CO NOx PM SO2 g/ hp­ hr HC 6.072740558 23.91129555 2.168336646 23.02 2 0.1 4.432346073 16.87604551 2.216072174 23.87 4 0.1 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.0 Steam 0.05 knots NS ESTIMATES Maneuvering CO g/ yr Maneuvering NOx g/ yr Maneuvering PM g/ yr Maneuvering SO2 g/ yr Hotelling HC g/ yr 7008 27593 2502 26564 90935 358055 32469 344701 31783 690339 2718197 246493 2616820 473804 369905 1456492 132078 1402171 241034 1158187 4560337 413543 4390255 746621 102647 404172 36651 389098 8929903 35161316 3188517 33849944 504 284974 1122080 101753 1080231 384 207865 818463 74220 787938 115726 440624 57860 623168 1582280 6024490 791104 8520351 513886 1956608 256931 2767203 38 65578 249685 32787 353126 151 20894 198302 176648 1420824 11823752.51 46375740.40 4716472.97 49791883.47 1078.33 13097 51570 4677 49647 1470 5930 22579 2965 31932 8231 19027 74149 7641 81580 9701 62351 237401 31174 335753 122 150665 573653 75329 811309 294 213016 811054 106503 1147062 415 6103 24032 2179 23136 5356 35943 141524 12834 136245 37635 11190 42605 5595 60255 13453 4950 18846 2475 26654 7101 6435 24500 3217 34650 64620 251507 26300 280940 63545 27091 106671 9673 102693 252 30951 117844 15475 166666 1280 58042 224516 25148 269359 1532 13336645.03 52297301.95 5295608.01 55961078.44 822892.04 11.84 46.63 4.23 44.89 0.87 2.80 10.68 1.40 15.10 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.19 1.56 0.00 14.67 57.53 5.83 61.56 0.91 0.1 All modes CO NOx PM SO2 1.85 9.96 0.239 1.07 1.85 9.96 0.239 1.07 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.00 Hotelling CO g/ yr Hotelling NOx g/ yr Hotelling PM g/ yr Hotelling SO2 g/ yr All Modes HC g/ yr All Modes CO g/ yr All Modes NOx g/ yr 4786.24 11947.22 133611.65 587982 3165570 75961 339316 93891.19 743014.79 4899374.74 8765376 47190888 1132392 5058377 945303.92 9942315.34 60353187.19 4459136 24007022 576072 2573305 493678.13 5089775.13 31059777.19 13812494 74363480 1784425 7970999 1537659.47 15787052.48 96445950.77 69893.95 174556.43 1947587.50 9331 50238 1206 5385 4072019.70 11024503.77 79968556.07 7109 38276 918 4103 180309.58 462413.80 4816223.36 133743.98 337303.62 3596664.42 104289.67 178337.82 1931265.47 1068259.14 1967510.12 15195936.08 706 3803 91 408 327975.20 614683.15 4343341.21 2802 15085 362 1617 69487.81 117338.83 1430378.44 26647.50 117249.01 1112799.67 19949.03 107401.25 2577.20 11512.31 6052626.54 14993896.54 114342752.23 27189 146377 3512 15690 10436.86 49562.96 397066.35 152272 819801 19672 87874 13443.49 161237.54 914642.37 179461 966178 23184 103564 23880.34 210800.51 1311708.72 2249 12111 291 1298 131167.14 196879.55 3398764.27 5436 29264 702 3137 316950.70 475737.37 8212733.07 7685 41375 993 4435 448117.85 672616.92 11611497.34 99081 533430 12800 57178 9524.38 109486.46 649801.15 696253 3748476 89948 401798 60174.30 753358.55 4344225.53 248876 1339896 32152 143623 25307.18 268450.85 1582123.02 131369 707260 16971 75811 11830.01 139349.59 798274.75 6323.93 10607.39 123842.56 1175579 6329062 151872 678410 113159.80 1281252.84 7498267.01 4655 25061 601 2686 12386.60 37621.81 257843.63 23680 127491 3059 13666 30850.55 73586.23 696608.31 28335 152552 3661 16352 43237.15 111208.04 954451.94 15223502.69 81960046.94 1966711.97 8785272.74 8218681.15 33056827.31 232164628.01 16.12 86.80 2.08 9.30 6.69 31.61 211.67 0.62 3.36 0.08 0.36 2.32 4.62 42.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.13 1.22 16.75 90.16 2.16 9.66 9.04 36.36 255.38 8.55 35.62 242.61 All Modes PM g/ yr All Modes SO2 g/ yr 10272.88 84143.59 209266.51 1431201.65 2144389.96 13347497.64 1118331.15 7014865.42 3482260.51 21877708.30 149776.67 1227343.00 6470207.21 58163324.86 370629.99 3069873.75 277849.83 2296808.00 215593.86 1789654.26 1761588.06 15697370.60 509174.35 4632348.27 156489.14 1266878.00 991287.07 7973145.70 10902596.17 96116746.44 22783.50 173480.67 30283.41 176355.49 53066.91 349836.16 364705.62 2801465.77 881270.27 6769428.15 1245975.89 9570893.92 21747.52 130464.52 136074.79 784738.29 58869.91 360090.35 27082.79 158939.83 13729.22 112389.42 257504.23 1546622.40 19517.97 173871.48 66285.82 533470.61 85803.79 707342.09 16027207.49 130169149.31 12.05 96.69 4.49 37.73 1.09 8.77 17.63 143.19 16.26 132.66 Burns Waterway Harbor, IN EMISS SOURCE: EPA document Commercial Marine Activity for Lake and River Ports, Table 3­ 12. Summary of trips for Burns Waterway Harbor for 1996 Ship Type Engine Type DWT Category Trips Year Build DWT ( tonnes) Power ( hp) Vessel Speed ( knots) Engine Speed ( RPM g/ yr) Cruise ( hr/ trip) RSZ ( hr/ trip) Maneuver ( hr/ trip) Calls Hotel ( hr/ call) BULK CARRIER, LAKER 2 20,000 ­ 30,0 9 1973 24,827 8,531 13 750 0.5 0.4 0.7 2.423077 17.9 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 2 30,000 ­ 40,0 37 1974 34,925 7,108 13 ND 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.146018 18.7 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 2 > 40,000 162 1975 67,695 14,376 14 ND 0.5 0.3 0.6 5.017699 18.7 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 4 10,000 ­ 20,0 14 1952 17,978 4,800 13 ND 0.5 0.4 0.7 7 13.5 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 4 20,000 ­ 30,0 6 1971 22,491 6,600 15 ND 0.5 0.3 0.7 1.615385 17.9 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 4 30,000 ­ 40,0 27 1979 32,908 9,541 12 ND 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.836283 18.7 BULK CARRIER, LAKER ST 20,000 ­ 30,0 11 1953 23,627 8,886 16 ND 0.4 0.3 0.6 2.961538 17.9 BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total 266 1973 52,630 11,753 14 750 0.5 0.3 0.6 BULK CARRIER, SALTY 2 10,000 ­ 20,0 4 1976 14,631 6,700 14 ND 0.5 0.3 0.7 4 61 BULK CARRIER, SALTY 2 20,000 ­ 30,0 99 1973 27,329 8,839 13 219 0.5 0.3 0.7 35.77311 43.2 BULK CARRIER, SALTY 2 30,000 ­ 40,0 42 1982 32,449 10,132 14 105 0.5 0.3 0.7 19 48 BULK CARRIER, SALTY ST 20,000 ­ 30,0 20 1961 26,175 3,551 16 ND 0.4 0.3 0.7 7.226891 43.2 BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total 165 1974 28,185 8,476 14 193 0.5 0.3 0.7 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 2 < 10,000 8 1962 8,395 4,100 14 ND 0.5 0.3 0.7 5.714286 26.3 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 2 10,000 ­ 20,0 1 1982 16,467 11,200 16 150 0.4 0.3 0.7 1 23.9 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 4 < 10,000 6 1979 5,785 3,667 12 ND 0.6 0.4 0.7 4.285714 26.3 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total 15 1970 7,889 4,400 13 150 0.5 0.3 0.7 TANKER, SALTY 4 < 10,000 200 1973 7,500 400 14 720 0.5 0.3 0.6 TANKER, SALTY Total < 10,000 200 1973 7500 400 14 720 0.5 0.3 0.6 Grand Total 646 1973 40,342 9,792 14 596 0.5 0.3 0.7 a ST refers to steam turbine b Category is dead weight tonnes for all ship­ types c Hotelling times are found in Table 3­ 15 Table 3­ 15. Average hotelling times by ship­ type for calls on Burns Waterway Harbor Ship­ type Category a Calls Hotelling ( hrs/ call) BULK CARRIER, LAKER 10,000 ­ 20,000 7 13.5 20,000 ­ 30,000 7 17.9 > 30,000 7 18.7 BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total 21 16.6 BULK CARRIER, SALTY 10,000 ­ 20,000 4 61 20,000 ­ 30,000 43 43.2 > 30,000 19 48 BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total 66 45.8 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY < 10,000 10 26.3 20,000 ­ 30,000 1 23.9 GENERAL CARGO Total 11 26 DRY­ CARGO BARGE < 2000 446 46.8 LIQUID CARGO BARGE < 2000 23 52.9 2000 ­ 5000 27 29.7 LIQUID CARGO BARGE Total 50 40.3 Grand Total 594 44.4 a Category is in dead weight tonnes. ISSION FACT Cruise Load 0.8 RSZ Maneuver g/ hp­ hr HC CO NOx PM SO2 g/ hp­ hr HC CO NOx PM SO2 g/ hp­ hr HC CO 2 0.395 0.82 17.6 1.29 9.56 2 0.395 0.82 17.6 1.29 9.56 2 2.085717156 6.072740558 4 0.395 0.52 12.38 1.31 9.69 4 0.395 0.52 12.38 1.31 9.69 4 2.172732372 4.432346073 Steam 0.05 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.0 Steam 0.05 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.0 Steam 0.05 0.22 Speed 9 knots Speed 4 knots EMISSIONS Cruise HC g/ yr Cruise CO g/ yr Cruise NOx g/ yr Cruise PM g/ yr Cruise SO2 g/ yr RSZ Load RSZ HC g/ yr RSZ CO g/ yr RSZ NOx g/ yr RSZ PM g/ yr RSZ SO2 g/ yr Maneuvering Load Maneuvering HC g/ yr Maneuvering CO g/ yr 12131 25184 540524 39618 293564 3469 7202 154573 11330 83950 13040 37967 41553 86263 1851492 135706 1005565 11883 24668 529470 38808 287561 38286 111472 367968 763883 16395540 1201719 8904589 78921 163835 3516467 257741 1909830 339030 987115 10618 13978 332774 35213 260409 3036 3997 95163 10070 74469 11889 24254 6257 8237 196099 20750 153455 1342 1767 42059 4450 32913 7006 14292 48842 64299 1530804 161983 1197915 11639 15323 364803 38602 285472 45576 92975 1564 6881 65310 58178 467942 419 1845 17509 15597 125454 341 1501 488933 968724 20912544 1653167 12283440 0.29 110710 218637 4720044 376598 2799649 0.12 455169 1269576 4234 8790 188672 13829 102470 908 1885 40466 2966 21977 4552 13252 138260 287020 6160429 451531 3345794 29654 61559 1321271 96843 717596 148618 432713 67236 139578 2995830 219581 1627066 14421 29936 642537 47095 348968 72273 210429 1136 5000 47453 42271 339996 305 1340 12722 11333 91152 289 1272 210866 440389 9392384 727212 5415326 0.29 45287 94721 2016995 158237 1179693 0.12 225732 657667 5182 10758 230912 16925 125411 1291 2681 57544 4218 31253 5765 16786 1416 2939 63078 4623 34259 441 915 19649 1440 10672 1969 5732 4172 5492 130745 13835 102313 1155 1521 36202 3831 28330 4029 8218 10770 19189 424735 35383 261982 0.33 2888 5117 113396 9489 70254 0.12 11763 30737 12640 16640 396160 41920 310011 2711 3569 84967 8991 66490 12132 24749 12640 16640 396160 41920 310011 0.29 2711 3569 84967 8991 66490 0.12 12132 24749 Total Grams per Year 723209 1444941 31125823 2457682 18270759 161595 322044 6935402 553314 4116087 704795 1982728 2­ stroke Tons per Year 0.70 1.46 31.27 2.29 16.98 0.16 0.32 6.91 0.51 3.75 0.69 2.00 4­ stroke Tons per Year 0.09 0.12 2.85 0.30 2.23 0.02 0.03 0.69 0.07 0.54 0.09 0.18 Steam Engine Tons per Year 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.00 0.00 Total Tons per Year 0.80 1.59 34.24 2.70 20.10 0.18 0.35 7.63 0.61 4.53 0.78 2.18 Hotel Load 0.1 All modes NOx PM SO2 g/ hp­ hr HC CO NOx PM SO2 23.91129555 2.168336646 23.02 2 0.1 1.85 9.96 0.239 1.07 16.87604551 2.216072174 23.87 4 0.1 1.85 9.96 0.239 1.07 2.09 1.86 15.0 Steam 0.05 0.22 2.09 1.86 15.00 S ESTIMATES Maneuvering NOx g/ yr Maneuvering PM g/ yr Maneuvering SO2 g/ yr Hotelling HC g/ yr Hotelling CO g/ yr Hotelling NOx g/ yr Hotelling PM g/ yr Hotelling SO2 g/ yr All Modes HC g/ yr All Modes CO g/ yr All Modes NOx g/ yr All Modes PM g/ yr 149494 13556 143918 3700 68453 368536 8843 39503 32340 138805 1213127 73347 438917 39802 422547 1523 28181 151719 3641 16263 93245 250583 2971598 217956 3886746 352460 3741787 13489 249549 1343518 32239 144011 799408 2164383 25142272 1844159 92346 12126 130603 4536 83916 451786 10841 48427 30079 126145 972069 68250 54418 7146 76963 1908 35306 190078 4561 20374 16513 59602 482654 36908 354002 46486 500659 1492 27603 148610 3566 15929 107550 200200 2398218 250637 14245 12689 102064 2355 10363 98357 87617 706591 4680 20590 195422 174083 4990167 484266 5118541 29004 503371 2752604 151309 991099 1083816 2960308 33375359 2665340 52181 4732 50235 16348 302438 1628261 39072 174533 26042 326366 1909580 60598 1703799 154505 1640254 136598 2527059 13605137 326469 1458330 453129 3308351 22790635 1029348 828561 75136 797659 92404 1709471 9203422 220845 986512 246333 2089415 13670350 562657 12075 10756 86517 5543 24390 231482 206205 1662942 7273 32002 303731 270565 2596616 245129 2574665 250893 4563357 24668301 792590 4282318 732778 5756134 38674296 1923168 66095 5994 63630 6162 113992 613707 14726 65783 18401 144217 968258 41863 22569 2047 21727 2677 49521 266609 6398 28578 6502 59107 371906 14508 31292 4109 44255 4133 76465 411670 9878 44127 13489 91696 609908 31653 119956 12149 129613 12972 239977 1291986 31002 138488 38392 295020 1950073 88024 94230 12374 133269 27483 44958 575358 63285 94230 12374 133269 0 0 0 0 0 27483 44958 575358 63285 7800969 753918 7956087 292869 5306706 28712892 974901 5411904 1882468 9056420 74575086 4739816 7.86 0.71 7.57 0.30 5.55 29.90 0.72 3.20 1.84 9.33 75.94 4.23 0.69 0.09 0.97 0.01 0.25 1.32 0.03 0.14 0.21 0.57 5.54 0.50 0.03 0.03 0.21 0.01 0.04 0.36 0.32 2.61 0.01 0.06 0.55 0.49 8.58 0.83 8.75 0.32 5.84 31.58 1.07 5.95 2.07 9.96 82.03 5.21 All Modes SO2 g/ yr 560936 1731935 14700218 513908 283705 1999976 1402050 21192728 349215 7161974 3760206 2180607 13452002 286077 95235 219025 600337 509770 509770 35754836 31.51 3.88 3.94 39.33

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.866335

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0041

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.904403

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0042

Supporting & Related Material

IL t I, AN ASME REPORT CRTD Vol. 60 REFERENCE METHOD ACCURACY AND PRECISION ( ReMAP): PHASE 1 Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements Prepared by: W. Steven Lanier GE Energy and Environmental Research Corporation Charles D. Hendrix Statistical Consultant under the auspices of: American Society of Mechanical Engineers Research Committee on Industrial and Municipal Waste February 200 1 Disclaimer ( hereinafter referred to f, make any warranty, owned rights. Reference herein to any preparation or review of this report, or any agency thereof. Statement from the by­ laws of th statements or opinions advanced Authorization to photocopy falling within the fair use provisions libraries and other users registered that the applicable fee is paid direct1 01923. [ Telephone: ( 978) 750­ 8400] Requests for special permission or bulk reproduction shouId be addressed to the ASME Technical Publishing Department. Society shall not be responsible for printed in publications ( 7.1.3). or personal use under circumstances not Copyright Act is granted by ASME to Copyright Clearance Center ( CCC) provided CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA r ' 1 , 6" I I.­% Section 1 . o 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ S­ I Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Background ....................................................................................................................... .3 . . The Analysis Procedure ­ A Layman's Descnphon .............................................................. 1 1 Measures of Precision ................................................................................................ 1 1 Estimating Standard Deviation .................................................................................. 13 The Relationship Between S and C ..... 1 ..................................................................... 17 Summary of ReMAP Analysis Procedure ................................................................. 21 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Confidence Intervals .................................................................................................. 18 3.5 EPA Particulate Matter Methods ­ Method 5 and 5i ............................................................. 25 4.1 Method 5 Data and Precision Analysis ...................................................................... 28 4.2 Method 5i Data .......................................................................................................... 50 4.3 Discussion of Particulate Matter Measurement Results ............................................ 61 EPA Method 23 for Measuring Dioxin and Furan Emissions ............................................... 67 5.1 5.2 Available Multi­ Train Data for Method 23 as Total PCDDPCDF ........................... 69 Analysis of Method 23 Data for Total Dioxin and Furan .......................................... 70 5.3 Available Multi­ Train Data for Method 23 as ITEQ ................................................. 8 1 EPA Method 26 for Hydrochloric Acid ................................................................................. 9 1 EPA Methods 29, 10 1 a and 10 1 b for Mercury ...................................................................... 103 TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Cont.) 8.0 EPA Method 29 for Multi­ Metals .......................................................................................... 1 19 8.1 EPA Method 29 Data for Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, , I Chromium, and Lead .......*.........,..............................................­................................ l 19 8.1.1 Antimony Data .............................................................................................. .119 ~ I r L 8.1.2 Arsenic Data ................................................................................................... 126 8.1.3 Beryliium Data ............................................................................................... 126 8.1.4 Cadmium Data ............................................................................................... 126 ?? 8.1.5 Chxnium Data .............................................................................................. 122 8.1.6 Lead Data ............................... ................................................................... I22 EPA Method 29 Regression Analyses ....................................................................... 138 ?? 8.2 9.0 Other Measurement Methods ................................................................................................. 167 10.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 169 BNDi References ........................................................ ......................................................... *. I72 Appendix ­ Statistical Analysis Procedures for the ReMap Program c _* ... 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Cont.) Figure ' Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Illustration ­ The Difference Between Precision and Accuracy ............................................ 7 Normal Distribution of Field Results .................................................................................... .12 Simulated Data ....................................................................................................................... 16 Regression Line and Confidence Interval for Simulated Data .............................................. 19 Schematic of Method 5 Sampling Train ................................................................................ 26 EPA Method 5 Data ­ Standard Deviation ( Fig. 6A) ............................................................ 37 EPA Method 5 Data ­ Relative Standard Deviation ( Fig. 63) ............................................. .. 3 8 thod 5 ....................................... 42 d 5 ( Front Half Only) ........... 48 .............................................. 5 1 ............................................. ­ 56 eviation ( Fig. 11B) ............................................ 57 .............................................. 60 .............................................. 62 .............................................. 68 viation ......................................... .72 Deviation .......................... .. 7 .................................................... .76 nts Using EPA Method 23 ............ 78 ion ................................................ 83 .................... 92 Method 26 ..................................... 10 1 ........................................................ 104 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Cont.) Fimre Page 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Schematic of Method 29 Sampling Train .............................................................................. 105 Schematic of Method l 0 l b Sampling Train .......................................................................... 106 EPA Method 29/ 10 1 all 0 1 b Data ­ Total Mercury Standard Deviation ................. ...... ...... ... 1 1 1 EPA Method 29/ 10 1 a / l O 1 b Data ­ Total Mercury Relative Standard Deviation .......... ........ 1 12 Regression Line and 95% Confidence Interval ­ EPA Method 29 Data for Antirn ata for Antimon ata for Arsenic ­ ..................................... 140 ......,............ 143 Regression Line and 95% C Regression Line and 95% EPA Method 29 Precision EPA Method 29 Precision d 29 ­ Chromium ................ 146 d 29 ­ Lead .......................... 147 Precision Estimates for Mea Precision Estimates for Mea EPA Method 29 Precision Metrics ­ Composite Data ......... .... . ................._...... ..................... 165 V ­ Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Cont.) Paae EPA Method 5 Data ­ Hamil and Camann, 1974 and 1974b ................................................ 29 EPA Method 5 Data ­ Dade County MWC, Hamil and Thomas, 1976 ................................ 3 1 EPA Method 5 Data ­ Pittsfield MWC, E g o and Chandler, 1997 ....................................... 32 SPC Factors for Identification of Data Outliers ..................................................................... 33 Consolidated Method 5 Data Set ........................................................................................... 34 Factors for Calculating Unbiased Estimates of sigma ts Based on S ..................................... 35 Method 5 ­ Small Sample Bias Correction to Standard Deviation ....................................... 36 Method 5 Regression Analysis Results .................................................................................. 40 EPA Method 5i Data and Standard Deviation ­ Eli Lilly Data, ( Table 9A) .......................... 53 andard Deviation ­ EPA DuPont Data, ( Table 9B) .................. 55 Regression Analysis for Method 5i Data .............................................................. 58 Data as Total Mass of Tetra through Octa Dioxin pIus Furan ............................. 71 ate of Method 23 Standard Deviation ................................................................... 79 Data as ITEQ ....................................................................................................... 82 Data and Standard Deviation for HC1 ............................................... 93 uture HC1 Data .................................................................................. 102 a for Mercury ( Table 16A) ............................................................. 109 a for Mercury ( Table 16B) ............................................................. 1 10 cipated Future Mercury Data ........................................................................... 1 18 ata and Standard Deviation for Antimony ..................................... 120 ata and Standard Deviation for Arsenic ......................................... 121 ata and Standard Deviation for Beryllium ..................................... 122 ata and Standard Deviation for Cadmium ...................................... 123 ain Data and Standard Deviation for Chromium .................................... 124 ain Data m d Standard Deviation for Lead .............................................. 125 gression Analysis for Various Metals ............................................ 13 8 ­ I f Measured PCDDRCDF Concentration Based on Range of Anticipated Future Metals Data ­ Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Chromium, or Lead ............................................................................................................ 166 Vi This page IntentionaIly left blank. Reference Method Accuracy and Precision ( ReMAP Phase I) An Assessment of the Precision of EPA Manual Stack Emission Measurements Executive Summary This report documents results from the first phase of a study co­ sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers ( ASME) to assess the accuracy and precision of manual test methods adopted by the US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) for determining the stack concentration of selected air pollutants. The program is entitled Reference Method Accuracy and Precision and is referred to by the acronym ReMAP. The Phase 1 effort addresses the precision of the selected measurement methods. The formal Purpose Statement for the program is: " To determine the precision of pollutant emission measurements based on analysis of available simultaneous ­ sample test data which were generated using EPA Manual Reference Test Methods 5 and 5i ( Particulate Matter), 23 ( Dioxin and Furan), 26 ( HCI), 29 ( multi­ metals), 1Ola and lOlb ( mercury) and 108 ( arsenic) at a number of stationaty air sources." As used in the Re rogram, precision is defined as random error that inadvertently enters the measurement process. This error may enter at any stage of the measurement le recovery, or sample analysis. The impact of deviate from the true stack concentration. any manual test of the selected ibution. This distribution is xpected indicating measured Because these e Precision of a curve. One c o r n dicated by the horizontal spread of the bell & e bell curve shape is to determine the ( c) of the distribution. Alternately, the bell distributian also peated application of the the best estimate of the ators of data quality that two additional, directly measurement 99 out of 100 future single measurements. If the is repeatedly applied to a stack with a given concentration, this nes the upper and lower concentration bounds for 99% of measurement ES­ 1 2. The anticipated range for 99 out of 100 future triplicate measurements. Since most environmental regulations define the re able stack concentration as the average of three repeated test runs, this metric defines the anticipated range of results in triplicate ( 3 single time series) measurements due to random error in the measurement process. For each of these precision metrics it is important to note the inherent assumption that faciiity operation. 100 single measurements will fall withi anticipated range for the average of repea to the true concentration. More precisely, standard deviation of concentration. lities must be assumed to of method precision mu trains are used to sim deviation of the particula­ measurement at the specific stack concentration. ES­ 2 97 E l LJ The ReMAP program procedures required to performed a careful assessment estimate the precision of Manual of the statistical analysis Reference Methods using multi­ train sampling data ( see Appendix). To assure the quaiity of data used in the statistical anaiysis, an extensive effort was expended in gathering data from the original sources and carefilly evaluating them to assure that consistent data reduction procedures were used. Conceptually, the ReMAP statistical analysis procedure is straightforward. First, data fiom a multi­ train test run are averaged to provide an estimate of the average C run ( Ci). The standard deviation for the test run ( Si) is also C a calculated standard deviation fiom a single test using a dual sampling probe provides a relatively poor estimate of the true standard deviation of the method ( 0) at the true concentration ( p)­ However, after accounting for various biases, a significant array of data from multi­ train tests should provide a reasonable basis for estimating the true standard deviation as a function of concentration. The ReMAP procedure is to ass at the standard deviation varies with concentration according to a power functio nship and then to fit the data to that equation using regression analysis. regression analysis represent the best estimate av able on the standard measurement method at any given concentration ReMAP analysis procedure also provides for calculation of confidenc s define the upper and lowe lyses are summariz i for Particulate Matter ­ Front Half Only frdm the true ave h tacks with particulate concentrations ual­ train sampling and ep the simultaneous measurements. eliminate test results reening, coupled with the ReMAP anaiysis ant variation of standard deviation with concentration. ES­ 3 Based on a pooled analysis, the characteristic standard deviation for Method 5i was found to be 1.43 mgdscm. Based on this best estimate of standard deviation, the ReMAP analysis indicates that 99 out of 100 Method 5i single measurements should deviate from the true concentration by no more than f 2.68 mg/ dscm. For triplicate measurements 99 out of 100 Method ata results should deviate from the true concentration by no more than f 2.12 rng rs ranging from zero a were reported in both forms. Even nts, the ReMAP results suggest that though the same data were used for both Table ES­ I . Anticipated Range o analysis found no statistically significant variation of standard deviation with ES­ 4 r I; P L1 r: Li concentration. Pooled analysis indicates that the best estimate of standard deviation is 27 ng ITEQ/ dscm. when the emission concentration is in the range of 0.02 to 0.9 ng ITEQ/ dscm. This further indicates that 99 out of 100 future single measurements shoufd fall with 50.069 ng ITEQ/ dscm of the m e concentration and 99 out of 100 triplicate measurements should fall within 50.04 ng ITEQ/ dscm of the true concentration. 99 out of 100 Single Concentration I Measurements Truestack HCl The absolute value of anticipated range for future Method 25 measurements ( as ITEQ) are quite small in absolute t ut they are on the same order as regulatory emission limits being considered in regions. As indicated above, the best estimate of standard deviation is 0.027 ng ITEQIdscm. However, at 95% confidence, the standard deviation may be as large as 0.037 ng ITEQ/ dscm and the potential range for 99 out of 100 future measurements might deviate from the true concentration by as much as Q/ dscm. ReIying upon a single measurement has the potential to create mission limits were set at 0.095 ng ITEQ/ dscm, to be assured confidence level, measurement resuits could not exceed zero. results must be above 0.19 ng ITEQ/ dscm e true stack concentration exceeded the emissio 95% confidence Most regulations and permit limits establish compliance based on averaging results from triplicate measurem icipated range for 99 out of 100 fkture triplicate to single measurements, by 43. Thus, compliance EQ/ dscm is assured ( at the 95% codidence level) or below 0.04 ng ITEQ/ dscm. Similarly, at 95% 95 ng ITEQ/ dscm limit is assured when the three run confidence, exceeden 99 out of 100 Triplicate Measurements I Method 26 for Hydrochloric Acid ReMAP analysis of available data for Method 26 for HCI indicated that RSD is typically in the range of 5% to 10%. RSD does increase when the method is applied to stacks with very low concentration. Table ES­ 2 summarized the anticipated upper and lower bounds for 99 out of 100 Method 26 measurements as a hction of true stack HCI concentration. TabIe ES­ 2. Anticipated Range of HC1 Measurement Results Due to Random Error in Application of Method 26. I 20 16.1 23.9 17.7 22.3 50 41.9 58.1 45.3 54.7 100 85.8 1 14.2 91.8 108.2 I I I I I J ES­ 5 Methods 29, lOla and lOlb for TotaI Mercury Several measurement methods have been de concentration and for mercury speciation, multi­ train mercury data collected using Me data for total mercury concentration. concentration range of 50 to 78 9.6 to 12.4%. As concentration from 12.4% to for 99 out of 10 ped for measurement of rota1 emission lysis took ail availabIe The data analysis i Results Due to Random Method 29 for Multi­ Metals Method 29 is also used for measurement of several other metal emissions. Precision analysis was completed for six other metals including antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and lead. With exception of cadmium, the analysis indicates that these metals behave similarly wi to measurement method precisio composite andysis was performed for the g metals and the results indicate that use of Method 29 provides an RSD that tween 13 and 18% when the individual metal concentrations are b pg/ dscm. Table ES­ 4 summarizes the anticipated upper and 1 9 out of 100 Sb, As, Be, Cr, and Pb measurements using Method e stack total metal concentration. As regards cadmium measurements using M 9, the analysis indicates that standard deviation is a weaker fiction of conce at least at higher concentration ranges. The best estimate of R oncentration is 80 pg/ dscm and 18.7 % when the concentr However, at 5 pg/ dscm, predicted RSD is 38. to exceed 75%. ES­ 6 h­ a L 100 65.7 134.3 " PLY ­ , ­ 4 80.2 119.8 I c , I L u r 1 ES­ 7 This page Intentionally left blank. REFERENCE METHOD ACCUR4Cl PHASE I ZIYD PRECISION ( R e m ) PRECISION OF MANUAL STACK EMISSION MEASUREMENTS 1.0 Introduction An integral part of efforts to regulate and control air pollution emissions is collection and analysis of exhaust stream samples to determine the concentration and flow rate of pollutants released to the atmosphere. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and its counterparts in other countries have developed formal methods defining the hardware and procedures for collecting and analyzing samples to quanti emissions of individual pollutants. A significant number of these methods involve manual extraction of a sample from a facility's exhaust stack, sample recovery and subsequent laboratory analysis to quantify concentration of a specific pollutant( s) in the sample. All manual processes, inc ing the various EPA measurement methods, are subject to random variations, which ultimately impact the end results. Relatively minor variations in the skill of the sampler, as well as the equipment and procedures used to extract the sample can influence the indicated quantity of sample extracted from the stack and the eficiency with which the pollutant of interest is colIected or recovered. Similarly, minor variation in laboratory hardware and procedures influence quantification of the mass or volume of pollutant in that sample. The net result of such random variation is imprecision in measurement results. The current report documents a study where available data have been gathered and analyzed to quantify the precision of key EPA manual measurement methods. The study has been conducted under the auspices of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers ( ASME) and is entitled Reference Method Accuracy and Precision1 ( ReMAP), Phase 1. S The purpose of the R e m ­ Phase 1 program is " to determine the precision of pollutant emission measurements based on anaiysis of available simultaneous­ sample2 test data which were generated 1 Precision is defined here as " Random Error" according to the new ASME PTC 19.1­ 1998. 2 Dual­ train, quad­ train, and simultaneous­ samples from different sample locations at a stationary emission source. 1 using EPA Manual Reference Test Merhods 5 and j i ( PM). 23 ( dioxin andfiran), 26 ( HCI). 29 ( multi­ metals, lOla and IOIb ( mercury), and 108 ( arsenic) at a number of srationary air sources." ASME intends ReMAP to be a multi­ phase effort with the first phase focusing exclusively on assessment of measurement method precision. Consideration o sues associated with measurement accuracy is reserved for a later phase of ReMAP. Three major groups have sponsored the ReMAP­ Phase 1 effort. First, the U. S. EPA has provided funding and personnel support to the project. Second, several industrial groups representing manufacturing companies and the waste combustion industry have provided program funding. Finally, the ASME's Committee on Industrial and Municipal Waste has provided both financial support and overall program direction. Although Phase I results indicate that th Methods provide differing levels of precision and that the precision typically varies utant concentratio MAP does not reach conclusions relative to p be used. Answering those questions is appro the public. The role o rifically sound d facilitate meaningful policy debate and decisi lated industries, an It is important to note from the outset that a variety of stack emission concentrations. In addition to measure skill of the stack tester), variation of process feed mat operations impact stack emission A compliance test impacted by process variation over time and will potentially indicate greater variability method itself. ntribute to variability in measured thod precision ( which includes the luding combustion fuels) and unit ngle samples will be ssion concentrations the precision of fhe measurement 2 2.0 Background The US EPA has developed and published a wide variety of methods for determining the concentration of pollutants in process effluent streams. The manual air sampling methods typically invoIve a probe for extracting a representative sample of stack effluent and means for physically capturing or chemically extracting selected pollutants from that sample. The methods further define procedures for determining the volume of sample gas extracted and for recovering the coIIected pollutant( s) from the sampling apparatus. Finally, the methods specify laboratory procedures to use for determining the quantity of pollutant collected. In developing new measurement procedures, PA has traditionally conducted extensive laboratory and field validation studies including tests to define the precision and biases of the method. Procedures empioyed by EPA have evohecl over the years but generally conform to those described in a 1977 paper entitled, " How PA Validates NSPS Methodology" ( Midgett, 1977). Mos procedures discussed by Midgett have been incorporated into EPA Method 301 which " is used whenever a source owner or operator proposes a test method to meet a U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) requirement in the absence of a validated method."( EPA, 1992) In validation of a new method or in tests to evaluate an alternate method, EPA suggests use of four sampIing trains to simultaneously extract samples from nominally the same location in a source stack. This is commonly referred to as a quad­ train. For method validation, two of the four trains are configured and operated in strict accordance with the proposed method, while the other two trains are spiked with known quantities of the target analyte. Comparison of data from the two unspiked trains provides an indication of measurement precision while data from the spiked trains provides an indication of measurement bias. Data from a significant number of repeated multi­ train runs provide an indication of the precision and bias of the method itself. Method 301 states that " The precision of the method at the level of the standard shall not be greater than 50 percent relative standard deviation." Several of the EPA measurement methods were developed and validated in the early days of the Agency. PA Method 5 for measuring stack particulate concentration was published in the FederaI Register on December 23, 1971 ( 36FR 25876). Tests to validate that method were performed on 3 sources with particulate emissions ranging from 45 to 240 mddscm. In that time period, the majority of Federal particulate emission standa were established at 180 mg/ dscm ( 0.08 gr/ dscf) corrected to 7% 02. Thus, the me ver a range that included the prevailing regulatory limits. At this emission limit, the EPA validation studies indicate that precision of Method 5 , expressed, as a relative standard deviation was on the order of 10%. Passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ushered in new era in both scope and stringency of environmental regulations. Rules erning release of Hazardous Air PolIutants ( HAPS) called for regulation of I79 specific pollutants from both new and existing emission sources. Provisions in the law, stipulate that standards must consider the " Maximum Achievable Control Technology" ( MACT). For existing sources, MACT standards shall not be less stringent than the average emission performance achieved by the subcategory. Implementation of this congressional mandate has resulted in many new emission regulations that are dramatically more stringent. F mple, in 1999 the particulate emission limit for hazardous waste incinerators was tig t performing 12% of the sources in a catego ed from 180 to 34 mg/ dscm (@ 7% 02). Stringent emission standards raise numerous concerns a methods. The particulate standards can be used to highli method validation studies assessed acceptably precise over a rather broad applied and results used for regulatory for which it was validated. Method 5 mav be ac mgldscm) but, prior to ReMAP Phas meant all environmental stakeholders EPA measurement s. As noted, initial the Method to be for Method 30 1. Particulate matter is not the only EPA Reference measurement Method for which there is concern. Another example is PA Method 23 for determining diox d furan emission concentration. The published method validation studies concentrated almo clusively on pre on and bias of 4 1 analytical procedures and largely ignored the sample collection portion of the overall method. No Agency method validation data were provided examining the precision of the entire sampling and analysis procedure. Method 23 does provide for extensive spiking of the sampling train with labeled compounds and includes tests to quantify recovery of those standards. However, data are considered acceptable if the fractional recovery of the labeled compounds falls within the range of 40% to 130%. With such broad allowable recoveries and in the absence of full system precision analysis, it is anticipated that Method 23 may provide results with exceedingly wide precision bands. The above noted issues do not imply that Methods 5 and 23 are technically unacceptable procedures, Instead, these issues are typical of senera1 concerns that develop when method validations are incomplete or out of date. In the absence of well­ documented assessments of measurement method precision, many reasonable questions are formed and nurtured. Typical questions include: In light of the economic and public­ perception consequences associated with a failed compIiance test, are the current EPA measurement methods technically acceptable procedures for determining compliance with standards that have become more stringent over time? If a method is highly imprecise, will indication of a failed compliance test withstand scrutiny of a legal challenge? Do data indicating emission concentrations below the regulatory limit really imply Databases used to establish MACT standards are generally developed based on reports from tests using published EPA methods. A critical portion of these data ­ data from facilities defining the best performing 12% of the facilities ­ is extracted to define the MACT technology or the MACT based emission limits. Do these data characterize exceotionallv well designed and operated facilities or do the key data represent imprecision in the measurement methods? This concern applies to any analysis where the best 12% of the data are selected for examination but it is even more critical when those data indicate results below the range for which the method was validated. 5 Concerns extend beyond regulatory compliance and regulatory development. Are the EPA methods acceptable procedures for determining whether a new air pollution control device is meeting its performance guarantees? is the indicated performance representative of the control device or do the test results reflect significant imprecision in the method? I The above lists of issues and concerns are far from exhaustive. However, almost invariably, the response to such questions is that the measurement methods may not be perfect but they are the best that we have. That answer does not, however, alleviate stakeholder fears. The sponsors of ReMAP, including the US EPA, have entered'into the program to provide tools that might be used to develop better answers. This report is, however, not intended methods addressed herein or as a substitute for Method 301. APPROACH There is often confusion concerning the terms, precision and accuracy. Figure 1, adapted from a presentation by Dr. Greg Rigo at a meeting of ASME's Committee on Industrial and Municipal Waste clearly illustrates what the two terms imply. Imagine shooting at a target. The illustration on the left shows a wide scattering of results, almost equally distributed around the bull's eye. The illustration on the right shows a tightly grouped set of shot in these results is an indication of precision while proximity to the bull' accuracy. The target on the left illustrates poor precision but good accuracy. The target on the right illustrates highly precise, but inaccurate shooting. Phase I of ReMAP is concerned with precision. Accuracy is an issue for later phases of ReMAP. Many facilities have Iarge quantities of data from repeated single­ train stack tests. These resu important to the facility but typicaIly, they shed little light on the precision of EPA measurement Methods. Variation in repeat measurements is in also influenced by variations in facility operation. Unfortu for separatinz these two effects. Determination of measurement method precision must be based on simultaneous determinations of stack emission concentrations, preferably with co­ located probes. 6 ­ k, p9"" ' k ­?­ a 7 Results from two or more simultaneous measurements provide information to calculate a sample standard deviation of that measurement. Two data points ­ a single indication of standard deviation ­ are not. however, a sufficient basis for defining the precision of the measurement method. Repeated simultaneous data from a given source provide an improved indication of method precision. Repeated simultaneous measurements from a v ty of facilities further improves the data base for assessing method precision since the data co tack concentrations and a broader range of personnel applying the method. The Re assembled a database consisting of available multi­ train data from a variety of selected EPA methods. A key source of these data are published and unpublished EPA reports addressing method validation. Additionally, a limited number of industry sponsored, multi­ train studies have been conducted and documented. These industry reports provide significant expansion to the scope of available multi­ train data. Finally, the PA has sponsored a limited number of studies where multi­ train tests were performed to expand the range of data for validation of previously published methods. The ReMAP program has gathered available multi­ train data sets for the following EPA measurement methods: 9 Methods 5 and 5i for particulate matter ( PM) emissions Method 23 for dioxin and furan emissibns Method 26 for hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas Method 29 for multi­ metals, and 9 9 9 c: 9 Methods IO 1 a and 10 1 b for mercury. A search was made for validation data on the follo discovered: ods but no multi­ train results were Method 108 for arsenic Method 0030 and 00 10 for volatile and semi­ volatile organics respectively, and Method 00 1 1 for formaldehyde. 8 After the initial data collection activity, the ReMap program took two parallel paths. One­ path provided for detailed validation of the gathered data. Wherever possible, validation began with the original field run sheets and continued through a complete re­ reduction of the data. This tedious process improved the database by providing consistency in such key factors as use of consistent standard reference conditions and blank correction procedures. The parallel effort involved identifLing and refining mathematical procedures for analyzing simultaneously sampled concentration data to determine measurement precision at various appropriate concentrations. Finally, after validating the database, the selected statistical analysis procedures ( see Appendix) were applied to the validated database to determine the precision of the selected EPA methods at appropriate concentrations. A final preliminary point concerns the issue of correcting data to a fixed percentage of excess oxygen. Environmental regulations almost always set a limit on the concentration of pollutants in the stack and require that the concentration be adjusted to reflect a standard stack excess oxygen ( typically 7% oxygen). For several reasons the ReMAP study does not include oxygen correction in the analysis of measurement method precision. The primary rationale is that the various chemical analyses determine the quantity of a specific analyte in the overall sample matrix. If the quantity of analyte is low, it makes little difference to the chemical analysis whether the loading is the result of effective air pollution control or if the stack has high excess air. A more pragmatic consideration comes from the available data. Several of the key EPA method validation studies failed to record the stack oxygen concentration during the tests, The following material develops estimates of measurement method precision as a function of the average pollutant concentration. Both the concentration and the precision metrics ( when expressed in concentration terms) can be adjusted to a fixed oxygen level by applying the following 0 2 correction equation: This, of course, requires that one have knowledge of the actual stack oxygen level as well as the desired reference oxygen level. More specifically, the precision of a measurement method, 9 referenced to a fixed percent excess iir ( say 7% 02) will vary with the 02 concentration in the stack. This issue will be discussed in further detail in later portions of the report Report 0 rganiza tion This report is divided into two different sections front portion of the repon has been written for readers with only a passing familiarity with st a1 analysis. Included are descriptions of the measurement methods and the database of multi­ train results. It also includes a layman's presentation of the data analysis procedures and a presentation of the study results. The last portion of the report ( actually an appendix) provides a detailed description of the statistical analysis procedures used in ReMAP. A serious attemp ade 10 make the main body ofthe report and the appendix readable and understandable to non­ statisticians. 3.0 The Analysis Procedure ­ A Layman's Description Material presented in this section provides a brief summary of statistical analysis procedures used in ReMAP to assess precision of the selected EPA measurement methods. The presentation is written for the statistical layman and may seem overiy simpiistic ta those skilled in the statistical sciences. Such readers are referred to the report's Appendix which includes detailed development of the . statistical analysis procedures. 3.1 Measures of Precision As indicated earlier, imprecision in a measurement method implies that random error in the sampling ry analysis result in random variation in the indicated emission concentration. otherical stack that emits a nearly constant concentration of some pollutant. Imprecision from the measurement method will result in measured concentrations deviating from the true stack concentration. If the hypothetical stack is sampled many times, a plot of the results should such as the one illustrated in Figure 2. The average of a large number of ach the true concentration and most of the data points will be relatively If the average does not approach the true concentration, the sed. Individual measurements that are significantly removed from the decreasing frequency. The core objective of the ReMAP program is in anticipated results for different manual measurement methods and measurements should concentrafion. determination of how that spread varies with the stack concentration. There are a variety of parameters that may be used to characterize the precision of a method. The U. S. EPA has historically used standard deviation or relative standard deviation to define precision. There are, however, several other parameters that may be equally valid precision indicators. In Figure 2, standard deviation ( denoted by the symbol 0) is indicated as a distance on either side of the mean value in the distribution. The area under the bell shaped curve bounded by f cr has special mathematical significance but for current purposes it is sufficient to note that this area covers 68.2 percent of the total area under the curve. In the example discussed 11 12 S 0 IIJ C . I .) 111 L ­ b. 0 I­­­ . above relative to Figure 2, the bell shaped curve represents the expected frequency of many future measurements. Sixty eight percent of those future measurements are expected to indicate concentrations within k one standard deviation of the mean. If the value of Q is small relative to the mean, then the majority of the measurement results will occur close to the true value. Conversely, if the relative value of G is large, a larger portion of the measurement results will deviate significantly from the true concentration. A second approach for describing measurement precision is to define a data spread expected to encompass the majority of future measurements. A convenient approach is to define concentration bounds capturing 99% of the future data. This parameter may hold special significance to facility owners and operators who must comply with emission regulations. Essentially, this parameter defines the expected concentration bounds for 99 out of 100 future measurements. Where as 68.2 % of measurements fall within A 1.0 ( r of the mean, 99% of the measurements fall within k 2.567 G of the mean. Both the standard deviation and 99% concentration bounds represent the spread in future measurements from random variation of the measurement method. The standard deviation and 99% concentration bounds do not include variation of the emission source. A third precision metric is the expected spread in the average of triplicate measurements. That parameter may have special significance to facility owners, since compliance with emission regulations is typically based on the average of three runs. All three precision metrics are related by simple proportion. As no above, 99 out of 100 future single measurements will fall within the bounds of 5 2.5670. For repeated measurements, the range decreases inversely with the square root of the number of repeat measurements. Thus, ninety­ nine percent of the average of future triplicate measurements will fall within the bounds off: 1.482 ( 5 ( k 2.567/ 43 G). AH three metrics will be calculated in the ReMAP precision assessments for each measurement method. 3.2 Estimating Standard Deviation Having settled on metrics for describing measurement precision, the problem is reduced to determining standard deviation as a function of measurement concentration. From the outset, it is critical to understand that there is a true value of standard deviation at any given concentration but 13 we will never know its exact value. In accordance with normal statistical nomenclature, the true value of standard deviation is given the symbol Q ( si, gna). Information concerning G can be obtained from special tests using two or m ampling trains operated simultaneously in the same exhaust stream. Ideally, such tests extract sample from the same nomina osition( s) in the stack. Each measurement will be subject to ran different results from the simultaneous measurements. Referring to the bell shaped distribution curve in Figure 2; these two measurements represent two data points, randomly selected from the total population of potential data points. If a larse number of simultaneous measurements are raken, the individual dara poinrs should generate the full distribution. Typically, however, only two, three or four sampling trains are operated simultaneously. An estimate of the standard deviation for the measurement method is obtained by calculating the standard deviation from dual o ad­ train tests according to equation 1 below. . i Eq. 1 Standard deviation calculated from experimental data is referred to by the symbol S to make a distinction between this value and the true standard deviation Q. Clearly, selecting two random points from the full population of points that ma aped distribution provides a poor estimate of Q. Selecting four points provides a b ing measurement methods, the typi eated tests provide rep deviation under nearly s for assessing method e method precision is a d values of the true constant concentration conditions. standard deviation at the characteris very strong function of concentrat standard deviation that are referred to in this report as Est. c. There are however, several complications to the process of estimating the standard deviation from dual and quad­ train test results. When standard deviation is calculated from smaIl samples of a large population, the result is a biased estimate. The magnitude of the bias is dependant upon the number of data points used to estimate each value of S. A detaifed presentation on the source of this bias is 14 beyond the scope of the current discussion. However, for illustrative purposes, consider the case where a large number of data pairs are randomly selected from a known distribution. Standard deviation ( S) can be calculated for each data pair according to equation 1. Most non­ statisticians will anticipate that the average of the standard deviations ( S) calculated from many data pairs would closely approximate the true standard deviation ( a) for the overall distribution. As discussion in the Appendix, that anticipation would not be realized. In fact, using data pairs, the average standard deviation would be biased low by a factor of 1.253. If we repeated this example using three or four data points for each standard deviation calculation, the average standard deviation will be closer to the true value but the bias will still be present. For triplicate measurements, the bias factor is 1.128 while for quad­ train the bias factor is only 1.085. In the ReMAP data analysis, the standard deviation calculated from each multi­ train test must be multiplied by the appropriate small­ sample bias­ correction factor. This provides an unbiased estimation of standard deviation at the selected concentration. This calculated parameter is referred to as small­ sample, bias­ corrected S. . ­ To assess the impact of pollutant concentration on method precision, it is necessary to gather multi­ train measurement data over a broad range of concentration and to fit the data to an equation relating S to average concentration ( C). The first step is to check these data for outliers and to prepare the data for analysis. Two approaches are used by ReMAP to screen data for outliers. These procedures are defined in the Appendix and illustrated in the next section of the report. The first procedure is known as the Dixon's­ r test. This procedure is, used to examine a group of data points collected during a single, multi­ train test and to determine if one or more data points in the group are outliers. It is only applicable to tests with three or more simultaneous sampling trains. The second screening procedure is taken from Statistical Process Control ( SPC) methods and is used to identify outliers from multiple simultaneous measurements. The essence of this procedure is to compare the span between simultaneous measurements against the weighted average span for other data in a similar concentration range. Special provisions are included to account for the fact that data may exist as pair, triplicates, or as quad­ train results. After outlier screening, the validated data are entered into a spreadsheet; standard deviations are calculated and then corrected for the above noted small sample bias. Figure 3 illustrates a hypothetical set of data showing small sample bias corrected standard deviation versus mean 15 . . . c7 LL T­ O 0 0 0 .­. 0 0 0 ? 0 0 P T P" p" 9 ­ 1 b­ concentration from several multi­ train tests. The objective is to fit these data to an equation relating standard deviation ( Sbias corrected) to average concentration ( C). If done properly, this curve fit wilI also approximately describe the relationship between G and C. However, before fitting the data to a functional form, it is necessary to account for the differences between data sets consisting of 2, 3, or 4 simultaneous measurements. Equation 1 can be applied to dual train measurements to determine the standard deviation ( S) with only one degree of freedom. Values of S can be determined from triplicate measurements but this S value has two degrees of freedom. Thus, a triplicate measurement provides as much information about the precision of the measurement method as two dual train measurements. Similariy a quad train provides as much information a s three paired trains. In curve fin g the data, weighting factors must be applied to account for the number of degrees of freedom from each data grouping. ­ r 3.3 The Relationship Between S and C i As discussed in the Appendix, a wide range of functional forms is possible for describing the relationship between standard deviation and concentration. Based on the characteristics of the availabIe data, the form selected and justified for the ReMAf program is a simple power function as 6 L ­= m described in Equation 2, k ­ 4 S = k C p Eq. 2 7­ Ld where S is the estimated standard deviation for the method, C is concentration, and k and p are constants. For each measurement method, the available data are fit to this equation using a least squares regression analysis. To facilitate that regression, it is convenient to first transform equation 2 by taking logarithms to yield, r Eq. 3. Regression analysis yields values for Ln( k) and p . The governing equation is obtained by taking inverse logs. Unfortunately, the transformation processes create yet another bias that must be accounted for. 17 In the database, an average value of the individual standard deviations can be calculated from the multi­ train data for a selected method. The individual values of average concentration from the database can be entered into the regression equation ( Eq. 3) to predict values of S at each value of For an unbiased model, the average value of predicted S equals the average value of S With transformation of data into the loplog plane, that value of Ln( S) { Predicted] will equal the av source of this bias is that Ln( S) f L n ( 3 This bias can be accounted for by appropriately adjusting the value of k in the model. Further explanation of this bias and the procedure for bias­ correct The above procedure provides a simple means of using available data to estimate the standard deviation as a function of average concentration for any given measurement method. At any selected concentration, the regression equation can be determine an estimated value of c. Information on Est. CJ and average concentration c the anticipated range for 99 out of 100 future ind as well as the anticipated range for the average o note, however, that even after correcting for the various biases, the regression line is not a perfect indicator of true value of Q. This evaluation is a best estimate, based on the currently available data. Addition of new data will undoubtedly cause an adjustment to­ the regression equa relation between Est. Q and C. stack concentration) 3.4 Confidence Intervals A critical question that must be examined is `& HOW good is the correlation?" Based on analysis of the available data, it is possible to estimate the potential for the regression line through the S versus C data. These potential bounds are referred t calculating confidence intervals are presented in the Ap he Appendix also includes several example calculations. Figure 4, taken directly from the Appendix, illustrates a hypothetical set of small sample, bias­ corrected S versus C data. The heavy solid line through the data represents the regression line while the arched lines above and below the regression line illustrate the upper and ­ P * * 4, .. ­ cn ­ C 0 m > .­ e .­ 8 O I I 0 0 0 F 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 ­ 0 a> CI, Q) 2 k 0 0 0 0 P 0 ? rn Y a" 0 Q, Y P­ I 19 lower confidence intervals. The regression line represents the best estimate of the relationship between G and average concentration. The analysis used to determine the regression line also provides information on the potential bound example, the analysis provides a best estim analysis ais0 provides information to de maximum slope of the reIation @). In Fi relation where p is at the minimum and confidence level, we know that the slope Line A and less than iliustrated by on the potential range of the leading c illustrated in Figure 4 represent the comb Confidence intervals on a linear relation will always ha the potential range for the slope term. The true be determined, but it is possible to provide t a given confidenc r the slope of th ression equation @). The , at a given confidence level, the m , the lines labeled A and B illustrate m values respectively. Specifically, at the 95% ( e. g., 95 YO), the regression interval. The primary task for the Phase I Re deviation at given values of concentr of method precision. If 95% confidence interval 97.5% confidence that the method's Similarly, there is 97.5% confidenc bound. However, neither of the precision. The currently available method precision. Plots such as that provided in Figure 4, frequently cause difficulty for readers. Generally, a significant portion of the individual data p? ints ( circles on Figure 4) fall outside the confidence limits. This is an expected trend since the confidence intervals represent upper and lower bounds for the regression line ­ not upper and lower bounds for the data. A word of caution is in order. When the statistical analysis does not require weighting, it is relatively simple to calculate confidence intervals using software routines contained in standard, commercial spreadsheet computer programs. Recall that weighting of the data is required when the individual data points have different degrees of freedom. For example, standard software can easily be used to calculate confidence intervals in situations when all of the data consist of paired train measurements. When data weighting is required, calculation of confidence intervals becomes much more complex, requiring inversion of rather messy matrices. Advanced statistical analysis computer software generally includes routines for such analyses. Alternately, special computer software will need to be written. For the current report, detailed expianation of confidence interval calculation has been limited to those situations where calculations can be performed using software routines in standard spreadsheet computer programs such as Excel. One additional subtle issue related to calculation of confidence intervals must be addressed before proceeding with the ReMAP analysis. The appropriate calculation process depends upon bow the confidence intervals are to be used. For the ReMAP study, the intended use of the various analyses is to determine Est. Q at discreet values of average concentration and to use Est. Q to calculate various precision metrics at those average concentrations. Method precision metrics are also calculated assuming that the true value of Q is at the upper and lower confidence intervals ( at selected concentrations). There are alternate ways of using confidence intervals that require slightly different analysis procedures. Reh4AP statistical methodology and were deemed inappropriate for the current analysis purposes. Those procedures were carefully considered in establishing the 3.5 Summary of ReMAP Analysis Process In summary, the ReMAP analysis procedure begins with a database of available multi­ train data from application of an EPA measurement method. These data are screened for outiiers using procedures that purposefully try to include as much data as possible. Data should be discarded only if there is an identified problem with a measurement or if a data pair ( or a single measurement from a triplicate or quad test) is demonstrably dissimilar from the remainder of the data in the data set. For each test run, the 2, 3, or 4 simultaneous measurements are entered into equation 1 to determine 21 the standard deviation for the run. Each of these standard deviation estimates is then multiplied by the appropriate correction factor to account for small sample bias. The array of bias corrected standard deviation data and average concentration data are weighted for the number of degrees of freedom, transformed to the Log­ Log plane, and subjected t linear regression analysis. This analysis determines values of k and p in the power fun used to determine a predicted value of standard d average value of S from the test data is compared to the average value of S from determine an appropriate value for the second bi correction factor. That factor is multiplied by the k parameter to provide an unbiased equation relating our best estimate of standard deviation to concentration. Next, the 95% confidence intervals are calculated over the range of available data. mote, the confidence intervals are actually calculated in the Log­ Log plane. The second bias correction factor is applied to the interval when it is transformed back to the Est. a­ C plane.] Data are presented in four ways. First, the data are presented in tabular and gaphicat form showing a scatter plot of calculated standard deviation and relative standard deviation concentration. The second form of data presentation is a graph of the three precision metrics elorted against concentration. Each of these metrics is normalized by the concentration and is based on the best estimate of the method standard deviation. Third, data are presented to illustrate the fact that the true value of method standard deviation co d be greater than or less than the best estimate. There are six curves of interest. The first two curves, representing a worst case scenario, focus on the situation that would occur ; f the true method standard deviation ( Q) were best represented by the upper bound of the 95% confidence intervaI. Using that upper limit of Est. o, the upper and lower bounds of measured concentration are calculated that encompasses 99% of future measurements. These curves, plotted against stack concentration, are denoted by the symbols C99u/ S95+ and C991/ S95+. Next, the data bands encompassing 99% of future measurements are calculated, assuming that true standard deviation varies according to the regression equation. These two lines are given the notation C99u/ Sbest and C991lSbest. Finally, consideration is given to the case where the regression analysis has provided an over estimate of standard deviation. These curves are similar to the first two but are based on the lower 95% confidence interval. These two lines, given the symbols C99ulS95­ and C991/ S95­, can be considered best case scenarios. There is 97.5% confidence that the method's precision is worse than these last two lines. i kr_ r For each of the plots describing measurement method precision, care has been taken to limit the range of the presentation to the range of the currently available data. There has been no extrapolation beyond the range for which experimental data was available. The final data presentation is a table quantifying the anticipated range of fbture measurements at selected values of average stack concentration. These tables list C99dSbest and C99IISbest over a range of concentrations imposed or under consideration for current environmental regulations. As regards these tables as well as all other methods of describing method precision, it is important to reiterate that various parameters are not corrected to a constant excess air level. The sections that follow examine each of the EPA Measurement Methods of interest. The first method discussed is Method 5 for determining particulate matter concentration. The precision assessment for this method is presented in great detail in hope that the reader can better understand the fuIl scope of the assessment. 23 This Page IntentionaIIy Left Blank. 4.0 EPA Particulate Matter Methods ­ Methods 5 and 5i Sampling hardware used for the majority of the EPA manual isokinetic measurement methods is based upon the hardware used for measuring particulate matter ( PM) concentration in stacks. The procedure for measuring stack particulate concentration has been designated EPA Method 5 and the associated hardware is referred to as a Method 5 train. ( EPA, 1987) Additional details on Method 5 . ( and other Methods discussed in this report) can be found in 40CFR Part 60 ­ Appendix A under the heading for the Method. Figure 5 illustrates the Method5 hardware. Describing the key features of a Method 5 train serves as a convenient basis for fbrther discussion of other measurement methods addressed in this study. In general terms, application of Method 5 involves inserting a probe into a stack and extracting a composite sample that is representative of average conditions across the stack. In a typical sampling run, sample gases are extracted from the stack for a period of approximately one­ hour. The stack cross section is divided into equal area segments. The probe is traversed across the stack, e stack flow from each segment for equal time periods. With a round stack, traversing typical two ports, located perpendicular to each other. The rate of sample extraction is adjusted t the velocity of gases entering the probe tip is essentially equal to the local velocity of flue gas in the stack. This is referred to as isokinetic sampling. This feature of manual method sampling is included to minimize the potential for sample bias associated with preferential capture of solid phase material according to particle size. The extracted sample is passed through a heated line to a heated filter assembly that captures solid phase particles. The mass of particulate captured during the entire sampling period is determined gravimetrically. Additional features of the method include procedures for determining the volume of flue gas extracted from the stack during the sampling period. Using standardized protocols, the particulate concentration is determined as the ratio of the mass of particulate collected divided by the volume of flue gas extracted. 25 26 ri L P L Figure 5 illustrates the hardware components and their arrangement for Method 5 sampling. AS indicated, sample gas is extracted through a nozzle and transported in a heated glass probe to a heated filter assembly. The probe assembly consists of a glass nozzle, a heated glass probe liner, a s­ type pitot probe and a thermocouple ( TK). The T/ C and pitot allow determination of the local stack gas temperature and velocity, which provides a basis for adjusting the sample extraction rate to isokinetic conditions. Particulate matter in the sample may be deposited on the nozzle and probe liner walls but the majority of the particulate matter ( typically > go%) is collected on a heated filter. Heating of both the probe and filter assembly is required to prevent condensation of water and other condensable materials in this portion of the sampIing train ( often referred to as the front half of the train). Located downstream of the heated filter box is a series of impingers in an ice bath that remove moisture from the sample. An umbilical cord connects the impingers to the meter box. The meter box contains a dry gas meter to determine the volume of dry sample extracted, means for determining pitot probe AP, read­ outs for key temperatures, and a vacuum pump for adjusting sample extraction rate. The sampling rate is usually held between 0.5 and 1.0 cubic feet per minute. After completion of a test run, the field technician thoroughly rinses the train components upstream of the filter with the appropriate solvent ( generally acetone for paniculate samples) to recover any particulate that may have been deposited on the probe walls or nozzle tip. The technician must also record a number of sampling system parameters necessary to determine the volume of gas collected and the moisture content of the flue gas. Typically an Orsat analysis is performed on the flue gas to determine the major constituents of the flue gas, particularly the oxygen concentration. Back in the laboratory, the probe rinse and filter are dried and the mass of particulate collected is determined gravimetrically. To assure that the final weig gain on the filter represents dried particulate, repeated measurements are performed. The Sam is considered dry and results are reported when subsequent weighings agree within 0.5 mg. Particulate concentration is determined as the ratio of the particulate mass colIected divided by the volume of flue gas collected. Usually, the sample volume is determined and reported on a dry basis and adjusted to standard temperature and pressure conditions. Standard temperature and pressure conditions used by the U S PA are 20 ° C and 760 mrn Hg. For regulatory purposes dilution effects are accounted for by correcting the measured concentration to a fixed percent oxygen ( or carbon dioxide). 27 Some states require special analysis pro ures to assess the mass of material that condenses in the impinser portion of the Method 5 sampling train. Those states o require that the mass of condensed phase material be combined with the particulate catch in probe and filter to yield a total particulate phase catch. These procedures were not used for the ReMAP study. All particulate concentration data presented and anaIyzed in the following sections represent solid phase material collected in the front half of the train only. Moreover, the performance of particulate measurement methods sh the analysis includes back half catch from Method not be applied to measurem 4.1 Method 5 Data and Precision Analysis Multi­ train data included in the ReMAP database come from three main reports. The first data set includes a series of EPA­ sponsored studies condu search Institute in the early 1970s to validate the pa date method ( Hamil a included a coal­ fired PO plant and two municip units were performed using fou ltaneously ( quad­ trains). For this study, each train was operated b At the power plant site, testi providing a total of 16 data poi For the first MWC test, six test con concentrations ranging from runs, providing 20 individual these three test series are provided i ( and all subsequent tables listing reference. Skips in run numb difficulties and suggest that t nt operating conditions thus ge from 141 to 240 mg/ dscm. 4 individual data points with 28 ­ w *­. Table 1. PA Method 5 Data ­ Hamil and Cam­ 1974 and I974b. RunNumber A 8 C D I 1 205 202 204 22 1 ower Plant 207 240 155 150 141 I I 1 5 60.4 61.9 63.2 64.6 Mwc 1 , I 1 J 14 126 123 I34 , 144 15 153 141 161 139 16 103 106 104 103 All data expressed as mg/ dSm Data are not corrected for oxygen content 29 The next set of multi­ train Method 5 data is provided by a second EPA­ sponsored study at an MWC in Dade County, Florida. The tests were directed by Southwest Research Institute ( H a d and Thomas, 1976). These tests are unique among all data collected for validation of PA measurement methods. The stack test location provided four sampling trains were used in each port providing a total of eight simultaneous measurements for each test condition. Moreover, a total of nine different samplin ams were used in the collaborative study. The experiments covered a 3­ week period with the test pian calling for five runs per week. Seven different laboratories analyzed the four paired sampling trains at the train was operated by a single technician maintain each week ( accounting for three of the nine parti paired trains, a separate laboratory operated each t 1 The test plan called for fifteen sampling runs, five per week for th actually completed; three the first week and five each the second and summary of the measurement results. A total of 104 data points were collected. For run 10, a probe liner was broken on one of the eight trains ( Train A operated by Laboratory 103). Accordingly, that data point was eliminated from the data analysis. The final data source was an ASME­ sponsored study by Rig0 and Chandler who performed extensive muiti­ train experiments on a municipal w Chandler, 1997). A total of I6 Method 5 data pairs are re tor in Piasfield, Mass ( Ri . The data range for these from 14 to 74 mg/ dscm, which significantly gathered at Pittsfield used essentially every nds the overall range of the full data set. Data method of interest to the ReMAP program. Particulate concentration results from the Rig0 and Chandler t are provided in Table 3. The first step in the ReMAP analysis is to determine if a approach is outlined in the Appendix and includes the Statistical Process Control ( SPC) methods. consisting of three or more simultaneous measurements and is used to identify potential outliers f the data groups are outliers. The n's­ r test, a procedure taken from test is applied to individual tests The Dixon's c I Pi 3 al g 31 d E e, E 3 E . e, 10 2 0 e L B 0 e, t: 3 0­ l 0 c 8 CJ eJ L 4 d TabIe 3. EPA Method 5 Data ­ Pitt All dara expressed as mddscm. Data are not corrected for Oy~ gen content 32 F? f within the test. The SPC procedure begins by breaking the data into groups representing ranges of similar concentration. The span of data is calculated for each simultaneous measurement and then weighted according to a factor that is a function of the number of simultaneous determinations ( Le., pairs, quads, etc.). Next, the average weighted span is calculated for each concentration group. If the span for a given r exceeds the weighted average span, then data from that run are abnormally large, relative to afa in that concentration range. In SPC terminology, the weighting factors are referred as D4. Table 4 provides a listing of D4 parameters as a function of the number of measurements in a run. , Table 4: SPC Factors for Identification of Data Outliers Sample Size, n The choice of concentration ran were tested. There is a strong Table 5 combines the data prese procedures outlined above. As group representing power plant, at MWC2 and at the Dade County of these data had average PM ions above 94 mddscm. The remaining data and the Pittsfield MWC had M concentrations less than 68 mgdscm. The weighted average spread for simultaneo ments in the low concentration range was 13.1 5 mgdscm. For measurements in the hig ion range, the weighted average data spread was 77.32 mg/ dscm. Data points are suspect if the actual measurement spread is greater than these values. Data point number 17 in the Rigo and Chandler set marginally exceeds this limit. However, this data point has the highest concentration in the " low concentration" data group. When the spread on this data point is normalized by the mean concentration, the spread is on the same order as several other data points in the low group. The ReMAP program has a bias for retaining all data unless it is somewhat arbitrary. For the ReMAP analysis, several ranges rence for minimizing the number of data points eliminated. rlier in Tables 1,2 and 3 and assesses the data according SPC ut, the data was separated into two range groups with the 33 Table 5. Consolidated Method 5 Data Set A11 data expressed as mg/ dscm. Dam are not corrected for 0 3 an obvious and significant outlier. retained for subsequent anaiysis. All data points in the low concentration grouping have been The high concentration range group includes quad data and the Dade County tests using octets. Data in this range are suspect if the difference is greater than 77.32 mgldscm. Only one measurement, run number 12 from the Dade County tests, fails to meet this criteria. Data from run number I in the Dade County tests is also quite large. The data report provides no indication of measurement problems associated with either of these measurements but it is obvious from inspection that, for run number i2 the two data points collected by Laboratory 103 ( labeled A and B in Table 5) are higher than the other six determinations. For run number 1, data from Run C also appears abnormally high. Dixon's­ r procedure was applied to the data from b ns and results indicate that test point C from run number 1 and test point A from run 12 are abn y high and should be considered as outliers. All other data points in this data set pass the Dixon's­ r criteria. After eliminating points, the remaining data in the ion data group pass the SPA criteria. / the two data The next step in the analysis is to calculate the average concentration and standard deviation for each group of simultaneous measure ts and to correct the calculated sample standard deviations for the small sample bias. As noted in ier discussion, the calculated value of standard deviation from the data, S, is a biased estimate of the true standard deviation, CT. Table 6 presents the correction factors used to caIculate a data points used to calculate S. Results of these calculations are presented in Table 7. Figures 6a and 6b present scatter plots of the data from Table 7. Figure 6a shows the scatter of bias corrected standard deviation versus the average particulate concentration. Figure 6b presents the same data, but in a sIightIy different i 35 Facility RunNo N Avg. Standard Bias Esttmared~ Conccnnation Deviation Factor Sisma All data expressed as mg/ dscm. Data 36 37 a v) 0 ua N ' 0 0 F1 0 m r 0 z 0 m 0 d u u L .. . . L. u < format. Here the standard deviation has been normalized by the concentration and presented in units of percent. i The next portion of the data analysis is to evaluate the relationship between the estimated standard deviation and the average particulate concentration. However, before performing the regression analysis, it is necessary to weight the data according to the number of degrees of freedom for each measurement group. As discussed in the previous section, statistical assessment of data containing differing degrees of freedom involves complex matrix inversion procedures. Details of the caIculation procedure are not included here. It is instructive to review the rationale for weighting the data. With a quad­ train, the four individual particulate measurements can be used in a variety of ways. For example, Train A can be grouped with Trains B, C, and D to calcuiate three different standard deviations or the four measurements can be combined in the calculation of a single value of S. Determination of S based on data from Trains A and B provides the same level of information achieved from dual train testing. Similarly, S determinations using data from Trains A and C or from Trains A and D convey the same level of information as dual train measurements. Clearly, a calculated value of S using ail four simultaneous measurements conta more information than a calculation based on two measurements. When a data set contains results from dual, triple, quad, etc. measurements it is necessary to weight the various data to account fo e relative quantity of information provided in each test. The weighted data set is then fit to a power function relationship, as presented below. S = kCp Eq. 1 To assist in that regression, the data is transformed into the log­ log plane such that the governing equation becomes: Ln( S) = Ln( k) + pLn( C) Eq. 2 By performing the transformation, the regression analysis is linearized. Results from the analysis of data in Table 7 are summarized in Table 8 below. . . 39 A regression analysis is a mathematical procedure that yields a best estimate for the curve fit parameters. One critical question islwhether the indicated values of k and p are statistically significant. One approach to answering this question is the Student list the t­ statistic as a function of the confidence lev g. 95% confidence) and the nulnber of degrees of freedom. The regression analysis also produces a value of the t parameter. If the calculated t­ parameter is greater than the criticaI are statistically significant. Conversely, if the statistic, then the regression analysis results co Table 8, the calculated value of the t paramet parameter for 42 degrees of freedom, at the assures that there is a relationship between S regression analysis, did not occur by chance. random chance. As shown in The large relative value o f t Transformation of data from the real plane to the log­ log plane greatly eases the regression analysis but it introduces a potentialIy significant bias to the results. One characteristic of a linear regression analysis is that the average of the predicted values for the dependent var le should equal the average val6e from the actual data. Since the regression was performed in the log­ log plane, the weighted average value of Ln( S) will be the same for both the actual data However, the average value of the predicted values of S will not necessarily be equal to the average of the small sample bias corrected S values. For the current da sample bias corrected S values is 364.93 while'the sum of the ( at the observed values of concentration) is 351.013. Thus, the predicted values of S are biased low 40 ­ , and a correction factor must be applied. For the Method 5 data, the log transformation correction factor is 364.93/ 35 1 . O 1 3 = 1.0397. The equation describing the estimated values of standard deviation versus concentration is the best estimate available, based on available multi­ train experimental data, but there is uncertainty associated with this equation. The slope of the regression line @) and the value of the leading constant ( k) may be greater or smaller than predicted. Statisrical data in Table 8 can be used to quantify uncertainty in the regression equation. Specifically, the 95% confidence intervals on the regression equation will be caiculated. The 95% confidence interval on the slope term can be expressed as I p95% = Ppredicted 5 t95%*[ SE( coeff) l Eq. 3 where Pg5% represents the upper and lower bounds of the slope coefficient, t95% is the critical t­, I statistic ax the 95% confidence level and the appropriate number of desrees of freedom, and1 SE( coeff) is the standard error of the coefficient. I , As indicated in Table 8, the predicted value of the power term in the regression equation @) is 1.3063 and the standard error of that coefficient is 0.1477. The critical t statistic for 42 degrees of freedom, at the 95% confidence level is 2.020 ( available from standard statistical tables). Thus, the best estimate for the slope of the regression line is the predicted value ( 1.3063) but with 95% confidence it can only be concluded that the value of the p coefficient is between 1.008 and 1.605: ' Implications of the potential range of this slope term are discussed in more detail later. r­. The weighted least squares numerical analysis provided information necessary to determine confidence intervals on the regression equation. Results of those calculations ( at the 95% confidence level) are presented in Figure 7. When plotted on log­ log scale, the regression equation is a straight line and the confidence intervals appear as horn shaped curves on either side of the prediction. AI1 three lines in this figure have been adjusted to include the log­ log transformation 41 0 0 s2 E e E rq i bias correction factor. Superimposed on Figure 7 is the small sample bias corrected data from Table 7. The meaning of confidence intervals often confuses those with limited background in statistical analysis. The straight line through the data represents the best estimate of the relationship between standard deviation G and mean concentration, p. The confidence intervals define potential bounds for the regressi the straight line. Confidence intervals do not represent boundaries for the actual data. It is le to calculate potential bounds for data, but those bounds are referred to as tolerance intervals. Thus, it is fully anticipated that a portion of the experimental data ( individual determinations of S) will fall outside the confidence intervals. Before proceeding with additional assessment of the Method 5 results, it is necessary to examine the implications of the regression analysis. The regression equation itself was found to be ' s = 0.021 Eq. 4 If both sides of the equation are divided by the mean concentration, the left­ hand term becomes S/ C, which is the r tandard deviation ( RSD). After performing this operation, the regression equation becomes RSD = 0.02 1 lC0.306 ~ 100%. Eq. 5 This implies that the RSD increases with increasing concentration, which is a difficult result to rationalize. Typical random errors that might be attributed to the sample collection process, such as failure to adequateIy rinse particulate matter from the probe liner, should produce errors that are roughly proportionaI to the PM loading. Another, often observed error in sample collection is for a small portion of the filer to stick to the filter housing. This type of error causes an underestimation of the mass of particulate collected but the magnitude of the error will not be a function of concentration. Random error in the weighing process should also be relatively independent of PM concentration. It can even be argued that the relative magnitude of analytical error might decrease with increasing concentration. These considerations suggest that the value of the slope term ( for any 43 Method) should be expected to fall between ze slope of the regression line in Figure 7 and in d 1.0. More significa ons 4 and 5 is too high. The forzoing statistical analysis is obvio characteristics of those data. Two facto large value for the Standard Error of th 1.008 to 1.605. This lower limit on the anticipated bounds on the regression equ by the confidence interval of the statistic A separate argument has been forwarded, suggesting that it may not be valid to group the various Method 5 data sets into a single analysis. The mathematical procedures of regression analysis predict a high value for the slo excessively high S or if the data at lower concentrations have uncharacteristically low values of S. In the outlier analysis presented earlier, the available data were divided into two concentration groups. The high concentration group contained quad train and octet data with all tests reporting data at high concentra average PM concentration above 94 rngldscm. These data were collected in the early to mid 1970s. The low concentration data included six quad t aired train runs from the tests at Pittsfield. The Pittsfield data was collected in the mid­ 1990s. The regression analysis is heavily weighted by the Dade County octet data that is also high concentration data. If the Dade County data exhibited uncharacteristically high standard deviation, the slope term from the regression analysis would be uncharacteristically high. It has been suggested that the high concentration data were collected shortly after Method 5 was first developed and that the field testing crews were still learning how to properly apply the Method was collected more than a decade later, allowing the test contrast, the Pittsfieid data sampling procedures. A second consideration involves the stack sampling ti exception of the Rig0 and Chandler data However, for the tests at Pittsfield, stack gases we difference in sampfing time could possibly result i particulate concentration. the data include in Tabfe 5. With the es were nominally r approximately 4 hours. This es for data coIlected at lower 44 There is certainly merit to an argument that the skill level of sampling teams directly impact the standard deviation of measurement results. However, there is no direct information available to quantify the capability of testing teams or to provide relative weighting of data quality. Similarly, it is reasonable to speculate that sampling time might impact measurement precision but there is nothing within Method 5 that precludes extended sample collection times. For these reason, the analysis of the Method 5 data will continue based on the entirety of the available data but with a strong caution that slope of the true S versus C relation is probably very close to 1.0. Not withstanding the forgoing comments, the regression line in Figure 7 provides the best estimate available for the standard deviation of data collected using Method 5. As discussed in Section 3, this estimate of standard deviation also defines the anticipated distribution of future measurements collected with that method. For example, based on currently available data, it is anticipated that repeated Method 5 measurements of a stack gas containing 100 mg/ dscm of particulate matter would exhibit a standard deviation of 8.639 mg/ dscm or 8.64 % RSD. This is a hypothetical source, where the stack PM concentration is not varying with time. Sixty eight percent of future measurements taken on this stack should 1 within 1.0 cr ( 28.639 mgldscm) and ninety­ nine percent of those measurements should fall w n the range of 2 2.57* 0. Thus, in the example of a stack with a PM loading of 100 mgldscm, 99 ut of 100 Method 5 measurements are expected to fall within & 22.20 mg/ dscm of the true conce ration. For the average of triplicate measurements, 99 out of 100 measurements would fall within the range o f f 2.57* 0/.\/ 3. Thus, the average of triplicate Method 5 measurements from this hypbthetical stack is ex2ected to fall within 5 12.82 mg/ dscm af the true I I concentration. , Figure 8 presents the predicted relative standard deviation and the 99% bounds for future single measurements as a function of stack PM concentration. Data in this figure are based on currently available data and do not include the effect of time variation in source characteristics. The X­ axis of Figure 8 represents the true concentration of PM in the hypothetical stack. Values indicated on the Y­ axis represent the precision of Method 5 at the selected values of sack concentration. The 99% bounds are also normalized by the stack concentration and represent the anticipated range of individual measurements. Compliance with regulatory limits is typically based on the average of. 45 m . I c M I . I ; 0 0 N 0 46 c triplicate measurements. The predicted range for 99 out of 100 triplicate measurements is also included in Figure 8. When Method 5 is applied to a real stack, a wider range of experimental results can be anticipated due to time variations in source characteristics. Data presented in Figure 8 should not be extrapolated beyond the indicated limits. Further, based on physical considerations, it is anticipated that the true variation of these precision metrics with concentration are expected to be a flat line or even to decrease slightly ( whereas the curves increase) with increasing concentration. Data in Figure 8 were generated using the predicted values of standard deviation, Recall, however, that there is uncertainty in those estimates. It is know with 95% confidence that the relationship between standard deviation and concentration falls between the upper and lower confidence limits illustrated in Figure 7. If the actual relationship between a versus C for Method 5 conforms to the upper Confidence limits, the anticipated range of future Method 5 data will be greater than suggested by the data in Figure 8. Conversely, a tighter ranse of concentrations are anticipated if the variation in standard deviation conforms to the lower confidence limit. Figure 9 illustrates the ranges of anticipated concentrati data under three scenarios: ( 1) when standard deviation conforms to theL upper confidence limit ) when Est. CT conforms to the predicted reIationship; and ( 3) when Est. CT conforms to the lower confidence limit. The X­ axis in Figure 9 represents the true concentration of PM in a hypothetical stack that does not vary with time. The Y­ axis represents the anticipated range of measured concentra using Method 5. The upper and lower curves in the figure represent the upper and lower bo 99 out of 100 future measurements, assuming that the standard deviation1 equals the upper 95% confidence limit. There is 97.5% confidence3 that 99 out of 100 future measurements would fall below the upper curve and 97.5% confidence that the future measurements will fall above the lower curve. Similar curves are provided for the cases where Est. Q conforms to the regression curve fit and where Est. cs is equal to the lower confidence limit. Based on the above anaIysis, and concerns over the slope of the regression equation, it is difficult to draw firm conclusion about the actual precision of Method 5. However, certain trends do appear obvious. Within the confidence bounds of the analysis and based on the available data, it appears that Method 5 standard deviation varies approximately linearly with concentration and that the 395% confidence implies that there is a 2.5% chance that the a relationship falls above the upper confidence limit and a 2.5% chance that the relationship falls below the Iower confidence limit. 47 m m n ­ U M L .­ I F1 i l C) P t 0 P­ , I h, relative standard deviation for the method is approximately constant. For PM concentrations ­ 3 \ between 15 and 217 mg/ dscm, the best estimate of the relative standard deviation for Method 5 is 4' between about 4.8% to 12.2%. ( 49 4.2 Method 5i Data In the middle 1990s the US. PA began develop ate measurement method, specifically desizned to improve measurement precision at low loadings. The method itself was published in 1999 as part of the new MACT regulation verning hazardous waste incinerators ( 62 FR 52828, Sept. 30, 1999) and has been giv designation Method 5i. The hardware configuration for Method 5i is illustrated in Figure 10. Methods 5 and 5i are similar in many respects, but there are two important hardware differences and several operational differences. The primary hardware differences are in the filter assembly for the two methods. Method 5 uses a large diameter filter that must be carefully removed from its holder as part of the sample recovery process. Often a small quantity of the collected particulate can be lost or a small portion of the filter itself can adhere to the holder walls. This results in measurement imprecision that can potentially become critical when the total particulate catch is small. Method 5i uses a much smaller diameter filter and filter holder. The recovery and analysis procedures call for the filter to remain in its holder through the entire weishing process. This eliminates certain sources of random error but it creates another potential problem. Since the weight of the glass filter holder is much larger than the weight of the collected particulate, the analysis process must determine a small weight gain in a relatively large mass. Because of the small filter diameter, Method 5i is intended for use only under situations where the particulate concentration is expected to be below 50 mg/ dscm. The second key feature implemented with Method 5i is the reauirement that tests be conducted using dual trains. Moreover, measurement precision requirements are defined as part of the method. ~ I Data on the precision of Method 5i comes from two studies directed primarily at evaluation of particulate matter continuous emission monitors. The first of these studies, conducted under EPA sponsorship, was executed on a hazardous waste incinerator owned by Dupont and located in WiImington, Delaware ( 62 FR 67788). The second study, sponsored by an industry consortium, was conducted at a hazardous waste incinerator owned by the Eli Lilly Company ( Eli Lilly, 1999). Results from these two studies provide a large database for assessment of Method 5i precision. Note that there are numerous experimental programs that were recently completed ( or still underway) using Method 5i for calibration of PM continuous emission monitoring systems. Since Method 5i 50 c I 51 requires use of dual trains, the available database ssessment of this method's precision is expected to greatly expand over time. As noted above, Method 5i is a relatively new meas issues associated with execution of the method that si Both the PA test report and the Eli Liliy associated with obtaining acceptab were performed but have not been used by either g program, the only data used are Tables 9a and 9b provide a sum actual data pairs, the average concentration pair, and the small sample bias­ corrected st there are a variety of subtle ct the precision significant learning curve er of paired train tests ysis. For the ReMAP the original study authors. ncluded in the tables are the ted standard deviation for each Figures 1 la and 1 1 b present deviation data versus averag corrected standard deviation. Fig 11 b presents relative standard d almost 50 mg/ dscm. Also note the general char concentration range, the individual estimates of Stan discernable trend to either ethod 5i standard small sample bias­ gjdscm while Figure om less than 10 to Over the entire distributed with no I ~ 1 The data in Tables 9a and 9b we concentration range grouping were examined atte particulate concentrations. runs 53,64,66 and 71 fro sts. Examination of these data points suggests that runs 64, 66, and 71 from the Eli Lilly tests are only marginally ng criteria. Several I r b f­ b: above the SPC screening criteria. anaiysis. The spreads for data point 53 ( Eli Lilly) and 60 ( EPA D they have been deleted from the following analysis. Accordingly, those data poin re retained for subsequent were sufficiently large th ­ il I ' L' Table 9a. Method 5i Data and Standard Deviation ­ Eli LiUy Data 53 4 TabIe 9a ( Continued). Method 5i Data and Stan 54 \ RIM Number Avg Conccnmtion Standard S ­ Bias RSD * Bias mddscm Deliation RSD Concctcd Conected Train A Train B P 1' 9 0 = 8 m 9 0 v 8 m 8 N 8 ­ 8 1 k, c L a ++ + ++ 111 I B a 11 I t P­ i L 57 i k all Method 5i data were obtained using dual trains, no weighting of the data is required. Results from the regression analysis are presented in Table I O below. Table 10. Results of Regression Analysis for Method 5i Data Residuals T I 1.32 The regression analysis indicates that the estimated standard deviation varies with according to the relationship concentration P = 0.243 5 0.366 or from ­ 0.123 to 0.6094 4 The predicted value ofp ( 0.243) is taken directly from the regression analysis. The 2 0.3659 term is the product of the t­ statistic for 1 14 degrees of freedom ( 1.980) and the s error forp ( 0.1 848). This finding is consistent with the earlier observation ( see Figure 1 la) that the standard deviation data appears to be broadiy distributed in a box covering the full range of concentration and standard deviation between zero and about 6 mgfdscm. It is mathematically possible to construct a range of method precision metric for Method 5i as a function of concentration but the indicated relations would have little statistical significance. In such situations, the analysis approach is to calculate a pooled standard deviation for the data. The analysis procedure is described in the Appendix but essentially involves calculation of the weighted average of the variance for the available data. Variance is equal to the square of the standard deviation and the weighting factor for each data point is the number of degrees of freedom for the data point. Since all available Method 5i data are from paired train tests ( DF= I) all weighting factors are 1.0 and thus the pooled standard deviation is simply the square root of the sum of the squares for the Si values. As expIained in the Appendix, the appropriate values of Si to calculate the pooled standard deviation are taken directly from the raw data without adjustment for small sample bias. The above described pooling procedures were applied to the data in Table 9a and b. There are 114 individual data pairs and the sum of the individual variances is 234.13. Accordingly the pooled variance is 2.054 ( 234.13/ 114) and the pooled standard deviation is 1.433 mg/ dscm. This single value is the best estimate available for the Estimated o for Method 5. Table 1 in the Appendices provides a list of factors to calculate the confidence intervaI ( at the 95% confidence level) for a pooIed value of Est. cr. Using linear interpolation, the values of P0.025 and P0.975 are 0.883 and 1.155 respectively. Accordingly, the upper and Iower 95% confidence intervals on Estimated c are 1.265 and 1.655 mg/ dscm respectively. The confidence intervals are afso constant values ­ not a function of concentration. Figure 12 presents a scatter plot of the Method Si data along with the estimated values of standard deviation and the confidence intervals. Since Est. cr and the confidence intervals are constants, they are illustrated as straight lines in Figure 12. 59 . . I ' 1 ­ 0 8 I ! The estimate of standard deviation provides information on the anticipated range of future measurements using Method 5i. Figure 13 presents three precision. metrics for Method 5i. Included are the relative standard deviation, the expected bounds for 99 out of 100 future individual measurements as well as the anticipated bounds for the average of triplicate measurements. These precision metrics have been normalized by the concentration. Thus, even though Est. G is a constant, normalized precision metrics are strong functions of concentration. The general presentation approach adopted for the current report is to present a figure defining the anticipated range of concentrations for 99 out of 100 future measurements, under three different scenarios for an assumed variation of standard deviation. Such a figure provides little information under conditions where the standard deviation is evaluated to be essentially a constant. It is much cleaner to simply state the anticipated variation in future measurements. If the true standard deviation is essentiaily equal to the pooled standard deviation, then 99 out of 100 future Method Si measurements are anticipated to faif with 2 3.68 mg/ dscm of the true concentration. This assumes that there is no bias in the measurements and that the m e concentration is between about 4 and 50 mg/ dscm. If the m e standard deviation for Method 5i is essentially equal to the lower 95% confidence interval, then 99 out of 100 future measurements are anticipated to fall with k 3.25 mg/ dscrn of the true concentration. If the true standard deviation for Method 5i is essentially equal to the upper 95% confidence interval, then 99 out of 100 future measurements are anticipated to fall with t 4.25 mg/ dscm of the true concentration. 4.3 Discussion of Particulate Matter Measurement Results The forgoing discussion provides strikingly different conclusions relative to the precision of Methods 5 and 5i. Specifically, the regression analysis indicates that the standard deviation of Method 5 is a strong function of concentration. In fact, it is suggested that a reasonable interpretation of the data is that Method 5 has a constant relative standard deviation. In contrast, 61 c, u E Q) L 3 M tz 0 0 v) 0 w 0 c1 0 62 ! LA I ` Ld analysis of Method 5i data could detect no relationship between standard deviation and concentration at the 95% confidence level. Prior discussion has suggested that random error associated with the sample collection process tends to drive the power function term @) in the regression equation toward 1.0. Similarly, random error in the analytical process tends to drive p toward zero. These are only anticipated trends but they do suggest that different types of random error have driven the assessment of these two particulate measurement methods. w ' When Method 5 is applied at high particulate concentration, it is reasonable to anticipate that the fiIter weighing process is sufficiently precise that it contributes negligibly to the overall precision of the method. A large portion of the multi­ train Method 5 data was collected from high concentration stacks (> 90 mgidscm). Further, the high concentration data were collected during a time frame when many sampling teams were gaining experience with application of the method. Thus, results from the statistical analysis of Method 5 data can ea y be rationalized. 1 : / B_ u h I The Method 5i data were all collected under low particulate concentration conditions (­ GO mg/ dscm with the majority of the data at much lower concentration). Under these conditions, it is anticipated Ld I that imprecision of the weighing process may . contribute significantly to the overall Method's precision. As described earlier, collected samples must be dried before recording the final particulate weight gain. Collected samples are placed in a dessicator and repeatedly weighed untii the tare weight is stabiIized. The sample is considered to have reached its final weight if the repeated weighing5 agree within k0.5 mg or 21.0% of the tare weight, whichever is greater. For a typical Method 5 or 5i particulate measurement, a sample is collected from the stack for approximately one hour during which time approximately 1 cubic meter of flue gas is extracted. Thus the process of determining particulate loading on the filter is no more precise than the concentration measurement is no more precise than 20.5 mg/ dscm. That c measurement imprecision is insignificant when the stack concentration is on the order of 100 mg/ dscm. However, for measurements in stacks with PM concentrations on the order of 10 mg/ dscm, this represents a significant relative contribution to overall measurement precision. 5 Samples must remain in a dessicator for a minimum of 6 hours between weighings. i. 1 L L P , L . L A r Based on the above considerations it is reasonable to anticipate that the analytical portion of Method 5i measurements will contribute significantly to the overall precision of the method and that random error in the weighing p also subject to random method precision should vary with concentratio available Method 5i data have been collected measurement teams expended significant effo data from numerous tests were discarded as a result of personnel climbing the learning curve. Finally, all data in the Method 5i data set above about 15%. All of these factors c the sampling process has a small contribution to s will not vary significantly with particulate concentration. Method 5i is associated with The above considerations are provided as one possible rationalization for the observed differences in the precision characteristics of the two methods. the characteristics of the measurement methods and the c used to assess the methods. As regards Method 5, it appears like mpling teams collecting data in the low and high concentration ran ed to assess the method. od 5 standard deviation on concentration is less than indicated by the current data set. Further it is likely that As regards Method ji, recall that regression analy CT is a function of particulate concentrati can be confirmed at the 95% confiden performed. Consid for Methods 5 and 5, it is likely that stan with increasing stack particulate conc ncludes that no relationship It is important to place the above considerations into practical perspective. When Method Si is used to measure PM loading in low particulat data suggests that 99 O u t of 100 future true concentration. The original data set ( before outlier screening) contained 1 16 pairs of dual train ­ f L n t results. Assuming that the true concentration for each test is the average of the test pair, dividing the spread in each pair by 2 provides a crude way to assess this prediction. For the entire data set ( Tables 10a and 10b) the maximum spread between any data pair occurred in run number 53 from the Eli Lilly data set. The reported concentrations for that data pair were 30.3 and 37.7 with an average concentration of 34.0 mg/ dscm. Thus, for I I6 paired measurements ( 232 applications of the Method) the maximum difference between the measured concentration and the estimated true concentration was 3.7 mg/ dscm. Interestingly, that measurement was determined to be an outlier and was eliminated from the overall analysis. It is certainly possible ( even likely) that the precision of Method 5i has some dependence on concentration. However, the forgoing analysis suggests that the constant si, oma assumption provides a reasonable and practical estimate of the Method's precision. It is unlikely that the imprecision of Method 5 increases as rapidly with concentration as suggested by the data in Figures 7,8 and 9. It is expected that increased experience of field sampling teams, including the lessons learned from application of Method 5, have already reduced the range of random errors impacting Method 5 results. It is anticipated that the inherent precision of Method 5 should be similar to that for Method 5i but CJ for the method almost certainly does increase with concentration. Note that the Method 5 data from the Pittsfield tests were collected in the mid­ 1990s and should reflect increased experience for the testing team. Data from this test series ( 16 valid data pairs ) were examined to determine the range of the data pairs relative to the pair average. For runs 15 and 17, the spread minus the mean were 4.4 and 6.8 mg/ dscm respectively while the spreads for the remainder of the data were less than 3.5 mg/ dscm. This suggests that Method 5 might provide ' slightly less precise results than Method 5i but not dramatically less. Even this observation must be tempered by the fact that the standard deviation for the method increases with increasing concentration. Based on these qualitative considerations, it is suggested that the data in Figures 7,8, and 9 should be taken a5 an upper limit on the imprecision of Method 5. To fully assess Method 5 precision at higher concentrations (> 1 OOmg/ dscm) additional multi train data is required in that concentration range. 65 This page Intentionally Left Blank r t 5.0 EPA Method 23 For Measuring Dioxin and Furan Emissions The EPA method for measurement of dioxin and furan stack emissions is denoted as Method 23 ( 56 FR 67788 and 40 CFR Part 60 ­ Appendix A). The hardware for the method is illustrated in Figure 14 and has several similarities to the hardware discussed previously for Method 5. The major difference is addition of a module filled with an absorbent material known as XAD. A small circulating pump maintains the temperature of the XAD module at approximately 60" F. The XAD module is spiked with known quantities of labeled compounds that are used for both system calibration and to experimentally determine the recovery of the overall sampling and analysis . process. The quantity of dioxin and furan collected and analyzed by the method is extremely small. Typical stack concentrations are on the order of a few ng/ dscm. To collect sufficient material for analysis by high resolution GC/ MS, each sampling run extends for at least' three hours and may last for more than 6 hours. There are eight possible homologues of both polychIorinated dibenzo( p) dioxin and dibenzofuran. Only those homolo, oues with four to eight chlorine atoms are adverse health effects. Acco ngly, some environmental regulations @ e., the rules ipal waste combustors) limit the release of all tetra through octa­ chlorinated dioxins nt for the fact that different dioxin and furan congeners and ikrans. Other regulations take ac have vastly different toxici Most of the world has adopted a listing of relative conge that was developed under the auspices of NATO. These relative toxicity factors are m the concentration of each congener to yield an emission concentration that is equiv toxicity that would occur if all of the indicated mass was found as the most toxi 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro dibenzo@) dioxin). Emissions expressed in this manner are International Toxic Equivalent, or ITEQ. Regardless of whether an emission stan as total mass of tetra through: octa or as ITEQ, the sampling and analysis proce Method 23 is the same. The only difference is that the ITEQ process provides significant weighting factors to a select group of individual congeners. As will be shown in material that follows, application of these weighting factors does impact the indicated precision of the measurement method. 67 5.1 Available Mufti­ Train Data for Method 23 as Total PCDDPCDF Extensive effort has been expended in development of sampling and analytical methodology for determination of dioxin and furan emission concentrations. Separate procedures have evolved in Europe, Canada and the US which are similar in many respects. There are however, small differences in the analytical procedures that may have significant impact on the precision of measurement results. Accordingly, the current study focuses onIy on US EPA Method 23 since that is the method which must be used to determine compliance with US emission standards. Before presenting the available multi­ train data for Method 23, it is important to note that the procedures used by EPA to validate Method 23 are different from those used to validate other methods. Specifically, in lieu of gathering multi­ train data from one or more source categories, the Agency I developed hardware and a procedure for dynamically spiking a sampling train with known quantities of isotopically la eled dioxin and furan congeners. Validation of the method focused on experiments determining the fractional recovery of the dynamically spiked compounds. There are a variety of approaches that may be used to validate performance of a method. Dynamically spiking a sampling train with a known quantity of a tracer compound is a potentially valid approach. In fact many of the EPA method validation efforts have used dynamic spiking in quad train tests to gain information on both precision and bias of an emerging method. However, use of dynamic spiking experiments as the sole approach for method validation is valid only under conditions where there is no possibility for formation of the pollutant of interest in the sampling train itself ( e. g., for methods measuring the total emission of an element such as a heavy metal). As regards dioxin and furan measurement, there is a significant potential for formation of these compounds under thermal conditions that may occur within a sampling probe or within the hot filter box of the Method. The potential for formation of the target analytes within the sampling train raises serious concern about the completeness of EPA studies validating Method 23. The report describing the Method 23 validation effort indicates that a quad­ train was dynamically spiked with isotopicaily labeled dioxin and furan congeners ( MRI, 1991). The report indicates that the collected samples were analyzed for both the native congeners as well as the dynamically spiked congeners. In fact, the report includes tables listing the collected mass of native dioxin and furan in 69 5.2 Analysis of Method 23 Data for Total Dioxin and Furan. I r k' Table 1 1. Method 23 Data as Total Mass of Tetra through Octa Dioxi t L 71 vi rl c) L W a tk . I f u d 111 73 . The SPS data outlier procedures were applied to the data in Table 11. Several different range groupings were evaluated and each grouping identified Run number 7 from the Rigo, and Chandler tests as an outlier. The basis for this identification is easily seen in Figure 15. However, when presented as relative standard deviatio remainder of the data. The SPC outlie data appears to be abnormally large. , In decision was made to retain the data for the n number 7 is only slightly identify data points where the span of data point has been examined and a Data from Table 1 I were submitted to regression analysis to de weighting were required since all available results are from indicate that the estimated standard deviation varies as a concentration according to the equation S ( for Method 23 as total PCDD/ PCDF) = 0.2722 * Co. 56. p = 0.56 k 0.48 orp lies between 0.08 and 1.04. Figure 17 presents the regression results including the small sample bias­ corrected data, the regression line and the upper and lower 95% confiden precision metrics for Method 23. Data between Est. Q and C. If that relation is ng/ dscm ( excluding temporal variation), 99 out of should fall within f 30% of the true concentration. Source variation will increase those bounds. ents using Method 23 r­ w k E L J i 0 s c 0 0 75 E­ L, r a L: 76 It is critical to recall that there is considerable uncertainty in the value of the slope term in the regression equation. Figure 19 illustrates the anticipated bounds on 99 out of 100 individual measurements for three different scenarios on the S versus C relationship. I f the regression relation is the proper description of how standard deviation varies with concentration, the anticipated spread of future data is relatively tight. For example, in that situation, samplins a stack that actually contains 20 ng/ dscm of total dioxin plus furan should result in 99 out of 100 measurements falling in the range of 16.3 to 23.7 ng/ dscm. Conversely, if the standard deviation of the method is more closely described by the upper confidence interval, a much broader range of data can be anticipated. In this case, sampling the etical stack containing 20 ngldscm dioxin and furan using Method 23 should yield 99 out of 1 surements falling in the range of 9.13 to 30.87 ng/ dscm. LL* * F a & h Y L r P* L F"" b t I Table 12 presents a tabular summary of the anticipated range of measured PCDDPCDF concentration. This table i ased on the assumption that the regression equation properly describes the variation of standard deviation with concentration for the best estimate of standard deviation. This is the best estimate available for method precision based on the available data. It is critically t 4 ­ 1 YLU" important to reiterate that concentration information presented in this table ( as, well as the concentration data in all the tables and figure in this report) are not corrected to constant excess air level. An exam s in order. Assume that a facility operates at 11% 0 2 in the stack and must comply with a Adjusting the emission standard from 7 0 2 shows that the facility must maintain PCDDRCDF stack concentration below 24.9 ng/ dscm. If the true stack concentration was exactly 24.9 ng/ dscm, imprecision from repeated application of Method 2 ouid produce 99 out of 100 measurement results ranging from 20.7 to 29.2 ng/ dscm. When co d back to the basis of the standard, the anticipated data range is * from 29.1 to 40.9 ng/ dscm @ 7% 02. At the 95% confidence level for this hypothetical facili single measurement below 20.7ng/ dscm is below the standard while a measurement above 29.2 ngldscm is above the standard. At the 95% confidence level, resuIts between 20.7 and 29.2 could be E PCDF emission limit of 35 ng/ dscm I@ 7% 02. I & LA P m E L i L­ I either in or out of actual compliance. CY c"" The above analysis clearly points to the fact that there is an insufficient body of data available to adequately assess the precision of EPA Method 23. The limited quantity of available data suggests that the precision of Method 23 conforms to the predictions presented in Table 12. However, there is t ' Table 12. Concentration ng/ dscm & Anticipated Range of Measured PCDDRCDF Concentration Based on Best Estimate of Method 23 Standard Deviation Measurements Measurements Lower Limit lupper Limit Lower Limit1 Upper Limj I I 0.5 0.97 0.03 0.77 0.23 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 0.97 2.60 I 1.40 3.03 5.52 2.4% 4.88 3.12 7.91 4.09 7.10 4.90 10.2 5.76 9.29 6.71 I 12.5 10.0 12.0 7.46 11.5 8.53 14.8 9.19 17.1 10.9 14.0 16.0 79 13.6 10.4 15.8 12.2 19.3 12.7 17.9 I 14.1 21.5 1 14.5 18.0 20.0 22.0 23.7 16.3 25.9 18.1 20.0 16.0 22.2 17.8 24.3 19.7 28.1 19.9 26.4 24.0 21.6 30.3 26.0 21.7 28.5 23.5 32.5 23.5 28.0 30.6 25.4 significant uncertainty associated with this analysis. if the actual method precision conforms to the upper confidence interval in the analysis, a can only be resolved by g particular importance wo included in the current data set. can be anticipated. The issue of concentrations. Of ions above the levels 80 5.3 Available Multi­ Train Data for Method 23 as ITEQ. Data for Method 23, with results expressed as ITEQ, are the same as those for Method 23 with results expressed as total m a s of tetra through octa dioxin plus furan. Table 13 presents the ITEQ results including the results of each run, the average concentration and the calcuiated standard deviation from the run. Also included are data following application of the srnall­ sample, bias correction factor. These data are illustrated in Figures 20 and 21 as scatter plots of standard deviation and relative standard deviation versus the average concentration calculated fiom the data pair. The results are generally similar to those for the Method as total PCDDPCDE except that the scales are greatly reduced. The range of the concentration data is i The above Method 23 data were submitted to regression analysis and results indicate that S is related to C according to the equation, S = 0.4795C0.345. Unfortunately the t­ statistic on the power term is only 1.02 which is well below the critical value lies that the regression equation could have occurred by chance and that, at e level, no statistically meaningful relationship between S and C was detected. result is easily observable in the data presented in Figure 20. Note that the appear as a scattering of points at concentrations below 0.4 ng ITEQ/ dscm onlbelow 0.04 ng ITEQ/ dscm. There are four data points with standard 054 dg ITEQ/ dscm. These data might suggest that S increases with increasing t e f UT points are discounted, one can easily envision an opposite slope to a rkgression , analysis allows the potential range of the power term to be / confidence level, thep parameter could be as large as 1.051 and as small as ­ 0.36. The magnidde of the ' uncertainty concerning the precision of Method 23 for dioxin and furan as ITEQ is further ilhstrated in Figure 22. This figure shows the small sample bias­ corrected data, the regression equation and the upper and lower confidence intervals. It is I , ? % I u s 0 f r4 1 00 k . I + + r­ co m w m cv 8 8 8 8 8 8 83 0 I ­­. I d 0 0 9 ­ 0 0 ­ 0 2 8 I 85 Method. Since the above analysis failed to determine a relationship between CT and C, the alternative approach is to reevaluate the data assuming that CT is a constant. The pooled analysis procedure is to first determine the pooled variance. The 22 individual values of S from Table 13 are squared, summed, and then divided by 22 to determine the pooled variance. The pooled variance = 0.000712. The square root of this paramet s taken to determine the pooled standard deviation; pooled S = 0.0267 with 22 degrees o provide factors for determining the 95% confidence bounds on 0. Those bounds are 0.0207 and I 0.0374. Figure 23 presents the pooled standard deviation and the 95% confidence intervals overlaid with the experimental data. Since the estimated standard deviation and the confidence intervals are constants, they are illustrated as straight lines in the Figure. The various precision metrics are presented in Figure 24. e are normalized by the average concentration and thus show The data shown in this inverse relationship If the characteristic standard deviation of Method deviation, then measurement imprecision should cause 99 out of 100 future measurements I to deviate f? om the true concentration no more than 20.068 ng ITEQ/ dscm. If the Method's characteristic standard deviation is more appropriately approximated by the upper 95% confidence bound, then method imprecision should cause 99 out of 10 deviate from the true concentration by no more than 59.095 ng ITEQIdscm. It is critically important that the above estimates for Method 23 imprecision be placed in perspective. Recent EPA regulations governing hazardous waste co stion SY stems and fossil fbeI fired cement plants have set dioxin and furan emission limits of 0.2 ng ITEQ/ dscm @ 7% \ 86 Y L, 0 0 ­ 0 87 cu a2 m I I . . , * I . . I . 88 c1 I L 0, The potential range for future measurements fkom measurement imprecision is large relative to the standard. At the upper 95 % confidence limit, the possible range of a single measurement ( minus 0.095 to plus 0.095 = 0.19) is essentially equal the standard itself EIC i""" i kd i i f This Page Intentionally Left Blank 90 r i 6.0 EPA Me od 26 for Hydrochloric Acid The method for measurement of hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas is designated EPA Method 26 and is fully described in 4OCFR Part 60 ­ Appendix A under the heading for the Method. The hardware arrangement for Method 26 is illustrated in Figure 25. Impingers in the back half of the train are filled with sulfuric acid to collect HCl while the sodium hydroxide impingers collect chlorine gas. ata for Method 26 are available from three sources, summarized in Table 14. As indicated in the table, relatively high HCl concentration data ( about 80 to 220 mgdscm) are provided by the tests of Rig0 and Chandler at an MWC facility in Pittsfield, MA Chandler, 1997). These data were collected using a quad train. Entropy Corp collec CI concentration ( 4 to 74 mg/ dscm), as part of the EPNOAQPS effort and Margeson, 1989). Two ofthe EPA/ OAQPS tests ( run Method 26 ( Steinberg and 12) were perfo midget impingers in what is now considered the standard Method 26 procedure. The other trains used fidl size impingers typically associated with Method 5 trains. A significant bias detected in the results from run number 12 and those results are not included in the ReMAP analysis. The remainder of the EPNOAQPS test was conducted using dual trains with midget impingers. Finally, very low HC1 concentration data ( 0.3 to 2.0 mg/ dscm HCI) were collected by EER as part of an effort for EPNOSW ( EER, 1997). These EPNOSW tests were executed using quad­ trains. Data outlier analysis was performed on these data and alI data points passed the outlier criteria set by the SPC procedures. Figures 26 and 27 provide scatter plots of the available HCI data illustrating the standard deviation as a fimction of average HC1 concentration. Figure 26 presents all of the available data while Figure 27 includes only data from the EPNOAQPS and EPNOSW tests ( low HCl concentration data). Figure 28­ presents these data as relative standard deviation. Data presented in all three of these figures have been corrected for smali sample bias. As shown, when the 91 L P I T ("" LA­.% Table 14. Method 26 Multi­ Train Data and Standard Deviation for HCI Fq L E l i3 = E I a M Lrc . I Q w n t; ( v 95 0 ( 0 0 w 0 m 0 w 0 F 0 . , _ I.._.. ­ .._ ­.. .. ,_, "... average HCI concentration is above about 10 mg/ dscm, relative standard deviation ( RSD) for the various runs is consistently below 10%. Below IO mg/ dscm, the RSD data tend to increase sharply. Figures 26 and 27 show that the sharp increase in RSD is caused by the rapidly decreasing value of the Concentration rather than a sharp increase in standard deviation. f After applying appropriate weighting factors, the data in Table 14 were submitted to a weighted regression analysis and results indicate that the estimated standard deviation for the Method varies with HC1 concentration according to the relation: S ( Method 26 for HCI) = 0.15259 * C0.803. This equation includes both the small sample bias correction and the bias correction associated with the log­ log transfornation. The concentration term in this equation is in units of mg/ dscm. The t­ statistic for the regression is 17.22, which is well above the critical t­ statistic for 95% confidence and 29 degrees of freedom ( 2.042). At the 95% confidence level, the value of the power coefficient is P = 0.803 k 0.095 or between the limits of 0.707 and 0.898. Figure 29 presents a plot of the data, along with the regression line and the upper and lower confidence limits. Note that the confidence inte Is do not deviate sigificantIy from the regression line. Using the regression equation to describe the variation of Est. G with concentration, estimates can be developed for the probable variation in measurements associated with imprecision in the Method itself Figure 30 presents resuIts of those calculations including the variation in relative standard deviation, the estimated spread for 99 out of 100 single measurements, and the estimated spread for 99 out of 100 triplicate measurements. The anticipated spread for measurements is projected to be relatively close to the true stack concentration. For example, if Method 26 is applied to a stack containing 40 mg/ dscm HCl, results from 99 out of 100 triplicate measurements are expected fall within 10.9 ' YO of the true concentration. At Iower concentrations, the range of future measurements is predicted to 97 * 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 H 98 t 4 E w v1 0 . I L Y S 0 m 0 Q) .­. . I L s 0 0 * m s 99 0 VI ( u 0 0 ( u 0 VI I ul I 0 G ti 0 ~ ~~ i~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ increase ( as a percentage of the true concentration) conditions, the actual spread in data & om method imprecision is predicted to be relatively small. For example, 99 out of 100 triplicate measurements in a stack containing 1.0 mgldscm HCI are expected to fa11 within the bounds of 0.80 and 1.20 mgldscm. The data in Figure 30 assumed that the standard deviation for Method 26 varied according to the regression equation. Figure 29 presented the 95% confidence bounds for the regression equation. Those data have been used to estimate the anticipated range for 99 out of 100 future measurements assuming confidence interval, the Results for those calcul The best estimate of the precision of Method 26 is provided by the data were presented graphically in Fi these data in tabular form. ! The first corrected for excess oxygen). The second out of 100 future single measurements ( at the fifth columns provide the i IO1 I i I i I I I 1 i 1 E Table 15. Range of Anticipated Future HC 102 PY E l b r i L ,­ I ­­ I i? t i s , . . . 7.0 EPA Methods 29, lOla and lOlb for Mercury Considerable effort has been expended developing methods for determination of mercury emissions from combustion sources. For details on the Methods, refer to 40 CFR Part 60 ­ Appendix A under the headings Method 29 and Method 101. Mercury is emitted from combustion sources as either the base metal or in the + 2 vaience­ state. It may be in the vapor­ state or it may be associated with solid phase material. At least three EPA Methods have been published or proposed and one additional method is under active development. Figure 32 illustrates the hardware used for Method 101% which is the simplest of the mercury procedures. The sample gas is passed through a heated filter and then goes to impingers filed with a KMn04­ 10? 40H, S0, ( permanganate) solution. After the sampling event the filter and permanganate solutions are digested and a single combined measurement of total mercury concentration is generated. Method 29 was developed as a multi­ metal measurement method, including mercury. The hardware configuration for Method 29, illustrated in Figure 33, includes a pair of nitric acid impingers foHowed by permanganate irnpingers. The various fractions are analyzed separately for a wide range of metals and results summed to develop a reported stack concentration. Finally, Method 10 1 b, iIlustrated in Figure 34 is a simple variant on Method 29. Method 10 1 b replaces one of the nitric acid impingers in Method 29 with two water impingers. The various fractions are analyzed separately in an attempt to determine the split between Wgo and Hg' 2. The total mercury concentration is determined by adding the catch fiom the various fiactions. An extensive array of mdti­ train data is available describing the precision of these three mercury measurement methods. The first set of results was developed by EPNOAQPS as part of the validation of Method 29 ( Radian, 1992). Those tests, conducted by Radian C o p , were performed at a municipal waste combustor operated by American Ref­ Fuel in New Jersey. That data set includes 8 quad­ train runs with stack mercury concentration ranging from 130 to 575 pg/ dscm. The next set of data comes from the EPA efforts to validate Method IOlb ( EER, 1997). Extensive testing was conducted at a hazardous waste burning cement kiln. Testing consisted of triplicate train runs using both Methods 101 b and Method 29 ( test series 1) and quad ­ _ l ­ " 103 Pi m m r , pan 1 ' I 1 L k . I ..... ..,., , 2 " CI + Q= a P­ I 4­. . .. . .". I._ . _ . ­ ... I .. . I i, I 106 c c train runs using only Method 101 b ( test series 2.). The tripiicate train tests consisted of a Method 1Olb train located in the breaching to the stack ( downstream of all air pollution controls) as well as Methods 10 1 b and 29 trains located at the same plane of the stack. These three measurements all treated as simultaneous but it is distinctly possible that the diverse locations could contribute to an increased apparent method imprecision for this data set. For the quad train tests two of the lines were dynamically spiked with Hgo and HgC12. For the ReMAP analysis, only the unspiked data fiom the quad trains have been used. A third set of multi­ train data was provided by the Rig0 and Chandler tests on the MWC facility in Pittsfield, MA. These tests provide dual­ train measurements using EPA Method 29. A fourth set of multi­ train data is provided in EPA tests at the Stanislaus County MWC ( Radian, 1992). In those tests, two Method 29 measurements were made simultaneously in the stack. From these tests, the only dual­ train metal data available from the EPA were for mercury. A fifth set of data is provided by tests performed at EPA's research facilities in RTP, NC ( EPA, 1998). There are several key features to the data fiom these tests that should be pointed out as part of the R e m data analysis. First, numerous Method 29 tests were conducted as part of an effort to assess performance of multi­ metal continuous emission monitors. The EPA combustion facility at RTP is a pilot­ scale rotary kiln incinerator with a full RCRA permit. As part of the CEMS assessment, the metal content of the waste feed was varied to adjust the range of metal concentration in the stack. The physical arrangement of the stack causes the flow to travel from a mezzanine level, down m e floor, and then horizontally to a final clean up baghouse. A series of multi­ metals CEMS were installed in the vertical portion of this duct. Method 29 trains were located in the horizontal duct runs at the meuanine level ( before the CEMS) and at the floor Because of the wide concentration range of these paired data, these results are extremely important to the overall ReMAP effort. A carefui assessment of the data indicates that there is a distinct bias in the results. That bi only detectable because of the large number of metals being measured. [ Material presen the Appendix discusses the data trends in some detail.] The essence of imprecision is that simultaneous measurements of the same stack gas yield different anual method data were collected simultaneously. 107 measurement results. What is unusual about the EPA pilot­ scale tests is that the reported concentrations for all of the metals tend to move in concert. If the mezzanine trai higher concentration for one metal ( relative t 1 sampling train), it will also indicate a higher concentration for the other metals as SME ReMAP team conducted a thorough assessment to determine the se of this bias. Unfortunately no firm conclusions were forth co e problem can be traced to the sample collection process or the h pIe as opposed to the laboratory analytical procedures. Other re also investigated. Though there is a distinct bias, the data from these tests have been used as provided by the EPA researchers. The effect may be to slightly increase indicated standard deviation of individual method 29 data points, but the wide range of d atly improves the overall quality of the method precision estimates. Tables 16a and 16b provide a summary of all the merc step in the analysis is to perform an outlier analysis outlined previously. The data were grouped into sets wi lOOpg/ dscm. The analysis identified four data points as having abnormally large spans. Those runs included Run Number 9 from the EPA/ and Runs 5­ 2,8­ 3 and 9­ 1 from the Stanislaus County tests. The span clearly out of line with the remainder o data with concentrations below 100 pg/ suspect Runs 6­ 3, 8­ 1, and 9­ 2 as pote program and generally accepted statistical analysis procedure all data udess there is a clear rationale for data elimination. Accordingly, only the four measurements identified as having abnormally large data spans have been eliminated f? om further analysis. Figures 35 and 36 present the data from Tables 16a and 16b showing s plots of mndarcl deviation and relative standard deviation as a function ng. It seems appare * sion data noted above. The first that test series as well as with values of RSD there is also reason to Table 16a. Methods 29 and 101 Data for Mercury 109 c 0 0 c\ 0 3 0 0 r­ 0 0 W 0 0 rn 0 0 ­ 3 0 0 cc) 0 0 N 0 0, 0 I12 I =: 3 n .­ . L e w E I 0 0 0 P confidence intervals as well as the small sample bias corrected data. The t­ statistic for the regression is 7.45, which is well above the critical value for 67 degrees of freedom and 95% confidence. After applying a bias correction factor for the log­ log transformation the regression relation is found to be: S ( Hg total, Methods 29 and 101) = 0.208 * Co. 877. The vaIue of the power coefficient, at th fidence level is: P = 0.877 5 0.234 or between 0. Figure 38 presents three different forms of the p total mercury. The relative standard deviat between about 10 and 15% above 10 pg/ dscrn. Tripli relatively narrow range of the true stack concent pg/ dscm, Method imprecision is anticipated to deviating by less than f 23.3% from the actual concentration is above 10 pgldscm, 99 out of 100 single m licate measurements 5 40.4% of the true stack concentration. Data presented in Figure 36 are based on the assumption that standa concentration according to the regression relation shown in Figure it is possible that standard deviation could be as high as the upper c the lower confidence interval. The potential range for 99 out of 1 imprecision in the measurement method, has been calculated of true ' stack concentration. Results from those calculations are presented in Figure 39. If the precision of the mercury measurement methods is as large as the upper confidence interval, a significant variation in measurement results may be anticipated. For example, if the method standard deviation varies according to the upper confidence limit, measurement of a stack containing 500 pg/ dscm of mercury could result in a spread for 99 out of 100 data points ranging from 275 to 725 pgldscm. If the Method precision is best described by the lower confidence interval, Yo confidence level, , t) 3 u . e t I Y 115 I16 measurement of that same stack containing 500 pg/ dscm mercury should result in a 99 out of 100 future data points falling between 428 and 572 pg/ dscm. It is noteworthy that the RSD data listed in Tables 16a and 16b for individual mercury measurements occasionally exceeded 50% arid that the firms conducting the tests were highly qualified stack festers and laboratory anafysts. This serves to underline the critical importance of precision in stack testing. From an owner's perspective, it is ow the precision of the data being gathered to determine compliance. From a regulatory development perspective, it is critically important to know the precision of data being used to establish regulations. The best estimate of the precision of Method 29/ 101iV101B is provided by the regression analysis. Those data were presented graphically in Figures 38 and 39. To assist the reader, Table 17 presents these data in tabular form, focusing on the range of concentrations anticipated to be of primary interest to facilities being regulated under the new and emerging US EPA emission rules. The first column lists the true concentration of total mercury in the stack ( not corrected for excess oxygen). The second and third columns present the anticipated range for 99 out of 100 future single measurements ( at the given true stack concentration). The fourth and fifth columns provide the anticipated range for 99 out of IO0 future triplicate measurements. 117 ij L Q, v, c d C C r 118 8.0 EPA Method 29 for Multi­ Metals The essential elements of PA Method 29 were presented in the previous section. As noted, the various components of the train are analyzed to determine the concentration of various metals. The method is used to determine compliance with a wide range of metals but there are very limited multi­ train data available to assess the precision of the method for those pollutants. For three of the key metals, cadmium, chromium, and Iead, the Agency did perform multi­ train, Method validation from those tests suggest that additional data may have been gathered on ocumentation of the results ( i any) were not available. Note that lead and ed pollutants under the municipal waste combustor MACT rules. Other metals rsenic, and beryllium. Other sources of multi­ d by Rig0 and ChandIer as well as the EPA EM demonstration program. ta for Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, and Lead Tables 18 through 23 summarize the available Method 29 data for antimony, arsenic, beryllium, , and lead respectively. In these tables, some difficulty may be experienced umber designations for data from the EPA pilot­ scale tests and for the EPA­ able 22). Tables 18 through 23 utilize the run number designations provided in ce. The difficulty is1 that the same run numbers are repeated. Separate runs early come from different testing series but insufficient information ly describe the differences between run series or why run designations were 8.1. I Antimony taFor antimony, data is available from the Rig0 and Chandler tests and from the EPA pilot­ scale tests. The Rigo and Chandler tests provide dual train data in the 30 to 80 pgldscm concentration range. The EPA pilot scale tests were also dual train. They provide data in two different concentration ranges; a lower range of approximately 20 to 30 pg/ dscm and an upper range of approximately 60 to 90 pgldscm. The outlier analysis indicates that run number 2 from the 119 Table 18. Method 29 Multi­ Trai eviation For t Table 19. Method 29 Multi­ Train Data and Standard Deviation For Arsenic 121 Table 20. Method 29 Multi­ Train Data and S dard Deviation For Beryllium I I I I I I / Table 21. Method 29 Multi­ Train Data and Standard Deviation For Cadmium I23 Table 22. Method 29 Multi­ Train Data and Standard Deviation For Chromium 124 Table 23. Method 29 Multi­ Train Data and Standard Deviation For Lead 125 EPA pilot scale tests ( first of EPA pilot­ tests designated as run 2) has an abnormally lar, we data range. After examining several data grouping, it was concluded that this run represents a data outlier and accordingly, it was ehinated from the precision analysis. Figures 40 and 41 prdsent the antimony data in graphical form. Figure 40 is a scatter plot of the small­ sample standard deviation data while Figure 41 deviation. As sh s to approximately ' 30%. 8.1.2 Arsenic Dora Multi­ train data sour standard deviation dat relative standard d on the Pittsfieid M limit for the laborat ­ scale tests. Those have been jnclwd Iow levels to h DataMulti­ train data for cadmium emissions u three sources. Tests by Rigo and Chandler provide data pg/ dscrn. The EPA pilot scale tests provide data in two ranges; a low range centered at about 20 ge of about 20 to 50 /­ ,­ I i i j ­ m N + + + ­­ I .+ I * I b m I I ' I I I 7 m 0 127 t 0 128 v, cu . . a m 0 N ­ 7­ El 1 .. 1 I ­ t I29 0 0 0 ­ 0 o\ 0 00 0 ­ 0 \ 3 0 v) 0 u­ 0 m 0 N 0, 0 I I 0 M CJ L 0 z i­ cy, 131 a 2 a CD Li + I 132 r: ti F t u pg/ dscm and an upper range that spans 40 to 80 pg/ dscm. The EPA method validation tests provide data at a very low concentration range of about 1.5 to 2.5 pg/ dscm. AI1 data in this data set pass the SPC outlier criteria and have been included in the precision analysis. Figures 46 and 47 present scatter plots of the data including the small sample bias corrected standard deviation and relative standard deviation as­ a function of mn average concentration. Figure 47 shows that, for concentrations above about 20 pgldscrn, the RSD covers approximately the same span as the other Method 29 metals presented above. However, the low concentration data from the Method validation tests indicate significantly higher RSD. Data in Figure 46 show that the actual standard deviation tends to increase with increasing concentration, even at the very low concentrations of the validation tests. This shows that the significant rise in RSD is a result of the denominator in the RSD calculation tending toward zero rather than rapid expansion of the standard deviation. 8.1.5 Chromium Data Three sets of multi­ train data are available for assessment of the precision of Method 29 for chromium. The Rig0 and Chandler tests provide data with concentration in the range of about 4 to 10 pgidscm. The EPA pilot scale tests again provide data in two ranges. The low range results are centered at about 20 pg/ dscm while the high concentration results cover the range of about 60 to 70 pgldscm. Finally, the EPA Method validation tests are at very low cadmium concentration ­ ranging from about 1 to 3 pddscm. Outlier analysis for this data set indicates that two data points have abnormally large data spreads. Specifically, run number 7 from the Rigo and Chandler tests and run number 8 for the EPA method validation tests. Both of these runs are specially marked in the run number column of Table 22. The Rigo and Chandler run was eliminated from further analysis, while only the data from train C of the EPA tests were eliminated. Note that there were several other data points indicating very large spreads but they have all been included in the analysis. Figures 48 and 49 present scatter plots of the small sample bias corrected data for standard deviation and relative standard deviation as a function of run average concentration. 8.1.6 Lead Data Three sets of multi­ train data are also available for Method 29 measurement of lead. The Rig0 and Chandler tests at the Pittsfield MWC provide data at lead concentrations ranging from about 400 to 1500 pgldscm. The EPA piiot scale tests provide data in two concentration ranges. The low range data cover the span of about 20 to 30 pg/ dscm . ~ ^ ? > 133 JL ; si m 3 f m I + + + + + + + + I 134 n u bl, e. . f"" I,. E w I I i I I B E 0 VI 0 w 0 m 0 v) 0 J ` 136 P r­ F L r­ t 11 ... F"" L r t. IFLc" 4 I h. 2 137 whiIe the higher concentration results were obtained in the range of about 50 to 95 pddscrn. Finally the EPA Method validation test result ere obtained at concentfations in * e range of20 to 4o pg/ dscm. AI1 data in the lead data set pass the plots ofthe small sampl ias corrected stand average concentration. Note that the high co exhibit RSD values less than 13%, while th data exhibit a broader range of RSD values. from the Rig0 and Chandler 8.2 EPA Method 29 Regression Analyses After elimination of outliers, the Method 29 multi­ train data for antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and lead were analyzed with weighted regression analysis. Results from those analyses are summarized in Table 24 below. Table 24. Results of Method 29 Regression Analysis for Various Metals There are clearly differences between the regression equations for the six metals listed above but there are also significant similarities. The variation of ndard deviation for versus concentration appears to be significantly different from the other metals. For cadmium, the maximum potential value for the p term in the p 0.61 1. For any of the other five metals, within t coefficient could fall between 0.692 and 0.929. Five of the six regression analyses produced t­ ction7 at the 95% con confidence bounds, t 158 I39 c c statistics that are above the critical value of that statistic. For antimony the t­ statistics ( at the 95% confidence level) is slightly below the critical value and the t­ statistic for beryllium is only marginally above the critical vaiues. This results in wide ranges for the potential values of the power function p coefficient for both antimony and beryllium. Recall that, with Method 29, each data pair provides data on the full range of metals. With the exception of the EPA Method validation tests, every data point, for each metal, has a companion data point for the other five metals. This is important since random error enters the measurement process through both the sampling process and the chemical analysis processes. In a multi­ metal procedure such as Method 29, random errors in the sampling process should be reflected in every metal being monitored. Moreover, when the value of the power coefficient is close to 1.0, random error in the sample collection process is a significant contributor to the overall Method precision. For these reasons, there is increased reason to anticipate similarity in the various relationships between standard deviation and concentration. Figures 52 through 57 illustrate the regression equations and the 95% confidence intervals for measurement of each of the six metals using Methud 29. Figures 58 through 63 present data on the various precision metrics, assuming that the standard deviation varies according to the regression equation. It is instructive to compare the general level for the predicted relative standard deviation and the variation of RSD for each of the six metals. Figure 58 indicates that the RSD for antimony measurement using Method 29 is basically a flat function of concentration over the entire range of available data. At a true concentration of 20 pddscm the predicted RSD is 11.8% while the predicted RSD is 9.3% at 90pg/ dscm. In the concentration range between about 20 to 100p~ ldscm, a relatively flat RSD versus concentration trend is also observed for arsenic, beryllium, and chromium. In that range, the RSD for arsenic varies between about 15 and 16.3% ( see Figure 59). For beryllium, RSD only varies between 17.0% and 17.8% ( see Figure 60). SlightIy greater variation is predicted for chromium but, as shown in Figure 62, the anticipated variation in RSD is only from 21.3% at 20 pg/ dscm to 18.2% at 71 pddscm. 141 142 1 143 . . d .­ E .­ ­ I L 9 3 = . n t 1 0 144 I45 a 0 0 0 c r: I ' l. a. & 0 cr 0 3 .­ I47 I 0 E . I 0 o\ 0 00 0 P 5 VJ 9 a M I 1 v3 L i 0 QI 0 01 0 b 0 W 0 Wl 0 d 0 m 0 N 0 I 0 I 149 0 v) c J . , I s 0, 0 151 s 0 3 3 z 0 rc 0 \ 3 0 In 0 Q­ 0 m 0 r 4 2 0 E 0 m = \ M a I I m u L c .. I 2 ~ . I ­ 4 k F;;; 1 0 i­ k:. l s s 0 0 d m ( u s 0 0 0 rn ­. 0 0 d 1 0 0 c\ 1 ­ 0 0 0 ­. 1 0 0 W 0 0 Q 0 0 d 0 0 c\ 1 0 _. t anticipated when concentration drops below 20 p, a/ dscm. As noted earlier, the data in Figures 58 through 63 are based on the assumption that standard deviation varies according to the re ssion equations. However, within g5% confidence bounds, it is distinctly possible that standard ation be greater Or lines. Figures 64 through 69 present the anticipated ranges for 99 out of 100 future a function of the true stack concentration, assu the upper 95% confidence limit, according to 95% confidence limit. These figures illustrate the critical importance overall precision assessment. As indicated by results presented in Fisures 5 deviation of Method 29 antimony measurements varies according to the out of 100 future measurements ( at a stack concentration within 23% ofthe true stack that future data might have a spread as large as +­ 5 1.9% a ng that that standard deviation varies according to e regression The significance of the unce more dramatic for Method 29 measurements of be Method 29 beryllium measurements are made at true stack concentrations of 80 pg/ dscm, available data indicate that 99 out of 100 future measurements Wil concentration ( 45 to 115 pg/ dscm). Also, 99 out of 100 triplicate measurements are expected to fall within k 25.3% of the true stack concentration ( when true concentration equals 80 pddscm). However, at the 95% confidence level, it is only possible to conclude that the future single measurements will fall within f: 97.5% of the true concentration. This large spread between our best estimate and the 95% confidence limits is a direct result of the limited amount of multi­ train data for beryllium using Method 29. The potential range for fu er metals is standard deviation concentration is even As indicated in Figures 6o and 66y when within 43­ 8% Of the true illustrated on the respective figures. W E . I 5 155 0 0 ­ 0 o\ 0 00 0 b 0 \ 3 0 v, 0 d 0 m 0 P 4 0 i i"" PP f .­). 5 157 M E 3 a f 0 U rn . A ki­ p\ 1 L, E L, .1 0 m 0 ri 0 I 159 160 i_ Earlier discussion of the results presented in Table 24 noted a similarity in the regression analysis for five of the six metals, including antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium. and lead. It was pointed out that Method 29 collects a sample that is subsequently analyzed for all of the target metals. Random errors in the sample collection and sample recovery operations are likely to contribute similar random error to each of the measured metal concentrations. Finally, it was noted that random error in the sample collection and recovery process tend to drive the value of the power function coefficient toward 1.0 while random error in the analytical analysis are more typically characterized by constant standard deviation ( p equals zero in the regression equation). In Table 24, note that with the exception of cadmium, the regression analysis for five metals indicates that the p . coefficient is between 0.703 and 1.039 sugsesting that random error in sampling and recovery are major contributors to overall megsurement imprecision. The general similarity in these resression results further suggests that for these five metaIs, it may be appropriate to assess a composite precision estimate for Method 29. To perform that assessment, the multi­ train data presenred in Tables 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 were combined into a single data set. With the exception of the multi­ train data for tead, the majority of the individual data sets were from tests where the metal concentrations ranged from single digit to less than 100 pg/ dscm. Further the majority of the lead data are from this same concentration range. To form a composite data set for regression analysis, the Rig0 and Chandler data were eliminated from the lead data yielding data for all five metals in the same concentration range. The data were appropriately weighted for the number of degrees of freedom and then subjected to a regression analysis. The resuItant regression equation has 158 degrees of freedom and produced a t­ statistic equal to 10.66 ­ well above the critical t­ statistic. The analysis suggests that the ' relationship between S and concentration is described by the equation: The value of the p coefficient ( 0.821) is easily within the 95% confidence ranges forp determined by regression analysis for each of the five individual metals ( see Tabte 24). Figure 70 is a plot of the regression equations for the composite data set including the 95% confidence intervals on that 161 regression. Figure 71 presents a comparison of the re, oression equation for each of the five individual metals and the regression equation from the composite analysis, It is important to reiterate that only a limited body of data is available to assess the precision of Method 29. Moreover, one of the critically important data sets, the EPA pilot scale tests, contains a known bias, Inchdins these biased results in the analysis clearly results in a slight over estimate of the standard deviation at any given stack concentration ( partico However, if those data were eliminated from the assessment, the result would be an even larger aver estimate of the Method's imprecision. As a result of the limited quantity of data and the known biases in some of those data, the precision of Method 29 for metals can only be generally estimated. The analysis of the composite data set provides a basis for the overall assessment of the method's precision. Figure 72 presents various precision metrics determined from the regression analysis of the composite d t. Based on the available data, it appears that Method 29 provides an RSD between 13 and when the metal loading is between 20 arid about IOOug/ dscin. At ineta1 concentrations b about 10 pg/ dscm, the imprecision of the method appears to increase asymptotically. Relative to future measurements, if the precision of Method 29 conforms to the composite analysis and if the metals concentration is greater than 20 pg/ dscrn, 99 out of 100 single measurements should deviate from the true concentration by no more than 45%. Similarly, in the same rage, 99 out of IO0 triplicate measurements should deviate from the true concentration by less than 26%. Unfortunately, the available data do not support a more definite assessment. Tabie 25 provides a summary of the anticipated range of measurement results for application of Method 29 for determination of the concentration of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, and lead. Data in this table are derived from analysis of the composite data set and cover the concentration range of 4 to 100 pg/ dscm. Note that the data in the table do not include correction for oxygen content in the stack. 163 , 6 l e 0' rl P 2 E f ED 0 0 c r ­ 5: a 3 + M c 164 i;­ P I65 I Table 25. Range of Anticipated Future Metals Data Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Chromium, or L I I66 9.0 Other Measurement Methods. 1 An attempt was made to gather multi­ train data for a variety of additional EPA measurement methods. No multi­ train data or method validation test repons were uncovered for EPA methods 0030 or 001 1 for volatile and semi­ volatile organic emissions. The same can be said for EPA Method 23a, which is a special procedure for measuring dioxin and furan emissions. In the absence of multi­ train measurement data, it is not possible to fully assess the precision of these methods. 167 This page Intentionally left blank. 168 "~ 10. Conclusions The ReMAP study has assembled a database containins all known multi­ train data sets using various EPA measurement Methods. Data in that database have been subjected to a detailed analysis to assess the precision of the Methods as a function of stack concentration. The scope of the available data is Cxtremely limited, especially considering the importance of results from application of the Methods. Certain of the Methods, especia Methods 5 and 5i have significant databases and the precision of those methods is relatively well established. Using relative standard deviation as the precision metric, the precision of Method 5 is between 5 and 1 I% when applied to stacks with a broad range of concentrations. If applied with attention to detail, this method is capable of providing reasonably precise resuits, even at stack particulate concentrations as low as 15 mg/ dscrn. Whether an RSD of 5 to 1 I% is sufficiently precise is likely to be application specific. Methqd 5i was specifically developed to provide precise measurement resuIts for particulate matter concentrations below 50 mgdscrn. Based on available data, this precision of this Method has no statistically significant variation with stack concentration. Pooled anaiysis of the data indicates that the Method ( when applied at concentrations between about 5 and 50 mg/ dscm) has a characteristic standard deviation of 1.43 mg/ dscm. Method 23 for dioxin and furan emissions is a critically important method for current EPA emission regulations and for public perception of risk associated with emissions from combustion facilities. There is only a very small database for assessment of the precision of this Method. Based on available data, the anticipated RSD for measurements of the total mass of tetra through octa chlorinated dioxin and, furan is estimated to be between 6.3 % and 20% for stack concentrations in the range of 2 to 27 ng/ dscm ( higher RSD at lower concentration). Recall that the stated range of stack concentrations are given on an " as­ measured basis" and therefore do not include excess air diIution correction factors ( e. g., correction to 7% 02). The anticipated range for 99% of future individual measurements is t 2.57 times the standard deviation. Method 23 is also used to determine dioxin and furan emissions calculated as ITEQ. Analysis of available data for emissions expressed in this manner did not yield an accep~ able regression 169 expression. That is, the t­ statistic for the regression was less than the critical t­ statistic at the 95% confidence kvel. This implies that stron sociated with application of Toxic Equivalence Factors may be masking k weighting factors, variation between simultaneous significantly amplified relative to differe data and when used to dete variation of Method performed to determine a characteristic Stan the pooled standard concentration range 0.02 to 0.9 ng ITE confidence limit, the possible range of Method 23 data point indicates stack concentration that data point ( at the 95% confidence level) could be as low ­ Moreover, using the limited quantity of currently available data and at the 95% confidence level, it is not possible to determine compliance with a PCDDPCDF emission limit below 0.095 ng ITEQ/ dscrn. on the avaiIabie ote that, at the 95% Method 26 for hydrochloric acid measurements was found to be as precise as any of the manual measurement methods. Typically, the RSD for this and lo%­ RSD does increase at very low HCI concentrations but the regression analysis suggests that RSD should only increase to 15.9% at concentrations as low as 1 mg/ dscrn. Mercury emission measurements are also regulations. A relatively large array of mult analysis. The analysis of results found that the and 101 had minimal variation with ppldscm the measurement method RSD varied from 9.6 to 12.4 percent. A significant portion of the overall database is for measurements at relatively low mercury concentrations. Forty out of 73 mercury data points had average concentrations below were at average stack concentration less than 30 pgld data was available for the ReMAP ercury measurements by Methods 29 As concentration drops from SO to 5 pg/ dscm, the ReMAP analysis shows that RSD is anticipated to increase from 12.4 to I 5.4%. 170 ­ ­ ­ Method 29 is also used for measurement of other metals­­ Precision analysis was completed for six other metals including antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and lead. The analysis shows that five of the six metals all behave similarly with respect to measurement method precision. Data for all metals except cadmium exhibit a standard deviation versus concentration relation where the power function coefficient ( p) has a value of approximately 0.82. Composite analysis of data for this group of metals suggests that Method 29 provides an RSD on the order of I3 to 18% \ vhen the metal loading is between 20 and about IOOpg/ dscm. Data for lead is available at much higher concentration and the method RSD for lead appears to asymptote between 5 and 10%. At metal concentrations below about 20 pg/ dscm, the imprecision of the Method appears to increase asymptotically. For cadmium, based on the available data standard deviation of the Method has a different relation with concentration. The indicated value of the p coeflicient is approximately 0.45 suggesting that for the available cadmium data, random error ( or differences) in the chemical analysis was a significant contributor to the overall imprecision of the Method. One additional conclusion from the ReMAP Phase 1 project is that there is a pressing need for additional multi­ train data to refine the precision estimates of the PA Reference Methods. If such experimental programs are to be conducted, significant attention should be given to the appropriate range of stack concentrations. Results presented in this report can help to guide the test planning efforts. 1. nn A C 9. EPA Reference Method 23 ­ Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo­ p­ Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Stationary Sources. 56 FR 5758, February 13, 1991 ( with several revisions). 10. Validation of Emission Test Method for PCDDs and PCDfs. Prepared by Midwest Research Institute, EPA Contract No. 68­ 02­ 4395, Work Assignment 23 for PA EMSL. February 24, 1989. Rig0 & Rig0 Associates and A. J. Chandler and Associates under the Direction of ASME. June 1 1. Retrofit of Waste to Energy Facilities Equipped with Electrostatic Precipitators. Prepared by 1997. Aggregate Kiln. Prepared by Energy and Environmental Research Corporation, Contract No. 68­ D2­ 0164 for the PA Office of Solid Waste. October 10, 1997. 12. Dioxins/ Furans, HC1, C12 and Related Testing at a Hazardous Waste Bumin, ( J Light­ Weight v 13. EPA Reference Method 23 ­ Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo­ p­ Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Stationary Sources. 56 FR 5758, February 13, 199 I . 14. OMSS Field Test Report on Carbon Injection for Mercury Control Completed at the Ogden Martin of Stanislaus, Inc. Prepared by Radian Corporation, Conrract No. 68­ D i 00 IO for the EPA Office of Research and Development. September 1992. 15. EPA Reference Method 29 ­ Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources. 61 FRl8262, April 25, 1996. 16. PA Reference Method 1 0 1 a ­ Determination of Mercury Emissions from Sewage Sludge Incinerators. 47 FR 24703, June 8, 1982. 17. Proposed Draft EPA Method 10 1 b ­ Determination of Mercury Species from Stationary Sources. 18. Validation of Draft Method 29 at a Municipal Waste Combustor. Prepared by Radian Corporation, Contract No. 68­ D9­ 0054 for the PA Emission Measurements Branch. September 30, 1992. 19. Mercury CEMS Demonstration at the HoInam, Inc. Hazardous Waste Burning Cement Kiln in Holly Hill, SC. Energy and Environmental Research Corporation for EPA Ofice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. October 1997. ( also see 62 FR 67788). 20. Internal EPA Study at the Pilot Scale Rotary Kiln Incinerator Located in Research Triangle Park, NC. SarnpIing and Analysis performed by PA. 21. Emissions of Metals and Organics from Municipal Wastewater Sludge Incinerators. Prepared by Entropy and DEECO, Contract No. 68­ CO­ 0027, for EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. \ I y c , c ­ i Appendix Statistical Analysis Procedures for the ReMAP Program Prepared by: Charlie Hendrix Statis tical Consult ant r I," u Procedures for Analyzing Simuitaneousfy Sampled Concentration Data to Determine Measurement Precision ( Random Error) This appendix is concerned with the statistical methods used in the ...­ b 1 analysis of simultaneousiy sampled data. Confidence Interval on a Mean ­ # ¶ W i ­ ab+ Suppose w e have collected the following replicate data from a process operating under fixed conditions. 103.2 107.9 101.6 109.1 105.3 The average of these is 105.42; the standard deviation is 3.132 with 4 degrees of freedom ( df). If these are representative data from this process, then the 95% confidence interval on the true mean p is 105.42 of freedom ( df). t = 2.776. The 95% interval on p is 105.42 3.89 or 101.53 to 109.31. " 95% of the intervals calculated in this manner will encompass the true mean, p" From this we infer that " the probability is 95% that the interval 101.53 to 109.31 has captured the true mean, p" t* 3.132/& where t is the reference value of t with 4 degrees cerns about whether the data came from a non­ normal little bearing on this calculation under most Confidence Interval on a S tandard Deviation The following replicate data also came from a process operating under a fixed set of conditions. 1.03 1.24 0.91 1.36 0.97 1.22 The standard deviation of these data is S = 0.177 with 5 degrees of freedom ( df). If these are representative data from this process, then the 95% confidence interval on the true standard deviation a is calculated in the following manner. Go to Tabie 1; ent with df = 5; find the factors 0.624 and 2.453 under the heading " For 95% onf. Int." Multiply 0.177 by each of these factors to obtain 0.110 and 0.434. df 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . 9 10 12 15 20 25 30 50 100 200 500 paae 2 For 95% Conf. I n t . PF il` 0.566 3.727 0.599 2.875 0.624 2.453 0 .644 2.202 0 661 0.675 I. 826 1.755 0.717 1.651 0.73 1.548 0.765 1.444 0.785 1.380 1.337 1.243 0 * 942 1.066 " 95% of the intervals calculated in this ma standard deviation 0.'' that the interval 0.110 to 0.434 has captured the true standard deviation sigma ( o)". This assumes that the data c underlying " true standard deviation o" wh accuracy of confidence intervals on CT is affe original data. er encompass the true e from a process with an From this we infer that " the pro biiity ' is 95y0 Table 1 is derived from the Confidence Interval on Siama ­ M u l t i d e Measures of Variation Suppose we have data from six tests. Each pair of data was obtained by drawing simultaneous samples and analyzing those samples for the concentration of a pollutant. ­ Time Data S t a n d a r d Deviation. S df 1 1 1 1 1 1 2: 30 PM 27.2 30.0 1.980 5: 50 PM 20.9 27.2 4.455 6: 25 PM 28.7 33.1 ' 3.111 7: 15 PM 25.5 24.2 0.919 4: 15 PM 19.1 23.7 3.253 5: 05 PM 28.3 26.8 1.061 *"^ . . .). , . , . s I /­. < _ paae 3 We are concerned with the inherent variation due to the sampling and analysis procedures ( measurement precision), measured as the variation within tests. The standard deviation of each pair of samples is shown. Our objectives are to ( 1) estimate the standard deviation a due to sampling and asurement precision) and ( 2) to calculate a 95% confidence int estimate of 0. cal to average the standard deviations and report that as t h e estimate of 0. Unfortunately that average will be a of ci. This bias can be substantial. A more accurate estimate of CT is found by sed estimate iations. Pooling requires squaring the individual to obtain variances; weight­ averaging the variances to obtain the pooled variance; then take the square root to find the pooled standard devia ance is weighted by the number of degrees of freedom assoc variance. The number of degrees of freedom andard deviati is the sum of the degrees of ndard deviati Pooled Variance = ( Sum of df* Variance)/( Surn of df) 80) z + 1"( 3.253)* + ... + 1*( 0.919)*]/[ 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 11 = 45.99816 = 7.666 Pooled S = 67.666 = 2.77 with 6 df. Pooled S is an estimate of G. We can calculate the 95% confidence interval on ( r by entering Table 1 with 6 df to find the factors 0.644 and 2.202, Multipl 2.77 by each of these factors to find 1.78 and 6.10. The probability is 95% th'at this interval has captured the true value of 0. Can we calculate a confidence interval on CJ by treating the individual , 3.253, ... a 0.919) as " data"; calculate those " data" and then calculate confidence limits data" as if we were calculating the confidence The answer is a qualified " yes", but only after taking that have not been addressed at this point. d for the analysis of the R MAP data. Although the involves fitting the data to a mode by least squares and nderlying principle is founded on weighted ~ ­­­ ~­ ­­­­­ ­­­ ­­­ ­ ­_ ­­ 111­ ­ ­­­ __­ ­ _ paae 4 The ReMAP Procedu re The structure of the ReMAP data precludes direct pooling to estimate CJ h e primary data is re was designed t of deviations in e fact that G varies nonlinear least­ square method. ition to obtaining Tens of thousands of synthetic d were examined. The sirnutat scale of C ; sometimes Monte Carlo simulation estimates of G and also show that the con approximately as stated. in this manner. Cases of N = 12 pairs of data; N = 24 airs of data; and other cases r t vals on ( sigma) are This will be discussed later. d PI i i , ­ ­­ n 1, The ReMAP Model S = kCP Out of all the possible models that could be used to associate S with Cy why was S = kCp chosen? Is this mogel adequate for all of the pollutants? These questions ... and others concerning this model form,.. are discussed in more detail in Fittina Sta ndard De viation vs. Concentration Data to Alternative Models. In choosing a model form, one of the first requirements is that the variation in the residuals ( residual = difference between observed and e constant along the scale of concentration. This is s variance". Simple graphics depicting S as a function requirement is not met in the ReMAP data ... at least in which those data span realistic ranges on the scale of C. Before fitting the data to a model we need to stabilize the variance. . When the data are presented in Ln­ tn coordinates, statistical tests confirm that the variance is has been done by linearizing S = kCP to mogeneous along the scale of concentration. Typical values of p range from 0 5 to 0.9. The exceptions were pollutants in which the concentration spanned narrow ra ges and the confidence intervals on p were wide. Since values of p have been associated with sampiing variation as opposed to variation due to chemical analysis, the power­ law model has merit aside from its statistical properties. A fundamental difficulty with the ReMAP data lies in the fact that these data are poorly arranged along the scale of concentration. Rather than being concentrated at two . or three positions on that scale, the data are often ttered; sometimes concentrated near the centroid and sparse at the seldom focused near t h e ends of the concentration scale. Furthermore, data collected from one source are sometimes positioned near one level of concentration and data from other sources are positioned at other levels. in order to obtain precise estimates of p, we need data that spans decades ( factors of 10) on the scale of concentration; in reality there are instances in which the data bareiy spans one decade. These factors virtually preclude building models more complex than the form S = kCp. Where there were questions about this, the adequacy of this model form was testing by t h e usual stati tical procedures; in every instance it was found that a more complex mode could not­ be justified. , This is not to claim that a power­ law model will be adequate for ail The choice of model form is presently limited by the factors future data. noted above. paae 6 7 The Relationshi ­ mi n r d D v i i n A standard de sigma. Sigma is the When we estimate ( 3 truth" ( accuracy, unbia truth" ( precise; small If we calculate S from a using other data fro e interval arou If we collect two simultaneous samples, the standard deviation of that sample must be rnuitipli 1.253 to make it an unbiased estimate of u. With larger amounts o in the sample, the bias is s is a brief table of bias cur w 2 3 4 5 10 Bias Correction Factor 1.253 1.128 1.085 1 Remember each value of S estimate of a. r estimate of 6; Averaging values this average will be rn will still not be accur r" r k c If we intend must multiply each before averaging. The bias relafed to the number of sample standard deviation standard deviation; it is rela individual sa mpie s ta nda i d de via tio n s tirnate of G, the as correction factor t the average sed to to get the ~~ An Examole Table 2 shows data in which the standard deviation varies with t h e average. Our purpose is to find an empirical relationship between S and the sample averages.' For N = 2, unbiased S = 1.253' s. 3% ­" w, ' F & I­ klrd 1 I Lr* r Table 2 Samo le Data Ava. c 1 893.7 1080.2 986.95 2 2240.4 2127.0 2183.70 3 2070.3 2219.7 2145.00 4 529.4 553.3 541.35 5 2351.1 2652.2 2501.65 6 358.9 342.7 350.80 1316.20 2434.95 2479.60 1434.80 743.6 655.9 699.75 1 3 960.3 1099.1 1030.00 1 5 247.2 297.6 272.40 16 1866.4 2247.1 2056.75 12 1356.8 1392.8 1374. ao 1 4 1949.0 1803.1 1876.05 S a n b ­ iS5­ d S 131.88 565.25 a o . 19 Z30.48 105.64 122.37 16.90 51.18 212.91 255.78 1 1 . 4 6 14 ­ 3 6 2 0 7 . 6 1 250.14 161.43 202.27 13.15 16.48 26.87 33.67 62.01 7 7 . 7 0 25.46 3 1 . 9 0 98.57 123.55. 103.17 129.27 35.64 4 4 . 6 6 269.20 337.31 Fig. 1 shows the relationship between S and Avg. C. Fig. 2 presents the same data in Log­ Log coordinates. The nature of this relationship is more visible in Fig. 2 than in Fig. 1. These data will be fit to the rnqdel p after linearizing to Ln( S) = Ln( k) + p* tn( C). This is equivalent to working in Log­ Log coordinates as in Fig. 2. By fitting the data in Table 2 to Ln( S) = Ln( k) + p* Ln( C) we not only obtain estimates of k and p but also certain statistics that tell us how accurateiy this model will predict G. A least squares analysis of these data is shown in Table 3. . . . . . i a 2 . i i 3 E paae 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn ( u O 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 cu rn 0 m ( v P 7 0 0 0 rc) c3 0 w B L c [ , r l El ! j iJ P L i ' c5 Y p" cn P 2 9 LY LJ w Table 3 RIT 0.05 & 0.01 = 2.17 & 2.98 VARIABLES SH OF COEFF T­ 0 Intercept 1 P o w e r C o e f f i c i e n t p = 0 0.34030 2.15 RESSUMSQ STDDEV OF RES DF 12.16245 .. ­ ics I n Ln U n i t s In O r i a i n a l Metr OBSVD PRED RESID STD RES O b s e r v e d P r e d i c t e d D i f f . 68.69 96.56 1 5.107 4.230 0.878 0.94 165 ­ 2 5 2 4.610 4.810 ­ 0.200 ­ 0 . 2 1 100.48 122.73 ­ 22.25 3 4.886 4.797 0.089 0.10 132.37 121.14 11.23 4 3.053 3 . 7 9 1 ­ 0.738 ­ 0.79 21.18 44.29 ­ 23.11 5 5.586 4.909 0.677 0 . 7 3 266.78 135.55 131.23 6 2.664 3.474 ­ 0,809 ­ 0.87 14.36 32.25 ­ 17.89 7 5.561 4.440 1.121 1.20 8 5.310 4.890 0.420 0 . 4 5 9 2.802 4.903 ­ 2.101 ­ 2.25"" 16.48 134.67 ­ 118.19 10 3.517 4.503 ­ 0.986 ­ 1.06 33.67 90.29 ­ 56.62 11 4.353 3.978 0.375 0.40 77.70 1 2 3.463 4.472 ­ 1.009 ­ 1.08 3 1 * 90 13 4.816 4 . 2 6 1 0.556 1 2 3 . 5 1 1 4 4.862 4.699 0.163 129.27 1 0 9 . 8 4 19.43 1 6 5.821 4,766 1.055 1.13 337.31 117.47 219.84 15 3.799 3.289 0.510 0 . 5 5 44.66 26.81 17. as RES SUMSQ FROM REGRESSION = 12.16245 RES SUMSQ DIRECT = 12.16245 A v e r a g e Observed = 122.3331 A v e r a g e P r e d i c t e d = 89.5749 B i a s C o r r e c t i o n Factor = 122.333 89.5749 = 1.3657 Ln( S) = ­ 0.8093 + 0.731* Ln( C) 0.731 s = 0.445. c ln Table 3 the observed and predicted values of S and their residuals ( differences between observed and predicted) are shown in Ln units, then in their original metrics. Sample calculation: From Table 2, first row: C = 986.95 Spred = E~ p(­ U. 8093)* C*­~ 3~ = 0.445' Co­ 737 = 68.69 ( Table 3) The average of the observed values is 122.3331; t h e average of the predicted values is 89.5749. The ratio of the average observed to average predicted is 122.3331/ 89.5749 = 1.3657. This offset or bias was caused by linearizing d fitting in terms of Ln( S) followed by conversion back to the original u The unbiased model for predicting CJ from C is: 0.731 0.731 Est G = 1.3657* 0.445* 6 Or Est 0 = 0.608. C where Est CY is an unbiased c 1 10 100 1000 BY compare for other estimate of sigma. Fst ( r 0.608 60.8%* F( sD 3 . 2 7 3 2 . 7 0 * 17.6% 9.5% 17.62 94 ­ 8 2 k * extrapolation fitting all of the pollutant data to consistent models we can model coefficients for one pollutant against model coefficients pollutants. paae 12 vow Good is This Model? The answer to t with the model. Let` model­ building process. on what we intend to do T­ CRIT 0.05 & 0.01 = 2.17 & 2 . 9 8 VARIABLES F COEFF T 0 Intercept 1 Power Coefficient . p = 0.73084 . 0.34030 2.15 . . RESSUMSQ STDDEV OF RES DF R­ SQ 1 2 . I6245 0.93207 1 4 0.2478 The model coefficients are ­ 0.8093 and 0.731. SE OF COEFF is a measure of how well we have estimated the coefficient, p. t = 0.73087/ 0.34031 = 2.15. A t­ ratio larger abou 2­ 0 implies we have detected a relationship between 0; and C. A t­ ratio 2 ( approx­) means that CT is not a constant, but is associated with C. substantially larger than 2.0 are ecessary to a coefficient. The reference value t at the w ~ 5 is actually 2.1 5 . See the line: T­ CRIT 0.05 & 0 . ­ 1 7 Ed 2 ­ 9 8 . So our observed value of t ( 2.15 as compared to the reference value 2.17) is " right on the edge". However, t­ ratios tely estimate a model 5% probability level) The 95% confidence interval on the coefficient p is: 0.731 2.17* 0.340 or from 0.00 to 1.47 which suggests that the true coefficient eo d be as small as " zero" ( implying no association between C and 0) r as large as 1.47. It would be misleading to report p = 0.731 without the uncertainty in this estimate. If we compare a power coefficie r one pollutant to that of another, we must recognize that when t or P is modest, th confidence interval on that value of p m R­ SQ ( R­ squared) = 0.2478 means this model explains 4778% of the variation in t h e data. STDDEV OF` RES is t h e standard deviations of residuals. This is t h e standard deviation of the differences between observed and predicted values in Ln( S) units. This is not an estimate of 0, STDDEV OF RES is a measure of variation among values of Ln( S). It is also an estimate of the standard deviation that we would find if we could run replicate tests under a fixed set of conditions and report the variation among values of Ln( S). In this context " the data" is in terms of Ln( S). paae 13 A logical extension to this would be to inquire " how good is a prediction made from this model?" This suggests we will calcuiate the unbiased estimate of C ( Est 0) for a fixed value of C.... then calculate a confidence interval on that predicted value. Before doing this, here are two values that we will need. One of these is the average of Ln( C) and the other is average of the L ( s). Avg( LnC) 7,1116. Avg( LnS) = 4,3881. The confidence interval on Est CT is best found by re­ stating the model in a different format: Original Format: Ln( Est CT) = ­ 0.8093 + 0.731* Ln( C) New Format: Ln( Est 0) = Avg( LnS) + 0.731*[ Ln( C) ­ Avg( LnC)] New Format: Ln( Est o) = 4.3881 + 0.731*[ Ln( C) ­ 7.11161 The variance of a prediction of Ln( o) is: Var( Lno) = [ StdDev of Res12/ N + [ SE( Coeff) 12*[ Ln( C) ­ 7.1 11 6j2 Eq. 1 Table vslue of t I T­ CRIT 0.05 & 0.01 = 2.17 I & 2.98 VARIIBLES COEFFICIENTS SE OF COEFF T­ RATIO I 0 Intercept ­ 0,80 932 RESSUMSQ STDDEV OF RES DF R­ SQ 12.16245 0.93207 14 0.2478 1 Power Coefficient p = 0.73084 0.34030 2.15 I I I­ t­ ratio calculated r N = 1 6 f r o m data L* i Var( Lno) = [ 0.9321 ]*/ I6 + [ 0.3403]**[ Ln( C) ­ 7.1 1 16J2 Var( Lncr) = 0.0543 + O. l158*[ Ln( C) ­ 7.111612 P LA SE( Lno) = dVar( Lno) predicted value of Lno, also called the standard error of This is the standard deviation of the prediction. See note at the bottom of page 14. _. "~ paae 14 Here is t h e sequence for calculating a 95% confidence interval on CT: Step 1: Calculate the predicted valu either of: Ln( Est CT) = ­ 0. Ln( Est a) = 4.3881 +. 0.731*[ Ln( C) ­ 7.1 1161 SE( Est 0) = dVar( Est 0) See footnote. Step 3: The 95% confidence interval on Ln( Est 0) is then Ln( Est G) t* SE( Est ) where t is the table or reference value of t at the 0.05 level of significance. t = 2.17 in this instance. r L' Step 4: Revert to the orig I units and the unbiased estimates: Take antiin of Est CT Take antiLn of the lower bound Take antiLn of the upper bound Multiply Est 0, the lower bound, and the upper bound by the bias correction factor 1.3657 Est G and t h e 95% confide e On are shown in 4­ The expression Standard Error ( Symbol: SE) means the Standard deviation Of a StatiStiC. Literally, the standard deviation of a value calculated from data. This is Stan designed to keep issues about " t ~ e standard deviation" ( calculated from " the from issues about the standard deviation of other quantities calculated from data. 4 LOWlS U? p? Z A V P T ; I ~ ~ C LiFir t s t CT Limbic 10 0 . c93 3.254 118.073 20 0.249 5 . 4 2 5 118.174 50 0.946 10.600 118.756 100 2.583 17.594 119.830 500 24.797 57.058 131.283 1000 55.878 94.704 160.5C9 zoao 84.433 151.189 292.637 200 6.979 29.203 122.537 5000 96.804 307.125 974.353 A graphical analysis of this table is presented in Fig. 3. Minimiz, ina t h e Width of the Confidence Interval Equation 1 ( repeated here) determines the width of the confidence interval ' on the estimated value of sigma, Est G. Var( Est a> = [ StdDev of ResI2/ N + [ SE( Coeff)]**[ Ln( C) ­ AvgLn( C)]' Eq. 1 Whereas Est CT is a measure of variation due to sampling and analyzing, the StdDev of Res ( standard deviation of residuals) is a measure of the variation among individual values of LnfS). Reducing the variation in sampling and analysis methods would reduce t h e magnitude of probably reduce StdDev of Res as well. A reduction in StdOev reduce the width of the confidence intervals. N is the " number of tests" ( number of duplicates, triplicates, quads, etc.); literally t h e number of rows in the data table from which we fit S vs C. Increasing N will decrease [ StdDev of Res]*/ N and will therefore decrease the width of the confidence interval. SE( Coeff) is strongly influenced by the span of t h e data along the scale of C, the concentration of a pollutant. Varying C over a wide range will decrease SE( Coeff) and will therefore decrease the width of the confidence interval. concentrated at a " low value of C" and one­ half of the data are concentrated at a " high value of C", then SEfCoeff) will be minimized. SE( Coeff) is also reduced by increasing N and by reducing StdDev of Res. Furthermore, if about one­ haif of the data are [ Ln( C) ­ AvgLn( C) J2 is a function of where the prediction is being g the scale of C. When a prediction is made at the centroid of tn( C) = AvgLn( C) and this term goes to zero. When this is so, then Var( Est 0) = [ StdOev of Res]*/ N. This means that the width of the confidence interval will be minimized when predictions are made at the centroid of Ln( C). . The best way to visualize this is with an example in which data are concentrated at two points on the scale of C. The data in Table 5 are simulated data from the same source as the foregoing example. Data Sample 1 243.3 2 5 3 . 6 2 237.3 233.7 3 151.1 143.5 4 2p0.4 216.6 5 1 7 3 . 1 207.6 6 141.8 159.0 7 233.2 208.4 8 139.9 153.6 9 1733.4 1828.4 10 2022.6 1754.9 11 2127.9 2014.9 12 2064.0 2047.6 13 2016.6 1934.1 1 4 1s 1 6 2003.9 1808.6 Ava. C s 147.36 5.37 248.45 7.28 235.50 2.55 233.50 23.90 190.35 24.40 150.40 12.16 220.80 17.54 146.75 9.69 67.18 1780.90 1888.75 189.29 2071.40 79.90 2055.80 11.60 1975.35 58.34 1822 .) 2 0 77.78 2326.75 233.98 1906.25 138.10 gzbiased s 9.12 3.20 6.73 29.95 30.57 15.24 21.98 12.14 84.18 237.18 100.11 14.53 73.10 97.46 293.18 173.04 I is, Table 6 is t h e feast squares analysis of the data in Table 5. The relationship between S and C is shown in Figures 4 and 5. i­ x I I L Se are equivalent to the lower and upper 95% confidence !­­­ inten/ af on the slope in Ln­ Ln coordinates; i. e., on the model coefficient p. Recall that the , L lower limit on p was 0.00; hence " A" is horizontal. This may aid in seeing how the imprecision in estimating the slope impacts the confidence interval on predicted values of sigma. This imprecision in estimating the slope is reported as SE of Coeff. pz"* i paae 18 . . . . i­ f­? ­~ i ~ ­ ~ ~. ­~ ­~ ­ __­ paae 20 T a b l e 6 T a b l e =­ slue of t I T­ CRIT 0.05 & 0.01 = 2.17 & 2.98 VAR IA9 LES COEFFICIENTS SE OF COE? F T­ RATIO 0 Intercep I 1 Power Co 0 ­ 18436 4.73 RESSUMsQ STDDEV OF RES I . " 10.51455 I fficient p = . . I t ­ r a t i o calculated StdDev of Res N = 16 from data I n Ln U n i t s I n Oriainal Metrics OBSVD PRSD RESID STD RES O b s e r v e d Predicted D i f f . 1 2.210 2.791 ­ 0.580 ­ 0.67 9.1 16.29 ­ 7.17 2 1.163 2.744 ­ 1.581 ­ 1.82 3.20 15.55 ­ 12.35 3 1.907 2.335 ­ 0.429 ­ 0.49 6.73 10.33 ­ 3.60 15.43 14 ­ 52 4 3.400 2.737 0.663 0.76 29.95 5 3.420 2.559 0.861 0.99 30.57 12.92 1 7 . 6 5 6 2.724 2.353 0.371 0.4 15.24 io. 52 4 ­ 72 7 3.090 2.688 0.402 0 ­ 4 21.98 ' 14.70 7.28 8 2.497 2.332 0.164 0.19 12.14 10.30 1.84 9 4.433 4.506 ­ 0.0t3 ­ 0.08 84.18 90.60 ­ 6.42 10 5.469 4.558 0.911 1.05 237.18 95.36 141.82 If 4.606 4.638 ­ 0.032 ­ 0.04 100.11 103.34 ­ 3.23 12 2.676 4.631 ­ 1.955 ­ 2.26** 14.53 102.66 ­ 88.13 73.10 99.16 ­ 26.06 13 4.292 4.597 ­ 0.305 ­ 0.35 14 4.579 4.526 0.053 0.06 92.42 5.04 15 5.681 4.739 0.941 1.09 114.36 178.82 16 5.154 4.566 0.588 ­ 68 173.04 96.13 76.91 RES SUMSQ FROM REGXESSION = 10.51455 RES SUMSQ DIRECT = 10.51456 Average O b s e r v e d = 75.1069 A v e r a g e P r e d i c t e d = 56.2545 B i a s Correction Factor = 75.1069/ 56.2545 = 1.3351 0.871 Est c = 1.3351' 0.1335* C t r t 0.871 Est CJi = 0.178' C The 95% confidence interval on p is: an improvement over 0.00 to 1.47 in the previous example, New Format: Ln( Est G) = Savg + 0.8712*[ Ln( C) ­ Cavg] New Format: Ln( Est 0) = 3.58126 + 0.8712+[ Ln( C) ­ 6.422821 The variance of a prediction is ( Eq. 1 is repeated here): Var( Est 0) = [ StdDev of Res]'/ N + [ SE( Coeff) J2"[ Ln( C) ­ Avg of Ln( C) l2 Eq. 1 t 0) = [ 0.86S63J2/ 16 + [ 0.18436j2'[ Ln( C) ­ 6.422821' Var( Est 0 ) = 0.04694 + 0.0344*[ Ln( C) ­ 6.42282J2 Note that lSE( Coeff)]* = 0.0344 compared to 0.1158 in the previous exampfe. By concentrating data at the extremes of the experimental space ~ the width of the confidence interval has been reduced significantly. Est oand the 95% con ence on are shown in Tab, e 7. Table 7 Lower Averace c . L i m i t 10 0.236 20 0.564 50 1.765 100 4.125 500 24.812 1000 43.978 5000 113.262 200 9.375 2000 68.641 ­­ 1: 324 2.422 5.381 9.843 18.004 40.000 73. 1 6 7 133.836 297.342 Upper Limit 7.421 10.400 16.402 23.484 34.577 64.235 121.723 260.95: 780.600 A graphical analysis of Table 7 is presented in Figure 6 . .. e . I v3 O I I I 0 0 paae 22 The simulated data used in these examples ( Tables 2 and 5) came from this model: 0 = 0.28* C0* 8. The value of C was varied randomly in Table 2 and varie domly around two points on the scale of C in Table 5. calculated from C; from a Source with mean C and n 0, two random normal numbers were generated; those numbers are the data. This process was repeated 16 times. When C = 100 the true RSD = 11 . WO; when C = 1000 the true RSD = 7.0%. These levels of ical of those encountered in the analysis of t h e actual The model derived from data in the first simulation ( Tabfe 2) is Est a = 0.608* C0* 73' The 95% confidence interval on p is 0.00 to 1.47. The model derived from data in the second simulation ( Table 5) is Est 0 = 0.178* C0­ 871 The 95% confidence interval on p is 0.47 to 1.27. With this in mind, here are some important conclusions. Even when simultaneously sampled data come from a " perfect" situ ation such that: e> the underlying model is exact and the data are contaminated only by random variation C> there are no concerns about sample contamination, selective or biased sampling of particles, or other " special causesy' finding a relationship between Est CT and the average concentration C yields model coefficients and predictions that are subject to statist ica 1 u nc e rt ai n t y . ­ The evidence of this uncertainly is illustrated by the fact that two sets of data from a " perfect situation" produce models that have different coefficients and therefore different estimates of Est CF as a function of the average concentration C. . SE( Coeff) is a major contributor to wide confidence intervals Although not discussed in detail here, SE( Coeff) is on Est 0. strongly influenced by ( 1) the allocation of experimental points along the scale of C; ( 2) the amount of data: and ( 3) the inherent variation in t h e data. Weiqhted Rearession Although the majorit samples with octets. Reca When those values are derived fro should be weighted in acc information in each value As a rule, t h e qua 21 there were insta is Q = Sum of W, t( S, ­ pred Si) 2 where Si is an observed standard deviation; pred Si is the predicted is the weight assigned to the i­ th inversely proportional to the varia approximation, Minimize Q = Sum of ( 1/ Var Si)'( Si ­ pred Si) 2 The variance of Si is ( an approximation) proportional to O be assigned to each servations used to a as The eight assigned to each of that standard deviation; and Wi weights should be 1/[ 2( N ­ I)]. Thus the re1 is 2( N ­ 1) where N is th given value of S. This is observed valu freedom associated with that value of S. If N = 2 the weight is 1. If N = 3 the weight is 2, etc. unweighted regre ) ­ But the for weighted regression are s the confidence intervals requires For these reasons we reco regression be used for this Of to just the number of degrees of The calculations for weighted regression to those for In particular, calculating matrix Operations­ e designed for weighted Errors. Outliers, and Mavericks paae 25 Questionable data is given a diversity of names, such as mavericks fliers, outliers, sports, and blunders. These aberrations can be caused by contamination of samples, switched or mislabeled samplss, faulty equipment or reagents, key entry errors, and a host of other events. Such data is a source of frustration, and often causes pointless discussions and wasted effort. Some statistical criteria are available to assist in learning whether or not the largest or smallest observation is significantly far removed from the main body of the data. 1 In this section we will address this matter from two perspectives. The first of these is an omnibus examination of all of the data in one pass. The other is more focused, and addresses only one triplicate or quad. Table 8 was derived from Table 5. The data were broken into two categories... low C and high C... with the expectation that variation will be constant ( or virtually constant) at low C and that variation will be constant at high C. Of course we expect that variation will change between low C and high C, which was the point to breaking the table into these two categories. Ranae Ava, C 248.45 10.3 1 243.3 253.6 3.6 2 237.3 233.7 235.50 147.30 7.6 3 151.1 143.5 233.50 33.8 4 250.4 216.6 5 173.1 207.6 150.40 17.2 6 141.8. 159.0 220.80 24.8 7 233.2 208.4 146.75 13.7 8 139.9 153.6 Data SamDle 190.35 34.5 Avg Range = 18.19 9 1733.4 1828.4 1780.90 95.0 10 2022.6 1754.9 1888.75 267.7 11 2127.9 2014.9 2071.40 113.0 12 2064.0 2047.6 2055.80 16.4 13 2016.6. 1934.1 1975.35 82. i 15 2161.3 2492.2 2326.75 330.9 16 2003.9 1808.6 1906.25 195.3 14 1877.2 1757.2 1822.20 110.0 Avg 3an'ge = 151.35 The range is shown for each simultaneous sample. The average range is reported for each of the two groups. In Statistical Process Co whether any of these ranges a quads we only test for abnor small ranges is not meaningful. determine whether any of the ra s customary to test . . . . . . . , . . . . SamDle Size, n 2 4 ­ 2 3 . 2 6 7 3 2 . 5 7 5 4 2 ­ 2 8 2 5 2 . 1 1 5 Step 1: The data used to calculate ranges were duplicates. The sample size is n = 2. Step 2: Multiply the average range by 0, for each category. 3.267 x 18.19 = 59.4 3. 151.35 = 494* 5 Step 3: Compare t dividual ranges ag these limits. When C is ranges larger than are suspect. When C is questionable. t ges larger than 494.4 are ­ All of the ranges passed the test. re is no evidence for any of the data. WC t t Now let's consider how t data was not concentrated at t derived from Table 2. Table 10 is ran ed to a in ca'e Of c. Ta and then broken into three cat ego ries . r t ­ * F k Fm­ ­ 247.2 297.6 358.9 342.7 743.6 655.9 893.7 1080.2 529.4 553.3 960.3 1099.7 7 1 4 6 3 . 0 1169.4 12 1356.8 1392.8 10 1415.8 1453.8 1 4 1949.0 1803.1 ! 1 6 1865.4 2247.1 3 2070.3 2219.7 r 2 2240.4 2127.0 Lw 8 2 5 4 9 . 1 2320.8 9 2488.9 2470.3 5 2 3 5 1 . 1 2652.2 L , The rules are applied as before. i I L c t 9vrJ. c 3. a ?.? a 350.80 15.2 272.40 5 ­ 3 . 4 541.35 23.9 699.75 87.7 985.95 185.5 72.94 = k v g Range 1030.00 1316.20 1374.80 1434.80 1 8 7 5 . 0 5 130 139.4 293.6 35.3 3 8 . 0 145.9 58 = &­.. g R a n g e 2056.75 380.7 2145.00 149.4 2183.70 113.4 2434.95 228.3 2479.50 18.6 2501.65 301.1 238.22 = Avg R a n g e Step 1: The data used to calculate ranges were duplicates. The sample size is n = 2. D, = 3.267 Step 2: Multiply the average range by 0, for each category. 3.267 x 72.94 = 238.3 3.267 x 130.58 = 426.6 3.267 x 238.22 = 778.3 Step 3: Compare the individual ranges against these limits category­ by­ category as before. F n i any of the data. . AI1 of the ranges passed the test. There is no evidence for excluding L as an exam n using this If there are gaps in the ranke categories at those points. There i of data will be in each category. ctice we should average C, then break the data into ement that t h e same amount . The extension of this t quads only requires using . . other values of D4. n If we examine only one set or triplicates or quads, then Dixon's­ r procedure is appropriate.' Consider the following sirnultaneo ly data: 22.3 29.4 49.1 28.2 Step 1: Rank the data from smallest to largest: = ( 49­ 1 ­ 29­ 4M49.1 ­ 23­ 8) 23.8 28.2 29.4 49.1 Step 2: Calculat r = 0.779 Table 11 P o 95­ P o . 99­ n 3 0.941 0.988 4 0.765 0.889 5 0 I 642 0.780 Step 3: The sample size n = 4. Step 4: The calculated value r than Po. 95 ( POag5 = 0.765). The evidence suggests that the remainder Of Ihe data* If the calculated value of r exceeds the table value at Po. 99 then the evidence is even stronger. ­­_.­­­ ' Dixon, W. J. and Massey, F. J.; Introduction to StatisticaI Analysis, 3rd Ed.; McGraw­ Hill; 1969. pages 328 ­ 330. ­ p t h F 1 f L . Dixon's­ r is of the form: r = ( Distance between the largest and its nearest neighbor)/( Full Range of the data.) This can be arranged to inquire about the status of a number that is unusually low when compared to the remainder of the data. Examole: 121 179 185 193 r = ( 179 ­ 121)/( 193 ­ 121) = 0.805 This is farger than the table value of r ( 0.765) with n = 4. So the 121 is inconsistent with the remainder of the data. Dixon's­ r cannot be used with n = 2 data. It assumes the data came from a normal distribution. This is a reasonable assumption with simultaneously sampled concentration data. See Table 2 test 9 and Fig. 2. S = 16/ 48 seems to be unusually low. This is also appears as a I small samples ( espe standard deviation to of duplicates s may even be " zero" occasionally. So even though these may seem unusual, they are not. / Iy duplicates and triads) is is very low. In the for the paae 30 A power­ law model was used throughout this report because the data will not support more than two There may be instances in which we will need to entertain other model forms. For example, please draw curve to expr relationship between S and C in Fig. 7. efore proceedi The relationship between S and coordinates. It is reasonable to con model, perhaps S = a i kCP. In S wifl approach a when C = 0. This suggests the does not seem to be linear in LkLn Before we begin setting up the tools to estimat a, k, and p in this extended model, we should work through the 1. Test the data to deter ther the appearance of curvature ( in Ln­ Ln coordinates) is " real" o hance variation data. If the perceived curvatu to random va the data ... and not a syst then attempting to fit thes will be misleading and disapp transforming to t n ­ L n coordinates, of course. he test for curvature after 2. The most direct way to test for curvature is to fit the data to the usual power­ faw model ... Ln( S) = Ln( k) ­ i­ pLn( C) ... then ask whether there is evidence of " lack­ of­ fit". This is easily done by testing to see whether the data will support adding associated with b is larger than the appropriate reference value of the t­ ratio ( as a rule, larger than 21, then there is evidence of curvature; the simple power­ law model is not adequate. If the t­ ratio associated with b is notably smaller than 2, there is no fir evidence of curvature; the power­ law model is adequate; attempting to f t h e data to a more . complex model to account for curvature is pointless and misleading. b[ Ln( C) I2 to the model. If the t­ ratio 3. The purpose of ( 2) above is not to build a completed model. The purpose is to test for the presence of curvature beyond that which is accommodated by the power­ law model. If curvature is detected ( t­ ratio for b is larger than, say, 2), then we may be justified in considering an alternative model. S = a + kCp would be a candidate. F" L F ! U 0 0 P 0 0 T­ O T 0 0 0 0 0 r M p paae 32 This process was followed to make that judgement about these data. AS A S 248.5 7.28 2375.0 58.34 235.5 2.55 1622.0 77.78 147.3 5 ­ 37 234.0 233.5 23.9 24.4 150.4 12.16 . ­ 220.8 . 17.54 146.7 9.69 1281.0 67.18 2189.0 189.29 2071.0 7 9 . 9 2056.0 11.6 1906.0 138.1 18.6 6.48 26. 1.19 . 23. 5.18 32.4 12.06 34.6 3.12 39.6 12.82 45.7 2.96 4 8 . 9 7 . 1 0 In Fig. 8 t h e power­ law mod explained 66.5% of the variation in Ln( S). In Fig. 9 the model was extended by adding a as suggested on page 30. This extended model expla variation in Ln( S). coefficient; this increas in R­ sq does not is important. The t­ ra ratic term is an indication of whether that term is a w to the model. adratic coefficient 69.2% of the R­ sq will always increas when we add another model rove that the quadratic term The t­ ratio for t h e quadratic coefficient is on 3 6 ; far below the reference value of 2.08 ( with we do not have sufficient evi power­ law model S = kCP. What have come from a straight­ line rela This does not mean we have " prove relationship prevails in Ln­ Ln coordin evidence in favor of a more complex justification for adding a quadratic term to little justification for pursuing an alternative model such as S = a + kCP. It is possible t h a t with additional data we may learn that curvature is actually present, and that an extended model form was justified. attempting to build a model more complex than S = kCp is not appropriate with the existing data. ( say, S = a + kCp).­. then the coefficients in that model will be poorly estimated; the confidence intervals on those coefficients will be extremely wide; and we have gained nothing more than t h e satisfaction of explaining a little more of t h e variation in t h e data. But If we pursue this ... if we build an extended model Figure 8 page 33 smm. 2 Dstenninant = 1.0000 mi?. 1 GOING IN VX? IABUS comrcms SE OF am T­ IIATIO T­ CFUT 0.05 & 0.01 = 2.07 & 2.80 0 Intercept 2.77468 1 average conc 0 . 68217 0.10316 6.61 ESSUMSQ S? pDEvOFRES DF R­ SQ 16.02539 0.85348 22 0.6653 <­­­ 66.5% In In Units In Original Units OBSVD PREl RESID STD RES Observed Pr& i. ct& Diff 1.985 2.826 ­ 0.841 ­ 0.99 7.28 16.88 ­ 9.60 0.936 2.789 ­ 1.853 ­ 2.17 1.681 2.469 ­ 0.789 ­ 0.92 5.37 11.82 ­ 6­ 45 3.174 2.784 0.390 0.46 23.90 16.18 7.72 3.195 2.644 0.550 0.64 24.40 14.08 10 . 32 2.498 2.484 0.015 0.02 12.16 If. 98 0.18 2.864 2.746 0.119 0.14 17.54 15.57 1.97 2.271 2.467 ­ 0.196 ­ 0.23 9.69 11.78 ­ 2 . 09 4.207 3.945 0.263 0.31 67.18 51 . 67 15 . 51 5.243 4.310 0.933 1.09 189.29 74.47 114.82 4.381 4.273 0.108 0.13 79.90 71.71 8­ 19 2.451 4.268 ­ 1.817 ­ 2.13 11.60 71.35 ­ 59.7 4.066 4.366 ­ 0.300 ­ 0.35 58.34 78.73 ­ 20.3 4.354 4.106 0.248 0.29 77.78 60.70 17.08 5.4 4.352 1.104 1.29 234.00 77.62 156.38 16 0.712 0.83 138.10 67.76 70.34 1.869 1.058 0.811 0.95 0.174 1.294 ­ 1.120 ­ 1.31 1­ 645 1.312 0.333 0.39 2­ 40 1.436 1.054 1.23 1.138 1.481 ­ 0.343 ­ 0.40 2,551 1.573 0.978 1.15 1.085 1.686 ­ 0.601 ­ 0.70 1.960 1.717 0.243 0.28 2.55 16.27 ­ 13.72** s SQSQ FEicM REQESSION = 16.02539 RES rage &. served = 42.0829 Average Predi Figure 9 page 34 s w m . 3 Determinant = 0.9 WRLABLES S SE OF EEET T­ EAT10 = 2* 08 6r 2* 82 0 Intercept 1 average conc 6.39 2 quadratic 0.08073 1.36 <­­­ 14.12537 0.83738 21 0.6924 69.2% ­ . . ­ 66.5% . = 2.7% _ . RESSUJSQ STDDEVOFWS DF R­ SQ Note Ln( S) = 2.461 + 0.657*( Ln( C) ­ 5.44) + O. ll*( Ln( C) ­ 5.44)­ sq 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 In Ln U n i t s In Original Units OBSVD PPED RESID STDRES Observed Predicted D i f f 1.985 2.511 ­ 0.526 ­ 0.63 7.28 12.32 ­ 5.04 1.681 2. ­ 0.508 ­ 0.61 5.37 8.93 ­ 3.56 3.174 2.470 0. 23.90 11.82 12 . 08 24.40 10.38 14.02 12.16 9.03 3.13 2.864 2.433 0 17.54 11.. 40 6.14 2.271 2.187 0 9.69 8.91 0 ­ 78 4.207 3.912 0.295 0.35 67 . 18 50.01 17.17 5.243 4,498 0.745 0. 189.29 89.83 99.46 4.381 4.434 ­ 79.90 84.31 ­ 4 . 41 2.451 4.426 ­ 11.60 83.61 ­ 72.01** ~ 4.066 4.593 ­ 58.34 98.76 ­ 40 . 42 4.354 4.162 77* 78 64.23 13.55 5.455 4.568 0.887 1.06 234.00 96.38 137.62 4.928 4.341 0. 0.70 138.10 76.75 61.35 1.869 1.503 0. 6.48 4.50 1.98 1.645 1.557 0. 5.18 4.75 0.43 2.490 1,595 0.895 1.07 12 . 06 4.93 7.13 1.138 1.610 ­ 0.472 ­ 0.56 3.12 5.00 ­ 1.88 2.551 1.645 0.906 1.08 12.82 5.18 7.64 1.085 1.692 ­ 0.607 ­ 0.72 2.96 5.43 ­ 2.47 1.960 1.706 0 5­ 51 1.59 0.936 2.476 ­ 1.539 ­ 1.84 2.55 11.89 ­ 9 . 34 0.174 1.552 ­ 1. 1.19 4.72 ­ 3 . 53 EES SmSQ rn REGRESSION Average Cbserved = 42,0829 D I E C T = 14.72535 Average Predicted = 32.0234 lxLaa5 The foregoing data can be fit directly to a model of the form S = a + kCP using t h e following technique. Set p to a constant ( say, 0.6) and fit S = a + kC0.6. Since this model is linear in the coefficients a and k, ordinary least squares methods can be used to estimate those coefficients. Repeat this process for p = 0.8, 1.0, etc. When this is done: 0 a k Resi& zl Sum S a 0.6 ­ 10.27 1.24 40.52 0.8 ­ 1.61 0.25 39.96 1.0 2.95 0.053 39.66 1.2 5.60 0.012 39­ 50 1.4 7.26 0.0024 39.43 1.6 8.39 0.00052 39.41 The coefficient a is an estimate of ( r when C = 0. Negative values of a imply that CT becomes negative as the average concentration approaches zero. So p c 1 is certainly not acceptable. The residual SUM of squares ... a direct measure of how well a model explains the variation in S, is insensitive to the least squares combinations of a, k, and p. The estimates o f all three coefficients are highly correlated. minimizes the r er. This m very wide. This will happen when the data is not cap There is no unique combination of coefficients ` that ual sum of squares; one combination is as good as any that the confidence intervals on the model coefficients of accurately able situation estimating the coefficients in the residual s u m of squares I{ have a " sharp" well­ defined minimum. The underlying chemistry or physics may suggest that G converges to a iimit greater than zero; Fig. 7 suggests this. What harm is done by fitting the S vs. C data to a model ... viz., S = a + kC p... that supports this theory about the lower bound on o? That depends on t h e definition of harm. The prior analysis showed there is insufficient evidence to support " curvature" in Ln­ Ln coordinates. If an alternative model is used to claim that t h e data follows a certain theory, when in fact the model coefficient that wouJd support that theory is not supported by the data, then that is a poorly founded claim. The resolution to this is to g. et data . that wilt rr properly test theory; in this instance, iet data at very low levels of C. In any event, confidence intervals on a, k, and p should be repofied. , h­ np paae 36 The Performance of t h e ReMAP Process The ReMAP process i ing relationships between estimates of sigm degrees of freedo derived from small samples process can be found in text statistical procedure. It is ther the ReMAP. process perform Monte Carlo simulati ReMAP process. By perfu intervals on sigma encu verify that statements interval has encompassed sigma" are accurate. The simulations are comprised of the following s I . Generate data that lese bles actual data. The model used to models cited in the were clustered near .2* Co. 8 This resembles simulated data tions they were scattered d we mean the data and in another band to generate the random normal deviates 3. Steps 1 ­ 2. were repeated ( say) 20 times to generate 20 sets of simultaneous samples, each comprised of a pair ( N = 2) of 4. The sample average and sample standard deviation S were calculated for each pair of data. of S was m by the small sample correction factor 1.253 to obtain un estimates of sigma. L­ paae 37 of the form Ln( S) = Ln( K) + p'Ln( C). This equation was used to predict Ln( S) for each of the 20 combinations. 5. The ( sample average, S)­ combinations were used to build a model ­ I­ ­ r b. 2 Estimates of 1 Ln( S) were converted to estimates of S by Exp( Ln( S)). L A a. 6. As in the ReMAP process, the ratio of the average of the observed vatues of S to the average of the predicted values of S was used to calculate the bias correction factor, BCF. 7. 95% confidence intervals were calculated in terms of Ln( Sj and 8. The predicted values of Ln( S) and the intervals OR Ln( S) were ' r­ kJ F­= i c i L intervals on Ln{ S). irrm I ienr to estimates of sigma and the confidence intervals on ugh Exp( Ln( S)). The completed prediction equation is of / bR14 bur t h e form Est Sigma = BCF'kCP. $"" 9. This equation ... the line of regression ... was traversed in small steps along t h e entire length of the line ( from C = 500 to C = 5000. The upper and lower confidence limits were calculated The frequency with which those intervals the true values of Sigma ( the true values of sigma m Sigma = 0.2' co.*) was recorded. L P r kn­ n 8. This entire process from Step 1 through Step 9 was repeated The foregoi imulates getting 10,000 complete sets of ReMAP data; fitting those vto the model Ln( S) = Ln( K) + p* Ln( C); applying the L+ appropriate bias correction factors; and ( because we know the true value of Sigma in these simulations) observing bow frequently the population of confidence intervals actually encompass the true values of sigma. .. ­ . ­ ... """" 10,000 times; in some instances 30,000 times. L UIIY The simulations also provided information about biases in I estimating sigma usi the ReMAP process. The bias... 100'( Est Sigma ­ S a)/ Sigma.., ranged from ­ 0.1% at low levels of C ( hence low values of sigma) to + 1.1% at high levels of C ( high levels of Y" S sigma). This means that hen the estimated value of sigma is, for example, 10, the true of sigma could be as low as 9.89. Using the * same examp vel of concentration, the true value of sigma l__ y could be 10. P L e This bias is trivial when compared to other considerations such as the the confidence intervals on sigma. I *_ Y ~­ ~~ ~ ­ ­~ C~ ­ oaae38 To verify the software of this software was written generating data from the Y = 60 + 0.3' X was use fitting the data to the m to a model of t h e form Y = ? he usual 95% confi value of Y in the mann d for these simulations, an identical copy h the following changes. Instead of ... these data were fit the 95% confiden designed to perform; an for simulating the ReMA 3 that purpose, between 97% a encompassed the true values o " 95% confidence intervals" act the frequency of capturing data; simulations were run z I; u 97% of the intervals calculat the frequency of capture is prese ReMAP process. Simulations were run to understand t r, The magnitude of this increase Lui i 1 compared to 95%) depends up0 When we have two simultaneous sarn 97% ­ 98% intervals. Whe " 95% intervals" are actual1 produce a distribution of S that is hig will produce a distribution of S that i cause of intervals t h a t are somewhat broader t h a n expected. paae 39 No real harm has been done by this small deviation from expected. it just means that we should remember that what we are calling 95% intervals are closer to 97% ­ 98% intervals. Our probabifity of capturing sigma with these intervals is a little higher than anticipated, In the foregoing discussion we have described the performance of the ReMAP process in terms of individual confidence intervals. These intervals are calculated and presented throughout this report. This means that when we estimate a confidence interval at a point along the scale of C, we can declare that " 95% of the intervals calculated in this manner value of sigma. ( We know it's really 97% ­ 98%, but is discussion we'll skip that detail.) This also means n the scale of C) " the probability that this confidence sigma is 95%". S there is a probability that sigma is a litt larger than the calcu ller than the calcufated lower limit. In ity of " about 1% in each tail." limit, or a littl reduces to a There is another concept that should be considered. This is the concept of a confidence interval on a line as a whole. These intervals are concerned with probability that a confidence interval captures the true values of sigma at every point along a line, ( over t h e range of the tated as " the probability is X% that this confidence the true values of sigma at all points alo e intervals that f capture sigma. In this n is directed to the frequency at which sig d of the line to the other, rather than at i Thus the frequ captured", not in terms of individual scale of c u m on. This is also th of capturing is in terms of " lines ts captured. Capturing the entire line ( the line is Sigma = 0.2` Co. 8) as opposed line is a rather stringent requirement. In this report the cited confidence intervals intervals, or points on the line, not whole line statement " 95% of the intervals calculated in sigma" means 95% of the individual intervals. interpretation of confidence intervals. to individual points on the are in terms of individual intervals. Thus the this manner will encompass This is the usual For more information concerning whole line confidence intervals, see Natrella, M. G.; Experimental Statistics; National Bureau of Standards Handbook 91; August 7963; pages 5­ 15 and 5­ 16., paae 40 Simulations with the model Y = 60 + 0.3' X ( with the usual confidence interval reporting 95% ind confidence intervals our 95% confiden s of the mean of Y at . every point along t h e entir at when we are equivalent to 86% obability is 86% that Simulations of the ReM with the model ) show that the fr wal is 91% ­ 92%. Th ct that individual ot 95%. Thus in the y is about 91% ­ 92% t true values of sigma ai the line. This c Remember, in the context of a whoie line " failure to capture the indeed. The P nfidence interval, a would be counted as a t al confidence interv uch that the tr wals. This is ' The precise outcomes from these simulations are dependent on several factors: 7 1. The constants k and p in the underlying model Sig i 1 ­ 2. The amount of data in the simultaneous samples. 3. The number of samples us to build the models. 4. The points at which predic n t h e scale of C. 6 ! LJ L This proprietary simulation software can be modified to study specific situations in more detail. paae 41 What If There Is No Relationshb Betwe en Est cs a nd Co ncen tration ? If the t­ ratio associated with p is trivial ( notably less than 2) then we have failed to detect a relationship between Est CY and C. This dues not mean there is no relationship; it only means that whatever relationship there may be, it was not detected in this set of data. Our ability to detect such a relationship is influenced by the range over which the concentration w varied. If the data span a narrow range ( viz., only about one decade, or a factor of 10) the dispersion in the values of S may be too small to detect the actual change in 0. If the data are badly distributed along the scale of C... for instance, concentrated near the centroid instead of near the ends of the scale ... our ability to establish the relationship between 0 and C may be degraded. Thus our inability to establish a relationship may simply be due to data that are poorly distributed on the scale of concentration. The inherent variation among individual values of S, cannot be Attempting to establish a overcome unless we have sufficient data. relationship between G and C with insufficient data spread over narrow ranges virtualty insures that the t­ ratio for p will be low; so low, in fact, that we may not detect the presence of a relationship much less establish the nature of it. Any of the foregoing factors, or combinations of those factors, can be responsible for a failure to detect a relationship between cr and C. It. cannot be overemphasized that a " failure to detect" does not imply there is no relationship. data spread over a wide range of concentrations. Rather, it implies that we did not have sufficient If the t­ ratio for p is low ( notably smaller than 2) then we may decide to take the following position. Since we have not established a hip, then we may deciare that G is a constant. This is equivalent ring that the individual vafues of S effectively came from one ommon source whose true standard deviation is G, Under this practice we coutd ... if we elect to do so .... simply pool the individual values of S and use that as the estimate of G. When doing this, it is appropriate to use the factors in Table 1 to calculate confidence bounds an 0. L paae 42 The ITEQ data ( Table 12 of the main body of this report) will be used to illustrate this practice. The reported as 0.0457, 0.001 2, ... of these provides a 1 df estirn sum and divide by 2 Variance = 0.00071 2. deviation; pooled S = 1.40 ( interpolated in 0.0207 and 0.0374;­ equivalent to drawi limits are re1 uncertainly in estimating the slope, 1 i Pooling is not the same as averaging standard deviations ­ The small­ sample bias correction factor is not needed when pooling if the number of pooled degrees of freedom is greater than 10. Llau. 3 Recommendations Although the variation in simultaneocsly sampled data causes uncertainly in the relationship between G and C, the width of the confidence intervals on G can be minimized by acquiring data at well­ chosen points along the scale of C. In planning for future data ... anticipating a model of the form Est ci = kCP ... about one­ half of the data " high" level of each pollutant. t h e t­ ratio on the power coefficient, and minimize the width of the confidence intervals on ( r for a given amount of data. Id be collected at a " low" level and one­ half should be collected at a This will minimize SE( coeff), maximize if there is interest in pursuing alternative models, then the For every coefficient in the model used to following rules apply. associate 0 with C, data should be Concentrated at a point along the scale of C. This means that for a model with two estimated coefficients ( viz., Est CT = kCP) the experimental data should be concentrated at two points' on the scale of C, as in Table 5 and Fig. 5. For a model of the form Est CT = a + kCP the data should be concentrated at three distinct points' on the scale of C. If the data are poorly dispersed, as in Table 2 and Fig. 2 then the SE( Coeffs) will be large and the confidence intervals on estimates of Est 0 may be wide. Attempting to estimate three model coefficients from poorly dispersed data can only lead to confusion. There is no justification for using models more complex than Est ci = kCp with the ReMAP data at this time. Within this report there is sufficient information to allow u s to estimate the amount of data needed and the best positioning of that data on the scale of C so as to reduce the confidence intervals on 0 to pre­ specified widths. AIthoug h these calculations could be done analytically, it is better to do them with Monte Carlo simulations because of the complexity introduced by the bias corrections. Moreover, with simulations we can quickly explore " what if cases" before investing in additional data, A further advantage of Monte Carlo is that it makes the underlying models ( and the assumptions) completely visible and unambiguous as compared to analytical methods that require in­ depth knowledge of statistical methods. * Data should be concentrated at additional points on the scale of C in order to test for lack­ of­ fit.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.930628

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0043

Supporting & Related Material

N RESEARCH GROUP. I N C . MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: June 12.2002 SUBJECT: Walt Stevenson, Ef AlCombustion Group Jason Huckaby. Eastern Research Group. Inc 2000 National Inventory of Large Municipal Waste Combustion ( MWC) Units This memorandum presents a year 2000 national inventory of large municipal waste combustion ( MWC) units. This inventory is an update of the earlier 1995 inventory of large MWCs'. This 2000 inventory represents MWC units that are affected by the Subpart Cb emission guidelines for large MWC units'. The Subpart Cb emission guideIines were adopted 1995, States where large MWCs are located were required under Secti AA) to adopt and implement a State plan that assures dl large MWC units in the State are in compliance with the emission guidelines by December 19? 2000. Many States CFR part 62. EPA adopted a Federal plan to assure compliance or large MWC units not covered by an approved State plan,' In this inventory and Subpa WC unit is defined as an MWC unit with a municipal solid waste ( MSW) combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day. This 2000 nationd inventory is based on updated data submitted by Iarge* MWC units following maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) compliance in December 2 creating the 2000 inventory. the previous large MWC database was updated induding changes to reflect MWC plant ciosings. combustor type. combustion unit capacity. and air pol device used % I yep 2000 to comply with MACT requirements. Table A­ 1 provides s u m m q information for each MWC rype. In 2000. the large MWC category contains I67 units distributed into two groups of combustion unit types as follows: 133 mass burn units and 34 refuse­ derived he1 units. Table A­ 2 shows the change that has w e d in the large MWC population since 1995. kamUC~\ DISJ\ I 1\ 07W01 Large MWCUniu­ memo wpd I Table B presents the MWC­ s for year 2000 for this large national inventory. This includes: plant lo plant. large MWC unit capacity, 1 construction date, and start­ up date. located at 66 MWC plants with a total Compared to the 1995 Iarge MWC n number of large MWC units ( from 1 ( from 63 to 66 plants), and a I perce MWCunits. air pollution control equipment, operating capacity of 89,477 tons per day MSW. ( from 88,652 to 89 By location, the States with th ( 1 8 units), and Pennsylvania ( 1 6 uni EPA regions with the most Iarge M and Region I ( 31 units) 4. Massachusetts ( 6 units). On a regional basis, * e Region 4 ( 39 units), Region 3 ( 33 units), Attachment I provides a list of acrony References I. Memorandum from Lauri Stevenson, EPA. " Large July 7, 1997. ( Docket A­ 90­ 4 1Ieen h e , Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Walt WC Inventory Database." 2. Emission Guidelin ustion Unirs Consirwed o Cb or 60 FR 65415. December 19 1 ­ I 3. Federal Plan Requireme he fore Sepiernber 20, I9 See Am@ ment 2 for E 4. Table A­ 1: Summary of Table A­ 2: Summary of the National Inventory of Large MWC Units for years 1995 and 2000 3 I I. . . ... . A 0154.1 11072001 Large MWCUnrts­ memo wpd 5 I; ' 0154ii 1\ 07' 2001 Large MWC Units­ mano wpd 6 ­ CI ­ DSI = EA = ESP = FB FF ­ MB = MOD = MSW = MWC = ­ RC = RDF = REF = SA = SD = SNCR = TPD = ws = ww = List of Acronyms Used in Table B carbon injection ( activated carbon) dry sorbent injection excess­ air electrostatic precipitator fluidized bed fabric filter ( baghouse) mass bum modular combustion municipal solid waste municipal waste combustor rotary combustor refuse­ derived he1 refiactory­ walled combustor starved­ air spray dryer ( semi­ dry scrubber) selective non­ cataiytic reduction tons per day wet scrubber waterwail . \ Map of EPA Regions ( available electronidly at http:// www. epa. gov/ epahome/ wiiereyoulive. htm) r EPA: pVChere You Live 9 * Each EPA Regional Off ice is responsible within its states for the execution of the Agency's programs. Select a region by cli the area of the map covered by the region, or use the links located below the map to go directly to a region. I 7 ... cihet Rcgron 9 YZCS 0 Amorrcan Samoa m Trust Territories e Commonwealth of th. Northern M a r h a hbnd. ... other Regcon 2 Y~ CS Reaion 7 ­ responsible within the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts. New Hampshire. Rhode Island. and Vermont. Region 2 ­ responsible within the states of New Jersey. New York, Puerto Rico and lhe U. S. Virgin islands. Reaion 3 ­ responsible within the states of Delaware. Maryland. Pennsylvanla. Virginia, West Virginia. and the District of Columbia. ReQion 4 ­ responsible within the states of Alabama. Florida. Georgia. Kentucky. Mississippi. North Carolina. South Caroitna. and Tennessee. Reaion 5 ­ responsible within the states of liilnois. fnalana, Mtchlgan. Minnesotz, Ohio. and Wisconsin. Reaion 6 ­ responsible within the states of ArKansas. Louisiana. New Mexico. Oklahoma. ana Texas. Reaion 7 ­ responsible within the states of Iowa. Kansas, Missourr. and Nebraska. Reaion 8 ­ responsible within the states of Colorado, Montana. North Dakota. South Dakota. Utah. and Wyoming. Region 9 ­ responsibie within the states of Arizona, California. Hawaii. Nevada. and the terntortes of Guam and American Samoa. http:// wWw . epa. gov/ epahome/ wherey oui i ve. htm 7/ 2/ 02 ~ ~~ EPA: , Where You Live Reaion 10 ­ responsible within the states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon. and Washington, U 1 http:// www. epa. gov/ epahome/ whereyoulive. htm 7/ 2/ 02 , EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP, INC. Vlll­ B­ 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Walt Stevenson, EPNCombustion Group FROM: Jason Huckaby, Eastern Research Group, Inc DATE: June 12,2002 A­ 90­ 45 SUBJECT: 2000 National Inventory of Large Municipal Waste Combustion ( n/ iwC) Units This memorandum presents a year 2000 national inventory of large municipal waste combustion ( MWC) units. This inventory is an update of the earlier 1995 inventory of large MWCsl. This 2000 inventory represents MWC units that are affected by the Subpart Cb emission guidelines for large MWC units2. The Subpart Cb emission guidelines were adopted December 19, 1995. States where large MWCs are located were required under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) to adopt and implement a State plan that assures all large MWC units in the State are in complidce with the emission guidelines by December 19,2000. Many States adopted State plans, as listed in 40 CFR part 62. EPA adopted a Federal plan to assure compliance for large MWC units not covered by an approved State p h 3 In this inventory and MWC unit is defined as an MWC unit with a municipal solid waste ( MSW) ty greater than 250 tons per day. This 2000 national inventory is based on updated data submitted by large MWC units / following maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) compliance in December 2000. In creating the 2000 inventory, the previous large MWC database was updated including changes to closings, combustor type, combustion unit capacity, and air pollution control 2000 to comply with MACT requirements. rovides summary information for each MWC type. In 2000, the large MWC 67 units distributed into two groups of combustion unit types as follows: 133 mass burn units and 34 refuse­ derived fuel units. Table A­ 2 shows the change that has occurred in the large MWC population since 1995. Table B presents the MWC­ specific data for year 2000 for this large MWC unit national inventory. This includes: plant location, plant capacity, number of large MWC units at each plant, large MWC unit capacity, large MWC unit type, air pollution control equipment, and start­ up date. There are 167 large MWC units in the 2000 inventory C plants with a total natiqnal operating capacity of 89,477 tons per day MSW. Compared to the 1995 large MWC national inventory1, t b s shows a 2 percent increase in the number of large MWC d t s ( from 164 to 167), a 5 percent increase in the number of plants ( from 63 to 66 plants), and a 1 percent increase in capacity ( from 88,652 to 89,477 tpd) for large MWC units. By location, the States with the most large MWC units are Florida ( 29 units), New York ( 1 8 units), and Pennsylvania ( 16 units), and Massachusetts ( 6 units). On a regional basis, the EPA regions with the most large MWC units are EPA Region 4 ( 39 units), Region 3 ( 33 units), ides a list of acronyms used in Table B. I morandum from Laurie Cone and Colleen Kane, Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Walt Stevenson, EPA. " Large and Small MWC Units in the 1995 MWC Inventory Database." July 7, 1997. ( Docket A­ 90­ 45; Item VI­ B­ 2). 2. Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed on or Before September 20, 1994. 40 CFR part 60, Subpart Cb or 60 FR 65415. December 19,1995. 3. Federal Plan Requirements for Large Municipal Waste Combustors Constructed on or before September 20,1994. 40 CFR part 62, Subpart FFF. 4. See Attachment 2 for EPA Region Listing. * ­ * e Large MWC Unit Type Mass burn Refuse­ derived fuel Total : Table A­ 1: Summary of the National Inventory of Large MWC Units for year 2000 ( Distributed into types of large MWC units) Number of Large Number of Capacity ( tpd) Percent MWC Plants Large MWC Capacity Units of Total 53 133 67,968. 76% 13 34 21,509 24% 66 167 89,477 ­ I Year Number of Large RlwC Number of Large MWC Capacity ( tpd) Plants Units I I Mass burn includes mass burn­ water wall, mass burn­ refkactory, and mass burn­ rotating combustion units. Refuse­ derived fuel includes all combustion units that combust refuse­ derived fuel. 1995 2000 Table A­ 2: Summary of the National Inventory of Large MWC Units for years 1995 and 2000 63 164 88,652 66 167 89,477 I I i .­ e* m 4 n I E I I I I E E I == I­ 00 03 N / E I I 2 ATTACHMENT 1 List of Acronyms Used in Table B CI = carbon injection ( activated carbon) DSI = dry sorbent injection EA = excess­ air ESP = electrostatic precipitator FB = fluidizedbed FF = fabric filter ( baghouse) MB = massburn MOD = modular combustion MSW = municipal solid waste MWC = municipal waste combustor RC = rotarycombustor RDF = refuse­ derived fuel REF = refi­ actory­ walled combustor SA = starved­ air = spray dryeEQemi­ dry scrubber) SNCR = selective non­ catalytic reduction TPD = tonsper day WS = wet scrubber WW = watenvall ATTACHMENT 2 Map of EPA Regions ( available electronically at http:// wyw. epa. gov/ epahome/ whereyoulive. htm) ~

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.977055

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0044

Supporting & Related Material

' 1 K, n EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP. INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Walt Stevenson, EPNCombustion Group FROM: Jason M. Huckaby, Eastern Research Group DATE: June 17,2002 m­ D­ 3 SUBJECT: National Emission Trends for Large Municipal Waste Combustion Units [ Years 1990 to 20051 1.0 BACKGROUND The purpose of this memorandum is to present national emission trends for large Municipal Waste Combustor ( EVIWC) units. Emission trends for large MWC units are presented for dioxdhrans, cadmium ( Cd), lead ( Pb), mercury ( Hg), particulate matter ( PM), hydrochloric acid ( HCl), sulfur dioxide ( S02), and nitrogen oxides ( NO,). In this memorandum, large MWCs are those with a combustion capacity greater than 250 tons per day. These MWCs are regulated under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. The enission trends are presented for the period between 1990 and 2005. The Clean Air Act ( CAA) required maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) retrofits at all large MWC units by December 2000. Table 1 presents a summaiy of emissions for large MWCs for year 1990 ( pre­ MACT) and 2000 ( post­ MACT). Substantial emission reductions were achieved. A separate memorandum presents emission trends for small L W C units regulated under 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB ( 35 to 250 tons per day capacity). This memorandum for large MWCs replaces the 1999 national emission trend memorandurn' for large IvEVCs. The updated PJIVVC emissions estimates for large MWC units contained in this memorandum were prepared using updated emission factors and volumetric flow data based on recent MWC testing and MWC operating data. This information is discussed below under Section 2.0 ( Results), Section 3.0 ( Calculations) and Section 4.0 ( References). C:\ SmallMWCUnventory\ LargelJnits\ LMWCemissians6ZO. wpd 1 Table 1. Emissions for Large MWC Units for Year 1990 and 2000 Pollutant Percent Emission 1990 Emissions 2000 Emissions Reduction ( tons per year) ( tons per year) Achieved The dioxin emissions are presented on a g/ yr, toxic equivalent quantity ( TEQ) basis, all other emksion reductions in TPY.' TEQ dioxin emissions are based on 1989 NATO Toxic Equivalency Factors. g/ yr = gram per year TPY = tons per year 2.0 RESULTS Emissions estimates for large MWCs were prepared for years 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2000, and 2005. Emissions varied with time as MWC's completed retrofits or elected to close rather than retrofit. The compliance dates used in the emission estimates reflect actual retrofit dates and include staggered retrofit dates for MWC facilities with multiple MWC units, where appropriate. Inventories of NIWC units were obtained from existing inventory memoranda and updated with recent information on RlWC unit closures and air pollution control device ( APCD) retrofits. I From the updated inventory of MWC units, a database of large MWC units was developed for the years of 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999,2000, and 2005. The MWC population varies with time as older MWC units closed and new MWC units opened. For year 2000, a companion large MWC inventory has been prepared to document the final large MWC population and APCD application following MACT retrofits. 2 A summary of the updated inventory for large MWC units and total MWG capacity is presented in table 2. A graphical representation of capacity for large MWC units is shown in figure 1. The emissions projections for year 2005 assume the number and total capacity of MWC units would be the same as in 2000. C:\ S~ mallMWC\ hventory\ Ly\~ slrgeUnits\ LMWCemid 2 Table 2. Summary of the number of Large MWC Facilities, Units, and Total Combustion Capacity Year Total Combustion Number of Large Number of Large Capacity MWC Units ( tons per day) MWC Facilities Using this new large NlWC inventory, emissions were calculated for eight section 129 pollutants using updated emission factors, volumetric flow rate, capacity and AP­ 42 type emission factors. A limited amount of stack test data was also used. The updated emission estimates for the eight pollutants for the years 4990, 1993, 1996, 1999,2000, and 2005 are presented in table 3. Table 3. Summary of Emissions Estimates from Large MWC Units Dioxin/ Dioxin/ Furan. Furall, total TEQ' mass Cd Pb Hg PM IC1 so2 Year ( g/ yr) ( dyr) ( TPY) ( TPY) ( TPY) ( TPY) ( TPY) (` IPY) Equivalency Factors. gfyr = grams per year TPY = tons pes year C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventory\ LargeUnits\ LM WCemissions620. wpd 3 50,600 1 * r k E. A graphical representation of the pollutant emissions data for the above years is shown in figures 2 through 18. These emissions estimates include only large MWC units ( greater than 258 tons per day). These emissions trends show that substantial reductions in large MWC unit emissions have occurred since 1990. These emission reductions are a result of ( 1) retrofit of APCD on existing MWC units, ( 2) retirement of several existing MWC units, and ( 3) special actions, most notably EPA's dioxin initiative and the voluntary mercury reduction by battery manufacturers 3.0 CALCULATIONS Nationd MWC emissions are a function of three variables: ( I) MWC unit inventory, ( 2 ) emission factors, and ( 3) APCD retrofit or closure schedule. The updated large MWC inventory is presented in attachment 1. Updated emission factors were developed for the most common MCDkombustor combinations using the average performance determined from the test data Rom the large MWCs retrofits. This information was supplemented with AP­ 42 emission factors for less common AKBlcombustor combination^.^ A limited amount of test data was also used. See attachment 2 for a listing of emission factors used. See table 4 for identification of MWCs where test data was used. To determine annual national emissions for each pollutant, emissions were calculated for each individual h4WC unit. The emissions from individual units were then summed to give a national emission rate. The calculation of individual MWC unit emissions was conducted using plant­ specific information such as rated unit capacity, unit capacity factor, type of combustor, and type of APCD. Emission concentrations, flow rate data, and capacity factor representative of typical emissions was used for the emission calculations. Table 4 lists the large MWC where test data were used ira the calculations. The following equation was used to convert pollutant stack concentrations to tons per year ( TPU) emitted: PE= C* V* T* CF* 365 * I. 1 C: 1Srna~ WC\ Znventory\ LargeUnits~ MWCem~ s~ ons620. wpd 4 4 i. t E Where: PE = Pollutant emission rate ( TPY); C = Flue gas concentration factor ( Mg/ dscm @ 7% 02); V T = MWC unit capacity ( tondday); CF = Capacity factor ( dimensionless); = Volumetric flow factor ( dscm 0 7% 02/ ton of waste fired); 365 aaysiyr; and 1.1 tQlXdbfg. Table 4. Large MWC Units with Test Data ­ Based Emission Estimates Facility Name 1 State I Unit Number ll Adkondack RRF NY 1 Adkondack RRF NY 2 C:\ SinallMWC\ lnventory~ r~~ Units\ LM WCemissionsG20, wpd 5 P x I Relative to the 1999 estimates, these updated estimates have been prepared talking advantage of the new information on volumetric flowrate and annual capacity factors available from the data survey of the MACT retrofits at 167 large MWCS.~ The volumetric flow factor ( V) for rehse­ derived fuel ( IRDF) units was updated to 5,026 dry standard cubic meter per ton ( ~ s c ~ t ~ ~ ) MSW combusted, based on a W­ squared analysis of MACT compliance test d a k 4 Lkewise, the volumetric flow factor ( V) for non­ RP> F units was updated to 4,299 dscdton MSW combusted. Based on the same MACT compliance test data, the capacity factor for all units was updated to 0.86 ( 86%) based on a R­ squared analysis. A companion analysis is available that documents the actual large MWC emissions for year 2000 using year 2000 MACT stack test compliance data. 5 Those data agree very well with the year 2000 estimates contained in this trends memo ( see table 5). i Table 5. Comparison of Actual Versus Estimated Large MWC Emissions for 2080 Actual 2000 emissions based on individual large MWC stack test compliance data ( Reference 5). I, Estimated from emissions developed following procedures in this memorandum ( see table 3). I 4. REFERENCES I 1. Memorandum from B. Nelson, Eastern Research Group, Inc, to Walt Stevenson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of the National Emission Estimates for Municipal Waste Combustion Units. A­ 90­ 45: VIII­ B­ 1. September 30, 1999. Memorandum from J. Huckaby, Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Walt Stevenson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 200 1 National Inventory of Large Municipal Waste Combustion ( WnWC) Units. A­ 90­ 45: VIII­ B­ 6. June 17, 2002. I . 2. I 3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors AP­ 42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. February 1996. C:\ SmallMWC\ Inven~ o~ L~ geU~ 1its\ LMWCemi20 wpd 6 4. Memorandum from Can Kuterdem and Bradley Nelson, Alpha­ Gamma Technologies, Inc. to Walt Stevenson, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Perfonnance/ Test Data for Large Municipal Waste Combustors at MACT Compliance ( year 2000 data). A­ 90­ 45; VIII­ B­ 4. June 18,2002. 5. Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, Alpha­ Gamma Technologies, Inc. to Walt Stevenson, U. S I Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions from Large Municipal Waste Combustor Units ( MWGs) Following MACT Retrofit ( Year 2000 Test Data). A­ 90­ 45; vm­ B­ 3. June 19, 2002. I C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventa~~ a~ geUn1ts\ LMWCerms~ 1ans620 wpd 7 Q) m 4 b Y­ o i i L I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 0 0 I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In ­ 4­ 63 ( v T­ 0, 9 0­ 0 0­ o_ 0­ 0­ 0­ 9 z co b a T­ 1 r ­ x Q vd CS m .­ ­­__* I I1 I 1 9 cu ­ P­ "! c3 ­ P­ Lo I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m c3 N cu 0 0 0 Lo_ d­ d­ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0­ Lo! 0­ Lo_ 0­ *­ e. Lo 9 C:\ SmallMWCUnventor~ argeUNts\ LMWCemissions6ZO.~ pd ho 0 0 cu 0 0 0 cv a 0, 0, T­ i P b a cv " E b­ I 7 tc I I I I I I U t i l 0 2 I ! I I I Lo 0 0 cu 0 0 0 cu t s I I I I I I I I I I J 0 0 0 0 9 Lo 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Lo 9 x cu 2 0 9 T­ T 9 x m 2 Tj d c I I I I I Y I I I I ­­­ J I. I E I I I I ­ _ c m ­ 3 2 I I I 1 I 0 0 0 0 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 m cu cu 7 0 m 1 0 0 0 9 9 0 Ln Lo ­ 3 ­ 3 R ­ 8 : 0 9 9 0 o > : : 8 13 C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventory\ LargeUnits\ LMWCemid v) c a . c, n­ Y E 0 0 m F 14 C:\ SmallMWC\ Xnventory\ LargeUnits\ LMWCemi. wpd * L ­­*­ ­_ I*"­,"­ I I I % w 3 23) L .­ n a 0 T­ O a a ­ 15 C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventory\ LargeUnitsUMWCe~ ssions62O.~ d i Y I Q) tn 9 F N 6) 0 m m, ! I Lo m 0 m k I I LD 0 0 cu 0 0 0 c\ 1 I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0­ 0­ Lo 0 Lo c3 cu cu m I I I i 0 0 0 0 0 0 u3 0 Lo 0­ 9 0­ T­ 7 8 16 C.\ SmallMWC\ Inventory~ geUnits\ LMWCemis. wpd 0 2 iz P 3 02 I I 17 C:\ SmallMWCUnventoryUa1geUNt~ WWCe~ ssions6~. wpd L 19 C : \ S m a l l M W C \ I n v e n t o r y ~ g e U n i t s \ L M W C e d 9 4­ 3 . R 5 0 0 I ­ Tt m P i Q 0 0 N L( 0 cw cd u d E 0 I ­ 4 * 73 21 C:\ SmallMWC\ lnventory\ LargeUnits\ LMWCemi wpd b u .3 U W 22 C:\ SmallM'WC\ Invento~~ geU~ ts~ MWCe~ ssions62O.~ d t 24 C:\ SmalliMWC\ Invento~ y~ geUnits\ LhaWCe~ ssio~ s~ 2O.~ d i C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventory~ geUnits\ LMWCemissions62O.~ pd 25 26 C:\ SmallMWC\ Inventory\ LargeUnits\ LMWCemid 1 i 4 27 C:\ SmallhlWC\ I1~ ventory\ LargeUnits\ LhlWCe~ ssions6ZO.~ pd 28 C : \ S m ~ l M W C \ I n v e n t o ~ y ~ ~ ~ U N t s \ L M W C e m d 1p 0 Y 29 U 30 C:\ SmallM WC\~ ventoiy\ LargeUnits\ LMWCemissions62O.~ d

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.980710

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0045

Supporting & Related Material

rp B N 8 TI e, ul N 0, m 1 2 0 0 0 0 m h . T i m iG s N ­ n la P 0, m I ? x 0 0 0 0 In : 0 m a 00 ? ( D 0 F m m 4 . rJ 0 N V u1 . I La P 1 0 0 0 0 2 _ I TI u1 8 ) 4 m I 2 0 0 0 0 ; v) 5 Q ( D a 1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.983589

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0046

Supporting & Related Material

ALPHA­ GAMMA T E C H N O L O G I E S , 1 N C . A­ 70­ 4 5 ­ 2 F B ­ y MEMORANDC'M DATE: March 22, 2002 i i arge Municipal SUBJECT: Summary of Equations used to Calcu i Waste Combustion Units Following MACT Retrofit ( Test Data) FROM: Bradley Nelson Alpha­ Gama Technologies, Inc. TO: ' Wait Stevenson, EPNCombustion Group The purpose of this memorandum is to present the equations used to calculate the annual pollutant emissions from large Municipal Waste Combustor ( MWC) units. This memorandum is randum titled " Emissions from Large Municipal Waste Combustion ) Following MACT Retrofit ( Year 2000 Test Data); Docket A­ 90­ 45; VIII­ B­ 3. line the steps that were used to calculate MWC unit emissions. to convert compliance test data into an nts, which include dioxins/ fUrans ( CDD/ CDF), ­ cadmium ( Cd), hydrochloric acid ( HCI), s u k r dioxide ( SO,), nitrogen oxides ( NO,), and ter ( PM). Emissions for CDDICDF were calculated in units of grams per year total mass and TEQ' basis. ns were summed to Toxic Equivalency Quantity ( TEQ) values based on 1989 NATO Toxic Equivalency Factors. As background, the Emission Guidelines ( EG) for large MWC units under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act were adopted in 1995 ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb), and required all large MWC units to be in. compliance with either a compliance test reports due by Au 167 large NWC units located ants in 24 states. From these reports, data was extracted on pollutant emission concentratio compliance test, steam rate during the compliance test, and annu as used to calculate the annual emissions for each Section 129 pollutant for each of the 167 large MFVC units. Annual waste combusted data ( tons waste cornbusted pe ratios and provide information on the total plant specific data were used except for th or a Federal Plan by December 2000, with obtained the compliance te ted and used to calculate process ted in the U. S. In all cases, i Conversion Factors SO, Ratio ­ The EG requires all unit the annual emission calcu to convert SO, geometric mean units provided values for generate usable data for units of 1.12 to 1 was calculated. a geometric mean. For TEQ Ratio ­ All units provided CD under the Emission Guidelines. T were calculated. From the data, and TEQ basis. A total mass/ TEQ rat units not reporting TEQ data. The to mass basis. This is required The equations used to calculate the annual emissions of the Section f29 pollutants are provided in Attachment 1. The calculation ed a three­ step proce C:\ SrnallMWC\ Docket\ 70802submitt~ 9~ v~~ 9. wpd 2 The compliance test pollutant emission rate ( masdtime) was calculated by multiplying the poUutant concentration ( mass/ volume) by the stack flow rate ( volume/ time) during the test. The pollutant emission rate ( masdtime) was divided by the steam flow rate during the test ( ib steamltime) to calculate a pollutant­ to­ steam factor ( mass/ lb steam). The pollutant­ to­ steam factor ( massfib steam) was multiplied by the annual steam output ( Ib steamlyear) to calculate the annual pollutant emission rate ( madyear). The pollutant concentration units varies between poUutants and are as follows; ng/ dscm and HCI). All data are presented on a dry basis, corrected to 7% 0,. For NO, and SO, the fEst 24 hour CEM average was used for emission calculations. Q ( CDD/ CDF), mg/ dscm ( PM, Cd, Pb, and Hg) and ppmV ( NO,, SO,, CO, Attachment 1 1000 mg/ g. The equation for calculating compliance test pollutant emission rate ( E) is as follows: C V * 6 0 E Where: E = Pollutant emission rate (@ our); C = Concentration of pollutant ( m F = Stack flow rate ( dscdmin @ I 60 min/ hr; and P S F * AS 453.593 * 2000 A E = Where: AE = Annual emission ( tons/ yr); ant/ Steam factor ( g pollutant/ lb steam); AS = Annual steam flow for unit ( Ib steady); 453.593 gjIb; and 2000 lb/ ton. Since some of the pollutant concentration data in the compliance tests were not given in mg/ dscm, conversion factors were calculated and used to convert the given values into mgld convert the poilut multipiied by the conversion factor. The conversion factors that were used are given in the following table. concentration to mg/ dscm the concentration value ( ppmV or ng/ dscm} is Attachment 2 The purpose of this section is to provide a sample calculation to show the steps and equations that are used to calculate the Combustor ( MWC) units. A 750 ton p calculation. Sample calculations are sho om large Municipal Waste Sample Calculation ( 750 TPD MWC Unit): Flue gas rate during compliance test ( F) Steam rate during compliance rest ( SF) Steam generation per year ( AS) = I P Dioxifluran, Total M Concentration of CDD/ CDF, total mass b Using the conversion , Thus, E= 1.6~ 10~~* 2159* 60/ tOOO E = 2.07 x IO4 f i r PSF = 2.07 x lo4 / 184,500 PSF = 1. f 2338 x 1 0­ 9 gllb steam AE = 1.12338 x io" * 1,433,041,000 AE = 1.61 g/ yr CDD/ CD ersion from tons to grams) DioxinsJFurans, TEQ Basis: 6 C:\ SmaliMWC\ Oocket\ 70802submittal\ A9045d Concentration of CDDICDF, TEQ basis = 0.032 ng/ dscm ( given) Using the conversion factor the CDD/ CDF concentration is 3.2 x IO­' mg/ dscm Thus, E = 3.2 x lo­' * 2159 * 60 / 1000 E = 4.1453 x IOv6 g/ hr PSF = 4.1453 x PSF = 2.2468 x 10'" g/ lb steam / 184,500 Mercury ( Hg): Concentrarion of Hg = 0.0197 mgldscm ( given) Thus, E = 0.0197 * 2159 * 60 / 1000 PSF = 2.55 I9 / 184,500 PSF = 1.383 x g/ Ib steam AE = 1.383 x to­' * 1,433,04Z, oOO / ( 453.593 * 2000) AE = 0.02 18 ton/ yr Hg Lead ( plb): I Doeket\ 7O802su bmittafV49045viiibS. wpd 7 , I Concentration of Pb = 0.039 mgldscm ( given) Thus, E = 0.039 * 2 60 / 1000 E = 5.052 g h r PSF = 5.052 / 184,500 PSF = 2.738 x IO­' g/ lb steam AE = 2.738 x * AE = 0.0433 todyr Pb Cahaium ( Cd): Concentration of Cd = 0.0033 mgldscm ( given) Thus, E = 0.0033 * 2159 * 60 / 1000 E = 0.4275 g/ hr PSF = 0.4275 / 184,500 7 x ! O­ 6 g/ Ib steam AE = 2.3 17 x lo6 * 1,433,041,000 J ( 453. AE = 0.00366 todyr Cd Hydrochloric Acid ( HCl): Concentration of HCl = 9.4 ppmV ( given) Using the conversion factor the HCI concentration is 14.25 mg/ dscm Thus, E = 14.25 * 2159 * 601 1000 E = I846 g/ hr PSF = 1846 / 184,500 PSF = 0.01 g/ lb steam AEi = 0.01 * 1,433,041,000 / ( 453.593 * 2000) AE = 15.8 todyr HCI Sulfur Dioxide ( SO& The concentration of SO, = 4.9 ppmV ( given) Using the conversion factor the SO, concentration is 13.05 mg/ dscm Thus, E = 13.05 * 2159 * 60 / 1000 E = 1690 g/ hr PSF = 1590 /` 184,500 PSF = 0.00916 g/ lb steam AE = 0.009 16 * 1,433,041,000 / ( 453.593 * 2000) AE = 14.5 ton/ yr SO, Nitrogen Oxides ( Nod: Thus, E = 350 * 2159 * 60 / LO00 E = 45,324 PSF = 45,324 /' 184.500 PSF = 0.24566 gRb steam i AE = 0.24566 * I, 433,041,000 / ( 453.593 * 2000) I AE = 388 todyr NO, Particuiate Matter ( PM): Concentration of PM = 7.3 mgldscm ( Thus, * E = 7.3 * 2159 * 60 / lo00 E = 945.6 g h r ­ J PSF = 945.6 / 184,500 PSF = 0.005 126 g/ lb steam ­ AE = O. 005126 * 1,433,041 1 AE = 8.10 toniys PM

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.985566

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0047

Supporting & Related Material

EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP. INC It Stevenson. EPNCombustion Group Jason Huckaby. Eastern Research Croup, Inc FROM: DATE: September 4,2002 SUBJECT: \ / Lee County W C / Emissions Variability Analysis 1.0 INTRODUCTION This memorandum presents an analysis qf the variability in emission that occurs at a well operated municipal waste combustor ( MWC). The analysis reviews the performance of the Lee County ( FL) MWC. The Lee County facility is equipped with the full battery of high efficiency and has operated unmodified since start up in 1994. Additionally the ards for high standards of operation and performance. MWC includes data for the following pollutants mium ( Cd), lead ( Pb), mercury ( Hg). hydrogen ch oxides ( NO,). The foIlowing se performance, parame annual test results. 2.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION The Lee County M W C is Iocated in Fort Myers, FL. The facility has capacity to combust 1,200 tons per day ( tpd) of municipal solid waste ( MSW) in two 600 tpd municipal waste combustor ( MWC) units. The combustors are mass­ burn designs using reverse­ reciprocating C; iSmaiMWCVer County\ LeeVanabllLyrnemoi 1 793 stoker grates. Process control is achieved through the use of a distributive control system ( Le., sensors transmit operating data to compu make adjustments). The au pollution control systems include s carbon injection ( CI), and selective non­ catalytic re scrubbing syste is used for NOx nitrogen oxide, produdtion, power additional Hg and dioxidfuran ion, continuous emission monitoring syste vated carbon usage, combustion ctrical energy is produced by a 39.7 Mw electric generator driven by a condensing steam turbine. Fresh water usage is minimized through the use of secondary treate steam. Fly ash an ttom ash are passed t scalper, magnetic separator, and non­ ferrous recovery system IO recover metals from the as 3.0 PLANT OPERATIONS began in 1994, the MWC units' co operators and maintenance personne monthly written quizzes on plant operatio and maintenance personnei attend se operation, the Lee County facility has recently been aw Attachment A). 4.0 PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE Since it began operations, the Lee County facility has been in full compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations. The facility has not required any modification to ­ demonstrated compliance with permitted levels for PM, op Ifuric acid mist, fluorides, NO,, carbon monoxid nia, and dioxidfimns. As a result of their outs e Lee County facility was awarded the Environmental Citizen istrict office of Florida's DEP. The, ASME award no ( Attachment AI contains detailed information on environmental performance for both air I 5.0 PARAMETRIC DATA I Operating parameter data were obtained from the Lee County facility for the years a1 compliance test data ( 1994­ 2001 >. This data includes information nd the operating variables associated with the air pollution control tains the parametric data. 6.0 EMISSfO BILITY ANALYSIS as analyzed to determine the amount of emissions variabili aintained IWC. Statistical tests were performe th units couid be combined for analysis and what type of distribution ( is., t closely fit the data for each polhtant. Addition was necessary. The analysis investi compliance jtevel. The les I and 2. Additionally, Figures ugh 8 present data plots of the test 1 . The complete data Table­ 1. Summary Statistics for Stack ear 1994 through Particulate Matter ( rng'dscm) ail values corrected to 3% 02. ' arithmetic average. Particulate Matter variability of data arithmetic avera 4 4 CSmallMWCUee County\ lneVanablttymemofutdwpd Figure 1. Lee County Dioxin/ furan ( total mass basis) I996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1994 1995 Year 5 Figure 2. Lee County Mercury 0.05 A E + 0.04 m E Y $ 2 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year 1999 2000 2001 0.0014 0.001 . cI f3 ­ s t . I o* 0008 E 0.0006 0 P 0.0004 Figure 3. Lee County Cadmium ­ ­ ­ ­ 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0002 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1994 1995 1996 Year 7 ' s h 11 4. Lee County Lead ­ ­ ~ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ _ ­ ­ ~ _ 0.02 i i 0.01 9 0.01 8 0.01 6 0.01 4 , g 0.0t2 u u) 5 0.01 1 x 2 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 f 998 8 Year 1999 2000 2001 t P E I Figure 5. Lee County Particulate Matter 9.2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1994 1995 Year CISmaMWCUae CountyUteVanabiltymemofma1 wpd 9 18 16 34 12 A > e 10 8 H 6 4 2 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year 45 40 35 25 e n Y 15 70 1994 I995 7 996 1997 1993 1999 Year 2000 2001 I 1 165 160 S: 155 E n P ­ 150 145 140 135 1994 1995 1996 1997 t 998 Year 1999 2000 2001 C. tSmallMWCU. ee Cuunty\ LrrVnriabilt~~ otinal wpd 12 r f d B Attachment A Waste to Energy Facility Recognition Award by ASME i I ~ ­ 3 1 :> t,. 5 INTEROFFICE MEMO U M FROM SOLID WASTE DMSION Phone: ( 941) 479­ 8181 Fax: ( 941) 479­ 8119 e county SOUTRWEST FLORIDA Date: April 30,2001 TO: Jim Lavender, Director From: Lindsey J. Sampson, P. E. s ste To Energy Facility Recognition Award by ASME can Society of Mechanical that an award will be pres Solid Waste Processing County and Covmta L the facility's contributions to the field of solid waste proc n ual North American hc., at no cost to the County. ation that was included in the Cc: BOCC Districts 1­ 5 D. Stilwell T. Eriksen 4 American Society cal Engineers Solid Waste cility Re plication ee Solid Waste Resour Facility Facility Recognition Award Nomination Form 1. Award Category Combustion ame Recovery Facility ( the '%' acility ' 3 10500 Ft. My 4. Owner Lee Cotinty Solid Waste Division ( the '' County' 3 Address: 1500 Monroe Sireet Contact: Telephone: 341­ 479­ 8 I81 Fax: 94 1­ 479­ 81 I9 5 . 0 r Martin Systems of Lee. hc. (" OMSL") Contact: Tom Eriksen Telephone: Fa: 941­ 337­ 2510 1 1 ? 4 6. Throughput Capacity ( tons per day) 1,200 tons per day 7. Facility Description Provide a general description of the Facility, including each major piece of equipment Include attachment as needed. Dirtral water wall Opaciiy, Sulfiir Dioxide, total st used to condense the turbine exhaust steam. l3k 8. Summary of Facility Operations Provide a general summary of Facility opera through the Facility, materials andor energy needed. " Firxt fire" at this Facility to Department of Environmental first followed by the Turbine Generator on September 2 Acceptance testing was conducted from October I7­ Construction Agreement beiween Ogden and Lee Cotrn Stan­ up of the Facility > vas virtuallyfla passing of acceptance testing I , 1994. The project was completed Since going commercial the FaciIiq h availability of 99.6 percent. A prodiiced; 1,077.000 Ktyh ofpower generated; tons of ferrous; and 835 tons of Ron­ ferroous me environmental permits and regulations­ tial operating, hour ere4 staffing, a d other key operationa1 hon, flow of materials Include attachment as County, Ogden and the Florida roblems noted With the on effective December ASME SWPD Fa d Nomination Form 9. Key Contributions to the Field of Solid Waste Processing The ASME Solid Waste Processing Division Facility Recognition Award is based on information provided in this section regarding the Faciliq's contributions to the field of solid waste procesmg. The key selection criteria and weightin are as follows: I, Success in Reaching Facility Operation Requirements ( 20 percent) the established operating requirements for the Facility, and the history of the Facility with respect eeting those operating requirements. me, at a minimum, is meamred by the abiliiy ofthe Facility to operate and be maintained in s z h a manner te. generate steam, and convert the steam into electric power for export, at a level consistent nce Guarantees contained in the Service Agreement between the County and The ting , I ce Guarantees contained in Schedule 2 of the Service Agreement are used as the basis for nce. These Pejormance Guarantees include: erage Energy Guarantee Utility Utilization Guarantee hropane gas) ~ nee Guarantees* petj4onnanceparameters measured during the Facility's acceptance test Facility perjomance. These perjormance parameters include: ate& 1.8 million tom of waste in fistfive years of operation, which is 96.8 vailability of 1,200 tons per day). During the first three years of compliance of waste. Waste processed by the Facility has increased evey year, e County's waste generation. In the fifth billing year, th e during the five­ yearperiod. This is 26.5 percent by Mwh of electricity for sale. The Facility P net elecrric essed, as more m t e has became availablefiom the 1 year averaged 601 kWh per ton of wcrste processed, able the Facility to recover energy at th& rate, high e$ ciency boilers, wz pressure and temperature, were installed to increase the turbine efficiency. generated per ton of waste processed has generally increased over the seven years of operation. ­ generator over the first seven years was 99.6percent. 3 ASME SWPD Facility Recognitio II. Innovative Contributions to Solid Waste P Describe the Facility's contributions to equipment, or operations; approaches applications of equipment or materials. your goals. The Lee County project has several innovative recovery systm, its ecologically sound reuse elements. In the early stages ofnegotiations L standards. The Facility was therefore sulpassed rhese standards since start­ all clean air retrofits throughout th This Facility was designed to pro in the United States with a perm wet design. one where acriv into a mix tankfiom where the carbonfwater s to comply with n I50 ug/& cm standard. This consistently rneefi­ A post combustion fenous followed by a screened tro that would have been destined for the landfill an in­ line non­ ferrous The Faciliw also provides a long­ range bene4t 20 area­ wide water resource management. supplied by the Ciiy of would have been discharged into suface waters, now serves " reciaaim" water IS us ue air pollution control system. its metals ent since start­ up and d. Partially due to the \ i 1 0 gallons per day of the atmosphere in the ~ 1 i Additionally, the water transmission lines coILThsl~ conservation efforts in the area. Many exotic. non­ native ecies have been in Fuctlity war irrf2sted with the problematic exotic were eradicated and the weltand rstored. A n clogged with non­ native aquatic wee&. methods to remove rhese wee& the Fa These fish have since condition. 4 1 E d MREE SWPD Facility Recognition Award Nomination Form ore important to the Facdity than health andsafety. AI1 Facility personnel are repued to attend monthly safe9 specific OSHA required sdety training themes me presented by the Facility ' s S a f e Coordinator. onnel also attend weekly safety meetings where plant safity procedures are discussed e in` the employee medical surveiilance program which includes annual physicals. indushial hygiene ring outage and non­ outage periods to determine ifl where, when and what type of respiratory may be required­ Monthly plant walkdowns are conducted by the Faciiitys safety committee. d and quickly resolved \ mpiled an excellent safety record. The plant's OSHA Frequency Index not surtained any lost time injuries. in 1998. I999 and 2000. the Facil d a this outstanding performance and has operated the Facility for the last 3 years with excellent relationship with the local environmental agencies. llzk ilt on trust and the howledge that the Facility has and will continue to compi) with all pennit e local DEP stag to attend all vendor training sessions along over a three­ month period and DEPpersonnel attended every one. By el were able to understand the operation of not just the pollution control equip became acquainted with the FaciliQ stuff and realized the level of education, lied by vendors prior to start­ up, in fact it hadjust begun. AN operators are required to rn on power plantfitndumentals as well as Facility speczjk Step Training program prior continual on the job training and are given written quizzes each month on plant systems. a lunch of their choice as recognition and a competitive incentive. a1 management training. Maintenance and administrative personnel cafiold erection, pump repair, bearing maintenance, FaciIiq c i. e. chlorine handling, water treatmznt and heavy irtance. Several employees are pres ining relative to their support of the Facility­ This training includes ace entry, quarterly fire drills, elevator rescue. and chemical handling. all operation and maintenance personnel receive wee erating Manual. These Amendmew also required th Extensive training in Facility operations an ts. Presently the Facility Ma as Chief Facility Operator Certification, the ng in vaste ifi Supervirors have the four Control Room I Waste Combustor training course. 5 ` I 1 4 ~ ET. Technical Contn'butions to Solid Waste The following nunmarizes the Facility` s Technical " gent regulations created by the iremen& the Faciliq proved that Clean Air Act Amendment Acts of I990. iVon­ Ferrous Recovery overy sysrem. The contractor date. The system was installed aiko increasing the Inconel Application for Corrosion Control The Faciliy has obse ally related to the pam idenhBed. The entire furnuce area " R" Stamp recognized the need to have an proceeded by applyingfo facility personnel to pedom required boiler rep down time. Power to Newly Constru W% en a new recyclingfacii The company perfrmed a the new faciliry. The res ASME SWPD Facility Recog Facility Preservation O& fSL has corntan been investigating, experimenting and utilizing erotic materials to help stem conmion occum­ ng in high humidity, alkaline, and acidic areas. The use of these materials result3 in less maintenance and a longer service & e of systems inrtalled in iner rmance Enhancement on the demineralization system due to decreasing potable water quality. OMSL the water through a reverse osmosis membrane water treatment system in a much­ improvedperfomance of the demineralizer, & meased chemical . acid Wash System to Ciem Atombms atomizers proved to be a high­ maintenance item. OMSL designed and installed and acidgwh operating cleaner, reducing maintenance. and provided proper slurry disrnhition in the scmbbm resulting in less downtime and decreased emissions. On­ line Binsting of Baghouses dnd Off­ line Cleaning of Eloiler to­ energy facilitis to utilize on­ line percussion cIeaning to improve the operation of the harges are set offin the fly­ ash hoppers while the boilers are in operation, that res& in a a longer period between outages increasing availability. aned off­ line with these * amile charges. ThiY results in a cleaner boiler and no w e of water corrosion. TiiY jiirther provides a cleaner working environment for mainten ed outage lime, and reduces the amount of wastewater generatedfiom the Fa rmance of the Facility with respect to air quality, water quality, workplace nt environmental areas. Include attachments as needed ( e. g. monitoring data, graphs). a summary of the Facility's Environmental Performance: Environmental Performance ent recordsince starnip­ The Fucility has been in fill compliance with all an Air Act of i 995 without performing any mod@ cations to the plant. i n uddigon, tal Citizen Award for the results. Annual Air Emissions Testing dnnuai uir emissions testing, also known as stack teshg. wusper$ ormed at the Facility in June 2000. During this stack test. issions of particulate matter ( P%$ l, opacity, arsenic, bqliium, lead, mercuv, sulfMic , carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds ( TOG), mlfir dioxide* hydrogen demonstrated to be in compliance with all permitted levelsfor mercuy, sulfiric acid mist. fluorides, nitrogen oxides ( WOd, carbon & ir dioxide. hydrogen chloride, ammonia, and dioxinsi@ ram. 7 I _­_ ­ i _ ­ I­ I 3 a ASME SWPD Facili ard Nomination Form Tale Y Operating Permit 0710119­ 0014 Vto the Facility on November I . 2000. In recognition of the excellent level DEP awarded Ogden Martin Sys me honor because it the DEF, the award tained by the Facility the South n Award '' on September 12,19 V. FaciIity Economics ( 10 percent) Discuss comparative costshipping fe management facilities. Long­ rem environmentally responsible solutions to VI. Role in Integrated Waste Managemen Describe the role of the Facility in n. and agricllltural waste collection center ( under cons progrants that are 10. Supplemental Xnformation c3 Photographs ASME SWPD Facility Recognition Award Nomination Form Submitted By Samer Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Address: 1715 E. 9"' Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Telephone: ( 8 13) 248­ 6900 Fax: ( 813) 248­ 8085 Number of Copies Five complete copies o the nomination submittal should be provided Nomination Due Date ASME Solid Waste Processing Division Selection Process judged by the SWPD's Facility Recogtion Award subcommittee of the Honors and Awards Committee, selection criteria described above. The selection process will be completed upon approval ofthe recommended D's Executive CodUee. ted at the annual Waste Processing Conference @ JAWTEC). The award will consist of a plaque 2suitabie for mounting at the Facility. ication of Award will publicize the award through press releases and various ASME and waste management industry publication. D member in good standing may nominale a FaciIity for the SWPD FaciSity Recognition Award. Self­ nomination by Facility personnel are welcome. 9 PHOTOGRAPHS An array of instruments in the plant's control room Facility staff monitor the plant's condition 1 A view of plant piping le. * 2 I The refuse claw in action Facility tipping floor. The refuse pit is visible to the left. 1 i' ter pumps at the cool tower. Sid 4 The Facility's reverse osmosis plant. & . t i. View of the non­ ferrous metal recovery pile 7 t EXCERPTS OF FDEP 2000 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT LOU0 Solid Waste Management m Elonda I Employee Directory I Help 1 SiteMap 1 Search Solid w ment in Florida 2000 This 2000 Solid Waste Man nual Report provides a comprehensive analysis of solid ludes information about the activities of the Department, ai in Florida primarily based on information compiled by ling with waste issues t n s for downloading rh3 whole report for viewing online ­­­ rt is availabie in Adobe's Portable Document Format ( PDF). If you d f the reader software, it is avaifable free­ of­ charge from Adobe's s above to download the software now. Once you have the Acroba you may download the entire report or specfic chapters. PDF file is too small to read, use the magnifyng glass tool to zoom in. n the appendices can also be downloaded in an Microsoft Excel Instructions the chapters: AVAILABLE NOW! These files will dated shortly, so please be patient, you may wish to wait until the efore downloading. Check back the beginning of March. 1. Create a directory an you can do it during many of 2. rd drive for the report. If you forget, you ng file, cDacwszisgzc ­ is, saving it in on your is 3­ 19 Megabytes ( M8). It will take some time to patient. save this Droqram to disk" oDtion and then select llowing steps also. 3. http :// www . dep­ state . fl . us/ dwm/ documents/ sdswn­ OO/ defauk htm 03/ 07/ 200 Z Counties ( CY 1998) have recycling rates 21 County I ( Jan. 1, 7998 ­ Dec. 31, 7998) 4. 4 6. 6. 324 233. 133. 47. 1.450. 247. 13. 55. 892 107. 85. 106. 2.090. 210. 80. 33. 25. 13. 35. 19. 13 i 7 19 3 148 10 6 1% 109 175 54 13 321 32 147. 22 50. 14 34 21. 27 43. 21. 7. 38. Studies as reported by eact~ c. aUay by ma end of 19% for eachcancymth apopubtia, over 75. W. fa these materials by theand of 1994 for each canty. n 36 35 35 40 34 32 31 31 37 30 28 n 37 27 43 27 39 26 28 26 32 25 25 24 27 24 40 23 22 22 22 21 20 20 19 27 18 18 17 16 18 16 16 15 75 t5 15 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 10 10 9 9 9 8 7 5 4 3s 3 1 d sd 11 55 56 41 84 22 39 26 20 48 61 85 63 53 42 36 44 57 53 73 17 0 12 33 29 42 75 31 47 35 7 21 9 7 8 3 7 1 93 11 0 100 t 4 40 21 37 n 55 20 11 0 17 22 0 0 31 20 3 15 26 17 5 30 0 2 n 0 26 76 64 94 14 26 0 6 33 37 16 40 12 27 3 5 63 35 75 29 0 4 13 3 20 26 40 9 12 1 6 11 0 2 7 0 17 ­ 4 0 56 0 6 19 I t 3~ 3 15 5 0 18 12 0 7 14 5 0 2 4 0 2 10 0 0 24 16 53 17 57 32 28 41 16 21 21 38 1 i9 16 16 12 21 50 17 20 24 3 Z? 98 16 20 18 3 49 4 31 13 46 15 10 2 . 16 ? O I6 10 18 0 4 7 13 5 ! 2 1 35 9 26 12 21 37 0 0 10 13 1 15 6 31 0 a 1 FDEP 03/ 0712001 &. XIS Attachment B Lee County Parametric Data Counq4LeeVambifrymemofmai. wpd e * I 8­ i I . r I I I c ! i j i t ... .* . ... .. ­.­ . ~ ! c ! I­ c 0 0 N 0 0 0 N a, Q, 6, ? eD 6, 6, Y L Q s , L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;) b W d­ d ­ e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q) cn Ln d 0 0 N ..­ In 2 3 m CI tii E P L. .­ w E I f 8 0 E\ I U J 7 L­ m ! T I I 2 ii 3 m 7 0 0 N 5: Ln i ! c 0 0 83 i i ! s * 0 0 0 m Ln T­ 2 0 0 2 0 m m z 1 S Q m r 8 I­ w 8 L 0 c w 0 0 , I I i i t i L f I I I i t 5 UJ . r c c a 3 ­ 0 Irj m Q, J w I­ iI: I J I­ 7 0 0 N i 0 0 0 N d m N ­ m Q) 03 N Cd N CD v) eo 03 N N 03 in in 7 I I I t i In I I a, 0 3 I . r 1 I I j , d a, V, B Q, L C 0 f 9 P 3 P) .­ LL i I t I I i i i ! ! 1 E; 0 tu 0 0 0 N I I CD cn cn ­ , . r c ( CI C .­ @ E a 2 I w tL .­ i I I I I I i I , . . , . . . ', . 0 0 cu T ( D cn Q, L c 0 m m ' E, I c QI I 3 i iz sl m 1 I 8 0 0 I 8 8 I i ! I S Q, P) E 0 Y 0 tu G 0 F a I cn u. a, .­ 1 .­ 0 0 cu I ! 8 i i 0 cu I , I I t ! ( 0 6) a, l­­ I 1 c I ! v) I i i , , m m !­ 0 ( u 8 I t c a, ?­ t Attachment C Compliance Test Data Analysis for Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility C:\ SmaUMWC\ Lee County\ LeeVar1abiltymemofmaLwpd COMPLIANCE TEST DATA ANALYSIS FOR LEE COUNTY SOLID WASTE RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY Prepared for: US. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Standards DivisiodCombustion Group Research Triangle Park, NC 27560 Prepared by: Eastern Research Group 1600 Perimeter Park Drive Morrisville, North Carolina 27560 September 4,2002 * ERG ­ September 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paye # 1 . O DESCRIPTION OF LEE COUNTY SOLID WASTE RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITYDATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 STUDYOBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.0 COMPREHENSIVE DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1 Statistical Distribution of Pollutant Emission Measurements . . e . . . . . . . . e . . . . 6 4.1.1 Dioxin/ Furan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.2 Particulate Matter ( PM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ­ 4.1.3 Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . 4.1.4 Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ­ 4.1.5 Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l O 4.1.6 Mercury Percent Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.7 Hydrogen Chloride ( HC1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 4.1.8 Hydrogen Chloride ( HCl) Percent Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 4.1.9 Sulfur Dioxide ( SO,) Arithmetic Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 12 4.1.10 Sulfur Dioxide ( SO,) Percent Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1.11 Nitrogen Oxides ( NOJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2 95 and 99 Percent Threshold ( Le., Exceedance) Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. K \ O 154U 1\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 11 ERG ­ September 2002 I I LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Raw MWC Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Unit 1 ........................................... 16 Recovery Facility Unit 2 ............................ Table 2 Raw MWC Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Table 3 Summary Statistics for MWC Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recov 1 ......................... 18 Table 4 Summary Statistics for M W a from Lee County Solid Waste lityUnit2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results for the Two­ Sample F­ Test .................................. .20 Results for the Two­ Sample t­ Test ( Equal Variances) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 ­ Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Summary Statistics for MW Solid Waste Resource Reco Units 1 and 2 Combined . * ­ * ­ * * * * ­ * ­ * * . ­ ­ * ­ * ­ * m. 22 pliance Data from Lee County Table 8 Summary Statistics for C Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined .......................................... .23 Table 9 The Shapiro­ Wilk Normality Statistic ( W) for the Raw and Ln­ TransformedMWC Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined .......... .24 Table 10 95 and 99 Percent Thresholds and Threshold­ Mean Differences for the Raw and Ln­ transformed MWC Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and2Combined . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 2 5 ... 111 K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ anaIysis­ rq~ o1' t­ September 2002. wpd w ' ERG ­ September 2002 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure l( a) Frequency Histograms for Dioxifluran ( ng/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined .......................................... .26 Figure 1 ( b) Normal Probability Plots for Dioxifluran ( ng/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Unitsland2Combined ........................................... 27 Frequency Histograms for PM ( mg/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Unitsland2Combined ........................................... 28 Figure 2( a) Figure 2( b) Normal Probability Plots for PM ( mddscm) Compliance ­ Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined .......................................... .29 ­ Frequency Histograms for Cadmium ( mg/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined .......................................... .30 Normal Probability Plots for Cadmium ( mg/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined .......................................... .31 Frequency Histograms for Lead ( mg/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and2 Combined .......................................... .32 Normal Probability Plots for Lead ( mg/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined .......................................... .33 Figure 3 ( a) Figure 3( b) Figure 4( a) Figure 4( b) Figure 5( a) Frequency Histograms for Mercury ( mg/ dscm) Compliance Data & om Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined ........................................... 34 Figure 5( b) Normal Probability Plots for Mercury ( mg/ dscm) Compliance Data fiom Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined .......................................... . 3 5 K:\ 0154\ 11\ 06bnwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd iv LIST OF FI S ( Continued) Figure 6( a) Frequency Histograms for Data from Lee County Units 1 and 2 Combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 Figure 6( b) Normal Probability PI Figure 7( a) Frequency Histograms for Data from Lee County Sol Units 1 and 2 Comb Normal Probability Plots for HC1 ( ppmv) Compliance Data from Lee County Figure 7( b) ­ Units 1 and 2 Combine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ­ ­ Figure 8( a) Frequency Histograms for H Reduction Compliance Data from Lee Co Units 1 and 2 Comb Normal Probability Plots for HC1 Percent Reduction Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Histograms for SO, Arithmetic Average ( ppmv) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Wast Units 1 and 2 Com e Recovery Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 Figure 8( b) Figure 9( a) urce Recovery Fa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 9( b) Normal Probability Plots for SO, Arithmetic Average ( ppmv) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Reco Units 1 and 2 Combined .................... ' ­ * ­ * ­ * ­ * ­ ­ ­ 43 Figure 1O( a) Frequency Histograms ent Reduction Compliance Data from Lee County Units 1 and 2 Combined Figure 1 O( b) Normal Probability Plots for SO, Percent Reduction Compliance Data from Lee Coun Units 1 and 2 Comb Frequency Histograms for NO, ( ppmv) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Unitsland2Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 Recovery Facility .......................................... .44 ery Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1 1 ( a) V K \ O 154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd LIST OF FIGURES ( Continued) Figure 1 1 ( b) Normal Probability Plots for NO, ( ppmv) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ­ . . . . . . . . . .47 KA0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ anaiysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd . .­ Y vi '* ERG ­ September 2002 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF LEE COUNTY SOLID WASTE RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY DATA Upon request from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, COVANTA Lee Inc. submitted annual municipal waste combustor ( MWC) compliance data for the period 1994 to 200 1 from its solid waste resource recovery facility located in Lee County, Florida. The facility consists of two 600 tons per day ( tpd) mass burn waterwall units ( referred to as Unit 1 and Unit 2) each of which is equipped with spray dryer, fabric filter, carbon injection, and selective non­ catalytic reduction. The MWC data submitted included emissions measurements from both units for the following pollutants: e e e e e e Dioxidfuran ( ng/ dscm), Particulate matter ( PM) ( rng/ dscm), Cadmium ( mg/ dscm), Lead ( mg/ dscm), Mercury and percent mercury reduction if available ( mg/ dscm), Hydrogen Chloride ( HCl) and percent HC1 reduction if available ( ppmv), Sulfur dioxide ( SO,) and percent SO, reduction if available ( ppmv), Nitrogen oxides ( NOJ ( ppmv). The tests followed the procedures required by the large MWC New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) ( 40 CFR Subpart Cb). The values reported for dioxins/ furans, PM, cadmium, lead, mercury and HCl are the arithmetic average control device outlet levels for a 3­ run stack test using the EPA test methods and sampling times required by the NSPS. For mercury, the average percent reduction for the 3­ run test is also provided. The SO, values are %­ hour arithmetic average outlet concentration and percent reduction values calculated fiom continuous emission monitoring ( GEM) data during the first 24 hours of the annual performance test. ( Note that Subpart Cb requires facilities to demonstrate SO, compliance with either a geometric mean outlet concentration or a percent reduction. The facility is using percent reduction and did not K\ 0154\ 11\ 06unwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 1 t provide the geometric mean.) device outlet calculated from CEM d Tables 1 and 2 present the raw MWC compliance data provided by the Lee County solid waste resource recovery facility units 1 and 2 94 through 2001. ' EQG ­ September 2002 2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES The main objectives of the study are: To characterize the variability in pollutant emission measurements ( due to variability in process and measurement) using basic univariate statistics and relative frequency histograms, To evaluate the statistical distribution of pollutant emission measurements ( ie., normal versus lognormal) with normality tests and applicable shape statistics, such as relative frequency histograms and normal probability plots, and To compute relevant threshold values ( Le., exceedance values), based on computed sample means and standard deviations, for which the probability that a given test at the facility will be above the threshold value is 95 and 99 percent. * ­ K \ O 1 5 4 1 1\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 3 I­­ ~~~ ­ ­ 1­ ­­"? 3.0 PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS Tables 3 and 4 present the routine swnmary statistics for the annual MWC compliance data fiom the Lee County solid waste resource recovery facility units 1 and 2, respectively, for the period 1994 to 200 1 pollutant, ERG first evaluated precision. For this, ERG empl any evidence to indic the two units are substantial1 sts that assess whether there is First, ERG conducted a hypothesis t r there is sufficie ­ indicate a significant difference in the variability and 2. Table 5 presents the results of the hypothesis test ( two­ sample F­ test) conducted for each pollutant. Because the computed value of the F­ statistic was less than the critical value, Fa, for all pollutants at the 95 and 99 percent confidence levels, ERG faiIed to reject the null hypothesis that the variability of pollutant emission measurements from the two units are statistically equivalent. ­ Having established that there is insufficient evidence to support that the observed variability of pollutant emission measurements for Unit 1 is different than that of Unit 2, ERG conducted an additional hypothesis test to evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the mean value of pollutant emission measurements between the two units. Table 6 presents the results of the hypothesis test ( two­ sample t­ test) conducted for each pollutant. From the table, the absolute value of the computed t­ statistic is less than the critical value, t,, for all pollutants at the 95 and 99 percent confidence levels. This indicates that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the mean pollutant emission measurements fiom the two units are statistically equivalent. Because both hypothesis tests suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean pollutant emission measurement and its variability between Units 1 and 2 for each 4 K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ anaIysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 1 c ERG ­ September 2002 pollutant, ERG combined the data for the two units for all pollutants.* It is expected that the data from the two units would be similar because the designs of the combustors and control equipment are identical, they were installed at the same time, they receive MSW from the same sources, and they are operated and maintained similarly at the same MWC facility. Table 7 . presents the routine summary statistics for MWC compliance data from the Lee County solid waste resource recovery facility units 1 and 2 combined. Table 8 provides the same summary statistics for the In­ transformed MWC compliance data. * It should be noted that the parametric distributional tests conducted are relatively low power, especially for small sample sizes. Hence, conclusions obtained fiom these tests have to be weighted appropriately in light of other relevant considerations, such as the similarity of control technologies in each unit. K:\ 0154\ 11\ 06~ wc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 5 * I ERG ­ September 2002 ( 1' I 4.0 COMPREHENSIVE DAT ERG utilized several statistical an data for both units combined. These techniques 1 0 ical distribution llutant data ( normal ver probability plots, s and normality tests, and 0 Computation of threshold values ( i. e., exceedance values) for each pollutant based on sample means and standard deviations. The following sections discuss the techniques and results obtained in further detail. . ­ 4.1 Statistical Distribution of Pollutant Emission Measurements There are numerous methods for evaluating the statistical distribution of a given data set. For the Lee County MWC data, ERG employed the following techniques to assess whether the compliance data submitted for a given pollutant is normally or lognormally distributed: 0 Frequency histograms, Normal probability plots, 0 Sample moments ( skewness and kurtosis), and 0 Shapiro­ Wilk ( W) test. AJFequency histogram divides the data range into units, counting the number of points within the units, and displaying the data as the height or area within a bar graph. The frequency histogram provides a means for assessing the symmetry and variability of the data. If the data afe symmetric, the frequency histogram will also display symmetry around a central point, such as a mean. Typically, the frequency histog ibuted data will be bell­ shaped. 6 K \ O 154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd i U #­ ERG ­ September 2002 A normalprobabilityplot shows the observations of a sample plotted against a cumulative frequency distribution ( or quantiles of a data set against the quantiles of the normal distribution). Comparing against the standard S­ shaped cumulative frequency distribution is difficult, so the chart transforms the observations so they can be compared against a straight­ line. Observations for a normally distributed sample should closely follow a straight­ line. For non­ normally distributed data, there will be large deviations in the tails or middle of a normal probability plot. The normal probability plot is also another way to assess the degree of symmetry ( or asymmetry) displayed by the data. For example, if the data in the upper tail fall above and the data in the lower tail fall below the quartile line, the data are too slender to be well modeled by a normal distribution. Similarly, if the data in the upper tail fall below and the data in the lower tail fall above the quartile line, then the tails of the data are too heavy to be well modeled using a normal distribution. The skewness coeficient measures the degree of symmetry ( or asymmetry) displayed by a data set. The kurtosis coefJicient, on the other hand, measures the degree of flatness of a distribution near its center. For an ideal normal distribution, the skewness and kurtosis coefficients are equal to 0. Substantial variations from the 0 value indicate that the data may not be modeled using a normal distribution. The Shapiro­ Wilk ( w) test is one of most commonly employed tests of normality. The test involves computing a correlation between the quantiles of the standard normal distribution and the ordered values of a data set and is only recommended for sample sizes less than or equal to 50. The statistical power of the test, however, declines for very small sample sizes. The value of the W statistic computed for a given set of data can range from 0 to 1, with low values typically leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis of normality. In evaluating the most appropriate statistical distribution ( normal versus lognormal) for a given set of data, the results obtained from the application of the above statistical techniques have to be considered jointly. Especially for small sample sizes, no single technique is likely to yield definitive conclusions on the type of distribution displayed by the data. The following sections present the results of the statistical analyses performed on MWC compliance data for K:\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ anaIysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 7 ­, each pollutant. The sections also provide an assessment the data based on the analyses performed tatistical distribution displayed by 4.1.1 Dioxin/ F'uran The frequency histograms dioxidfuran data are depicted in Figures 1 ( a) and 1 ( b transformed data is more symmetric aro the raw data. Further, the In­ transforme normal probability plot depicted in Figure 1 data ( 0.0487) is much statistics for the raw and In­ transformed dioxidfuran data are 0.8568 and 0.9572, respectively ( see Table 9). The W­ statistic indicates a normal data distribution for the In­ transformed data at the 95 percent level of confidence. ­ ­ Overall, the analyses performed suggests al dioxidfbran compliance data submitted by the Lee County solid wa distribution. 4.1.2 Particulate Matter ( PM) The frequency histograms and n and ln­ tmnsformed PM data are depicted in Figures 2( a) and 2 is more symmetric around its mean with so the In­ transformed data is more evenly spread out and hence more close straight line in the normal probability plot depicted in Figure 2( b). The skewness coefficient of approximate the ed data ( 0.0835) is 7). Similar to the ­ dioxin/ fbran data, ho indicates normality at the 95 percent level of confidence. r the In­ transformed PM data ( 0.8688) 8 K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd P Overall, the analyses performed suggests that the annual PM compliance data submitted by the Lee County solid waste resource recovery facility display a lognormal distribution. 4.1.3 Cadmium I The fiequency histograms and normal probability plots of the raw and In­ transformed cadmium data are depicted in Figures 3( a) and 3( b), respectively. From Figure 3( a), the raw data appears more symmetric around its mean with some extreme values in the highest bin ( 0.001 125 scm). The normal probability plot of the raw data more closely approximates the straight line in the normal probability plot depicted in Figure 3( b). Further, the skewness coefficient of the raw data (­ 0.544) is higher ( closer to 0, the value for an ideal normal distribution) than that of the In­ transformed data (­ 0.9395). The W­ tests for the raw and ln­ ­ transformed data both reject the null hypothesis of normality at the 95 percent level of ­ confidence. Overall, the analyses performed suggests that the annual cadmium compliance data submitted by the Lee County solid waste resource recovery facility display a relatively normal distribution. I 4.1.4 Lead The frequency histograms and normal probability plots of the raw and In­ transformed lead data are depicted in Figures 4( a) and 4( b), respectively. From Figure 4( a), the In­ transformed data appears more symmetric around its mean with some extreme values in the ­ 5.25 to ­ 4.75 range. The In­ transformed data is more evenly spread and hence more closely approximates the straight line in the normal probability plot depicted in Figure 4( b). Further, the skewness coefficient of the In­ transformed data (­ 0.473 1) is lower ( closer to 0, the value for an ideal normal distribution) than that of the raw data ( 0.876). The W­ tests conducted for the raw and ln­ transformed data, however, both fail to reject the null hypothesis of normality at the 95 percent level of confidence. c K:\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ a~ lysis­ reprt­ September 2002. wpd 9 I Overall, the analyses performed suggests that the annual lead compliance data suimitted by the Lee County solid waste resource recovery display a lognormal distribution. , 4.1.5 Mercury The frequency histograms and normal probability plots of the raw and In­ tr mercury data are depicted in Figures 5( appears more symmetric around its mean with fewer extreme v evenly spread and hence, more closely appr plot depicted in Figure 5( b) as well. T observations clustered along higher, hence closer t (­ 2.6078). The computed W­ statistic for a normal data distribution at the 95 percent level of confidence. the value for an Overall, the analyses performed sug mercury compliance data submitted by the Lee County solid waste resource recovery facility display a relatively normal distribution. 4.1.6 Mercury Percent Reduction The frequency histograms and normal probability plots of the raw and In­ transformed mercury percent reduction data are depicted in Figures 6( a) and 6( b), respectively. From Figure , 6( a), both the raw and the ln­ transformed data appear to be positively skewed. There also is no substantial difference between how the raw and In­ transformed data are spread along the straight line in the normal probability data (­ 1.3233) is higher, henc transformed data (­ 1 3549). Fu reduction compliance data ( 0 confidence. efficient of the raw e for an ideal normal distribution, than the ln­ raw mercury percent 95 percent level of 10 K.\ O 154\ 11\ 06~ wc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd P ERG ­ September 2002 Overall, the analyses performed suggests that the annual mercury percent reduction compliance data submitted by the Lee County solid waste resource recovery facility display a relatively normal distribution. 4.1.7 Hydrogen Chloride ( HCI) The frequency histograms and normal probability plots of the raw and In­ transformed HCl data are depicted in Figures 7( a) and 7( b), respectively. From Figure 7( a), the In­ transformed data appears less skewed than the raw data. Further, the In­ transformed data is more evenly spread out and hence more closely approximates the straight line in the normal probability plot depicted in Figure 7( b). The skewness coefficient of the In­ transformed data ( 0.591 8) is lower than that for the raw data ( 1.3 140). Finally, the W­ test for the In­ transformed data fails to reject ­ the null hypothesis of normality at the 95 percent level of confidence. ­ Overall, the analyses performed suggests that the annual HC1 compliance data submitted by the Lee County solid waste resource recovery facility display a lognormal distribution. 4.1.8 HCI Percent Reduction The frequency histograms and normal probability plots of the raw and In­ transformed HCl percent reduction data are depicted in Figures 8( a) and 8( b), respectively. From Figure 8( a), both the raw and the In­ transformed data appear to be positively skewed. There also is no substantial difference between how the raw and In­ transformed data are spread along the straight line in the normal probability plot depicted in Figure S( b). The skewness coefficients of the raw and In­ transformed data are nearly identical indicating no substantial difference between using the two distributional assumptions. Finally, the computed W­ statistics for the raw and ln­ transformed data both fail to reject the assumption of normality at the 95 percent level of confidence. K \ O 154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 11 4.1.9 Sulfur Dioxide ( SO,) Arithmetic Average The frequency histograms the raw and ln­ transformed so, ectively. From Figure 9( a), the arithmetic average data are depicted in Figure raw data is negatively skewed wi In­ transformed data is positively ske The raw data is, ho plot depicted in Figure 9( b). The the quartile line in the upper tail. hence closer to 0, the value for 1.0151). Additionally, the data ( 0.9030) also support e upper tail of the distribution. 0, arithmetic average compliance nt level of confidence. Overall, the analyses performed suggests that the annual SO, ar compliance data submitted by the Lee County s relatively normal distribution. 4.1.10 SO, Percent Reduction 1 The frequency histograms an probability plots of the percent reduction data are depicted both the raw and the In­ transfo percent reduction data, there is no s data are spread along the straight li skewness coeffkients of the raw and In­ transformed data are fairly close with the skewness n how the raw and In­ transformed coefficient of the raw data slightly better than that of the In­ transformed one. Finally, the ' ERG ­ September 2002 computed W­ statistics for the raw and ln­ transformed data both fail to reject the assumption of normality at the 95 percent level of confidence. Overall, the analyses performed suggests that the annual SO, percent reduction compliance data submitted by the Lee County solid waste resource recovery facility display a relatively normal distribution. 4.1.11 Nitrogen Oxides ( NO,) The frequency histograms anb normal probability plots of the raw anc In­ transformed NO, data are depicted in Figures 1 1 ( a) and 1 l( b), respectively. From Figure 1 1 ( a), both the raw and In­ transformed data are positively skewed with extreme values in upper tail of the distribution. Moreover, there are no substantial differences in the spread of observations along the quartile line between the raw and In­ transformed data in the normal probability plots depicted in Figure 1 1 ( b). The skewness coefficient of the raw data (­ 1.5242), however, offers a slight ­ ­ improvement over that of the In­ transformed one (­ 1.5905). The conducted W­ tests for the raw and In­ transformed data both reject the normality assumption at the 95 percent level of confidence. Overall, the analyses performed suggests that the annual NO, compliance data submitted by the Lee County solid waste resource recovery facility display a relatively normal distribution. 4.2 95 and 99 Percent Threshold ( i. e. Exceedance) Values In the second stage of the comprehensive data analysis, ERG computed compliance thresholds ( i. e., exceedance values) at 95 and 99 percent significance levels for each pollutant. The 95 and 99 percent exceedance values reflect the emission levels that the Lee County facility can meet during an annual test with 95 and 99 percent probability, respectively, and are computed as: ­ K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 13 where: tandard Deviation Mean Standard deviation = Sarnpl ta P Table 10 presents the 95 and mean by pollutant ( c applicable threshold v ­ Section 4.1 for each p . I Deviation and is spec threshold and the mean is t, ' Standard ­ j 14 K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ Septmber 2002. wpd ' c ' ERG ­ September 2002 5.0 REFERENCES Epperson, David and David White. 1995. " Supplemental Analysis of NO, Emissions Data from the Stanislaus County MWC." Memorandum from Radian Corporation to Walt Stevenson, EPA/ ESD. August 30. Lanier, Steven W. and Charles D. Hendrix. 2001. Reference Method Accuracy and Precision ( ReMAP): Phase I : Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements. American Society of Mechanical Engineers ( ASME) Research Committee on Industrial and Municipal Waste. February. Mendenhall, William, Dennis D. Wackerly, and Richard L. Scheaffer. 1990. Mathematical Statistics with Applications. 4& Edition. P WS­ Kent Publishing Company. Boston, MA. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). 2000. Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis. EAP QNG­ 9 QAOO Update. Office of Environmental Information. Washington, D. C. July. ­ ­ K.\ O 154U l\ O& nwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 15 3 I C . 5 8 a L .. .. ­ cy 0 0 cy d al P al v) Q ti E U I E F 0 0 . 2 N d N . .­ B ri 0 0 N . . i P 00 3 . y . m c E cr a ... I ­ ... I 0 ! z h k Q) P) 0 k 7 & Q) +., B E ct: 0 E i! E a v1 + I, m E? R a a I e I , D ooooooooo* o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ooooooooo\ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ­.­ I . ­ . 1 3 w w . ­ I r i 3 ­+ Ti:\ dTi­+ idd+ 2 r. U s E b 0 r, v) 0 Y v) Y . I . C( d 3f 2. E 3 7 rn . .­ PI PI I I a 0 m . m II 0 0 m hl m W ": m 8 .2 m r? 3 I m m W 0 o\ m m N 2 cu m b c? m m 3 b ; cu W 0 9 3 I Q\ 0 0 ; b W Q\ 9 3 w 3 3 2 00 b 0 u? T W b b W v! m m N c! 4 3 b m 2 d W m 3 Q\ d m 09 .3 I W W 00 r­ m 3 0 0 5 W 00 3 c! 0 3 Q\ 10 r? 3 00 m 0 3 '? 2 ? 13 0 5 0 ­ hl x c? 0 m b hl 8 ; 00 m Q\ W W a\ r­ 4 2 0 0 9 \ o 03 0 8 W m d x M 3 m 9 3 I ­ 3 2 ? 0 0 00 9 3 00 3 ": 3 d 0 tr; 0 m 0 m '? 3 I m m 00 O\ 3 3 W 0 8 hl d 3 8 W 3 n a a 5 W 3 x n M N e U a" FI 0 .* Y Y 3 3 k d0" w l w l n a a 5 W ERG ­ September 2002 Frequency Histograms for Dio Data from Lee County Frequency Hi Frequency Histogram: in­ transformed Data 4.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Ln( dioxin/ furan ( ngldscm)) Bins* 26 * b e 4 ERG ­ September 2002 Normal Probability Plots for DioxinB'uran ( ng/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 DioxinlFuran ( ngldscm ) Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Ln( Dioxin/ furan ( nglds crn )) K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 27 Frequency Histograms for PM ( mgldsc ounty Solid Waste Resource Recove 9, I 1 l 0 2 4 6 8 Particulate Matter ( * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., +/­ 1 mg/ dscm about the midpoint. 6 5 4 s E s 3 ET $ 2 1 0 * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., + I­ 0.25 In ( mg/ dscm) about the midpoint. 28 K:\ 0154\ 11\ 06hwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd / ' i Figure 2( b) Normal Probability Plots for PM ( mgdscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data 0 2 4 6 8 10 Particulate Matter ( mg/ dscm) Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data 2 .­ 2 1 . Id E m s o ­ E ­ 1 m z ­ 2 ­ 1 ­ 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Ln( Particu1ate Matter ( m gldscm)) K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 29 a Figure 3( a) Frequency Histograms for Cadmium ( m ce Data from Lee Waste Resource Re J 3.5 3 2.5 6 E 2 1.5 2 " 1 0.5 0 0 Cadmium ( mgldscm) Bins* * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of F Frequency Histogram: Ln­ transformed ta 4.5 , 1 1 1 1 1 4 3.5 3 5 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 6 s 2 u. ­ 8.25 ­ 8 ­ 7.75 ­ 7.5 ­ 7.25 ­ 7 ­ 6.75 Ln( Cadmium ( mg/ dscm)) Bins* * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., +/­ 0.125, In ( mddscm) about the midpoint. K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 30 ' E8G ­ September 2002 Figure 3( b) Normal Probability Plots for Cadmium ( mg/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data 0.00025 0.0005 0.00075 0.001 0.00125 0.0015 Cadm ium ( mgldscm) * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., + I­ 1 mg/ dscm about the midpoint. Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data ­ 8.25 ­ 8 ­ 7.75 ­ 7.5 ­ 7.25 ­ 7 ­ 6.75 ­ 6.5 Ln( Cadm ium ( ngldscm)) E.\ O154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 31 Frequency Histograms for Lead ( mg/ dscm) Co om Lee County Solid Waste nd 2 Combined Lead ( mgldscm) Bins* ­ * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the b rmed Data 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 1.5 1 0.5 0 5 2 * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, i. e., +/­ 0.25 In ( mg/ dscm) about the midpoint. 32 K:\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd r­ =­­­­ ­ 4 . : ­ September 2002 I Figure 4( b) Normal Probability Plots for Lead ( mg/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data 0 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.01 0.013 0.015 0.018 0.02 Lead ( mgldscm) Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data 2 I I I I b I i ­ 7 ­ 6.5 ­ 6 ­ 5.5 ­ 5 ­ 4.5 ­ 4 ­ 3.5 Ln ( Lead ( m g/ ds cm )) K\ 0154\ 11\ 06hwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 33 Figure 5( a) 1 Frequency Histograms for Mercu Waste Resource R from Lee County Solid * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., +/­ 0.005 mg/ dscm about the midpoint. ency Histogram med Data 7 6 5 1 0 * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., +/­ 0.25 In ( mg/ dscm) about the midpoint. 34 K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ repo~­ September 2002. wpd Figure 5( b) Normal Probability Plots for Mercury ( mg/ dscm) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data n 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 Mercury ( m glds cm ) Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data 2 1 0 ­ .­ E O m 3 m 0 u ­ 1 ­ 2 ­ 3 ­ 4 ­ ­ 7 ­ 6.5 ­ 6 ­ 5.5 ­ 5 ­ 4.5 ­ 4 ­ 3.5 ­ 3 ­ 2.5 Ln ( M e rcury ( m glds cm )) K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. hpd 35 Frequency Histograms for Merc ata from Lee County ed a 7 6 3 5 f 4 L e 3 Q i 2 1 I 0 * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., +/­ 5% about the midpoint. Frequency Histogram Data 3 e C a, 3 Q U. I O , I I I I 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 a 3.6 4.4 * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., +/­ 0.1 In (%) about the midpoint. 36 K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd Figure 6@) Normal Probability Plots for Mercury Percent Reduction Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data 2 1 Q) ­ .­ I + I 5 0 I 5 ­ 2 ­ I I ti z ­ 2 ­ 3 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mercury % Reduction Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data Q) E m ­ .­ + I 5 ­ m E z I 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 3.6 Ln( Mercury % Reduction) K \ O 154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 37 ~ ~ ~­ ­ ­ LJ­­ ­~ ~ ­­ ­~ ­ ­ ­~ ~ ­ ­ a I . . > Frequency Histograms for HCl ( ppm Resource Recovery Lee County Solid Waste 8 7 6 E 5 L 2 ? 3 5 4 m 2 1 0 _ i * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the b midpoint. Frequency Histogram; Ln­ transformed Data I I I 7 6 5 $ 4 W s3 2 L 2 1 0 2.25 2.5 Ln( HCI ( ppmv)) Bins* 38 K \ O 154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd % 4 Figure 7( b) Normal Probability Plots for HCl ( ppmv) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data ­ 2 0 I 10 . 15 20 25 30 35 40 HCI ( PPmv) Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data K.\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ Septernber 2002. wpd 39 Frequency Histograms for H ta from Lee County ine Solid Waste Reso 6 5 4 5 2 3 C r E 2 1 0 * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., % about the midpoint. 7 6 5 >, E 4 Q) 5 3 2 L 2 1 0 K\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 40 c 4' T& ERG ­ September 2002 Normal Figure 8( b) Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Probability Plots for HCI Percent Reduction Compliance Data from Lee County Q) E m ­ .­ c a Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data 95.5 96 96.5 97 97.5 98 98.5 HCI % Reduction Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data 4.56 4.565 4.57 4.575 4.58 4.585 4.59 Ln( HCI % Reduction) 41 K \ O 154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ repon­ September 2002. wpd ­­­­ r­ 7 ­_ D_/ > Frequency Histogra 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 S * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, i. e., +/­ 1.25 ppmv about the midpoint. Frequency Histogra Da 7 6 5 g 4 Q) J c r 3 2 u 2 1 0 Ln( S02 Arithmetic Mean ( ppmv)) Bins* * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, i. e., +/­ 0.5 In( ppmv) about the midpoint. 42 KAO 154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd Figure 9( b) ormal Probability Plots for SO, Arithmetic Average ( ppmv) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 SO2 Arithmetic Average ( ppmv) . ­ Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data ­ 1 0 1 2 3 ­ 3 ­ 2 Ln( S02 Arithmetic Mean ( ppmv)) K:\ 0154\ 11\ 06hwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 43 Frequency Histograms fo Solid 8 * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., +/­ 2­ 5 % about the midpoint. sformed I i 6 5 4 6 f 3 ; 2 U 1 0 Ln( S02 % Reductio * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, i. e., +/­ 0.025 In(%) about the midpoint. 44 E \ O 154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd Figure 1O( b) Normal Probability Plots for SO, Percent Reduction Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data 2 85 90 95 100 80 SO2 % Reduction Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data 2 I ­ 2 0, ­ 3 , 4.35 4.4 4.45 4.5 4.55 4.6 4.65 ln( S02 % Reduction) K:\ O 154U 1\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 45 .­ I Frequency Histograms Lee County So ta 9 . , I I I 8 7 6 $ 5 0 5 4 E 3 2 1 0 NOX ( ppmv) Bins* ­ * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., +/­ 2.5 ppmv about the midpoint. 9 8 7 6 3 f 5 $ 4 E 3 2 1 0 * The x­ axis labels denote the midpoint of the bin range, Le., + I­ 0.0125 ln( ppmv) about the midpoint. 46 K:\ 0154\ 11\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ qo~­ September 2002. wpd ­ %, G ­ September 2002 ­ 3 Figure ll( b) Normal Probability Plots for NO, ( ppmv) Compliance Data from Lee County Solid Waste Resource Recovery Facility Units 1 and 2 Combined Normal Probability Plot: Raw Data I I I NOX ( PPm VI I 155 160 165 170 145 150 Normal Probability Plot: Ln­ transformed Data K \ O 154\ 1 1\ 06\ mwc­ analysis­ report­ September 2002. wpd 1 47 i

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.988824

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0048

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:40.998202

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0049

Supporting & Related Material

8458 Columbia Road ( 440) 263­ 8214 / FAX: { W) 2354982 Email: 92riPo@ rrai. com / Website: www. rrai. com 0 Olmsted Falls, Ohio 44138­ 2206 December 28,2001 whitman, Administrator ai Protection Agency Headquarters Washington, D. C. 2046 Subjecf: Enforc of MACT emissions limitations given emissions testing methods. Dear Administrator Whitman, In my August 30, 1999 tetter to Administrator Browner on this subject, I explained that Document ( TSD) for the HWC MACT Rule erroneously stated d agreed with EPAs assessment of the expanded uncertainty of methods, the range of a d emissions represented by a stack i at there were significant errors in the TSD analysis. On November 9 1999, OSW'Director Cotsworth wrote me suggesting that review of the rred pending completion of the hexican Society of Mechanical h Committee on Industrial and M ~ c i p a l Waste's ReMAP ( Reference and Precision) program and asked that I involve EMC's Mr­ William H. Lamason in tie foilow­ up. , ­ The inm 1 ReMAP report confirmed the methodologid deficiencies 1 identified 1999 letter and identified an additional problem with the TSD analysis. In ­ A's response to some of the comments I made on the Small MWC MACT M e g the expanded uncertainty of manual sampling methods ( the range of contain the measurand), the Agency stated that dioxin test y promulgated and that measurement uncertaimy was considered. response does not address the concern because EPA never established fication limit for Method 23 ( or RCRA Method 0023 for that # d could not have because the Method 23 validation oIumes needed to calculate concentration. Hence, the capability of Method 23 at the regulatory concentrations. Environrnenra1 and Statistical Consuiting c Subject: Enforceability of MACT emissions limitations aven the uncertainty of manual Page 2 December 28,2001 emissions testing methods. Because of my concerns about enforceability, I expanded a demonstration project I was conducting in November 1997 to include simultaneous Method 23 sampling. I gave those data to EPA and ASME used them in ReMAP. I recently incorporated the results of a few more simultaneous Method 23 tests into an updated assessment of dioxin measurement uncertainty, which I have expanded to include " 3098 dioxin toxic equivalency as well. The range of the data now covers the entire range of regulated concentrations instead of ing at 27.6 ng/ dsm3 ( no diluent correction). Those updated results are attached to ­ I determined the relationship between the standard deviation of simultaneous test results d concentration using the procedures developed in ReMAP. That relationship d along with Monte Carlo Simulation ( MCS) to determine the credible range of standard deviations and measured values likely to be observed ( Cox, M. G., M. P. Dainton and P. M. Harris, So@ are Support for Metwhgy Best Practice Guide No. 6, Uncertainty and Stdistical Modeling, National Physics Laboratory, Toddington, March 2001). Specific characteristics of the measurement method such as the limit were extracted from the Monte Carlo Simulation results. the attachment to this letter conform to the A m k a n National Uncertainty ­ U­ S. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in SL 2540­ 2­ 199' 7). The data and results are attached to this \ letter. Method 301 is the only promulgated rule establishing the lower limit of applicability of an emissions test method. Both Method 301 itself and the preamble make it clear that under the current regulatory scheme, test results can only be used for enforcement when above the practical quantification limit. Of course, this caveat should be able to citly waived when promulgated emissions limitations explicitly incorporate ent uncertainty. I The statistical concept underlying the Method 30 1 definition the practical quantification limit is that the PQL is the concentration where the measured concentration ( measurement) is likely to be within 10 percent of the true, but unknowable emitted source concentration ( measurand). I used the statistical concept rather than the formulas found in Method 301. because the HWC MACT TSD correctly states that the Method 301 formulas do not apply for manual stack emissions testing methods. For these methods, the standard deviation between simultaneous replicate measurements is neither constant nor decreases with concentration; rather, it increases with concent , Subject: Enforceability of MACT emissions limitations given the uncertzlinty of manual Page 3 December 28,200 1 emissions testing methods. The practical quantiation limit for total dioxins is 34 & dsm3. Since total dioxin MACT limitations include 7, 13 and 30 ng/ dsm3 corrected to 7 percent oxygen, which are equivalent to 5­ 75 9­ 14 and 21­ 32 ng/ dsm3 on an uncorrected basis for typical MWCs, it is clear that that PQL is above the enforcement levels. The new data did not materially change the results for ITEQ dioxins. The PQL for ITEQ dioxins is 1.6 ng/ dsm3. So, the PQL is above 0.2 and 0.4 ng/ dsm3 corrected to 7 percent oxygen emissions limitations found in the now remanded HWC MACT rule. I remain convinced that measurement uncertainty must be known and properly considered when MACT standards are established. Absent such, I am deeply concerned that truly excessive emissions will not be reduced while sources that are actually achieving MACT risk being punished in the press and by unwarranted enforcement actions every time they conduct a source emissions test. Very truly yours, H G Rig0 & Associates, Inc. H. Gregor Rigo, PhD, PE, QEP, DEE President Attachments: Updated measurement uncertainty results for Total, ITEQ and WHO98 TEQ Dioxins RCRA Docket: F96­ RCSP­ FFFF Air & Radiation Docket­ HWC: A­ 9045 ­ MWC: A­ 98­ 18 ­ MWI: A­ 91­ 6 ­ WC: A­ 94­ 63 Mi. William H. Lamason, EMC, EPA 7 Updated measurement uncertainty results for Total, ITEQ and TEQ Dioxins The following three sheets are all similarly arranged. They provide summary statistical characteristics and measurement uncertainty results for Total Dioxins, ITEQ Dioxins and WHO98 TEQ dioxins. The upper lee hand corner of each page is a tabulation of the statistical characteristics of the data. These statistical characteristics describe the applicable range of the results and provide the input parameters needed to determine measurement uncertainty using either main­ line GUM ( Guide to expressing uncertainty in measurement) or Monte Carlo Simulation WCS) techniques. MCS is the correct technique to apply since fbndamental assumptions implicit in main­ line GUM are violated by the nature of the relationship between standard deviation and concentration for manual emissions measurements. Using the total dioxins sheet as an example: 0 Simultaneous replicate data has been obtained between 0.5 and 399 ng/ dsm3. The average and standard deviation of the natural logarithms of the concentration averages are 1. .9 and 2.06 ln( ng/ dsm") respectively. of the sample size bias corrected standard deviation estimates is 4 while the average of the predicted standard deviations is 2.6 leading to a retransformation bias correction factor of 1.58. The natural logarithm of this factor is added to the regression intercept to correct for this bias The retransformation bias corrected equation relating average concentration and the standard deviation of the measurements used to generate the average is: S = ­ 1.69 + 0.83( concentration). The statistical characteristics are based on 27 dual­ train samplings. A 10,000 iteration Monte Carlo Simulation was used to determine that for total dioxins: Blank trains are likely to yield measured total dioxin concentrations up to 0.07 ng/ dsm3. The detection limit, the lowest concentration we are statistically certain is greater If we are interested in making sure that a reported result has at least one significant digit, then the true concentration has to be above 0.5 ng/ dsm3 and the lowest level at which two significant digits may be properly reported is 24 ng/ dsm3. than a blank train, is 0.9 ng/ dsm3. I The long, thin dashed line on the graphs is the central value estimated & om the data. The heavy lines demark the upper and lower 95% ( 2­ tailed) confidence intervals and the surrounding light dotted lines indicate the uncertainty range associated with these bounds. ­ 2­ At the bottom left hand comer: 0 The relative standard deviation is plotted against measurand, the " true" but unknown and unknowable value of the concentration. PQL is the concentration corresponding to a 10 percent relative standard deviation. The analytic result has at least one significant digit when upper confidence limit for the standard deviation equals 50 percent and may have more than one significant digit when the lower confidence limit for the standard deviation is below 5 percent. 0 At the right hand side of each sheet, the range of measured values is plotted against the measurand. Like a typical calibration curve, if the measurand is known ( for example, when a standard solution is analyzed) then reading up the graph indicates the range of Its that can be expected using the Method. In stack testing, however, the s are what we have and the measurand is both unknown and unknowable. If I conducted 5t test and measured 100 ng/ dsm3, the total dioxin graphic lets me figure out that the " true" measured concentration ( measurand) is between 80 and 130 ng/ dsm3. Of course, these concentrations must still be multiplied by the dilution correction factor to express the result in the units of a diluent corrected regulatory standard. Summary statistics for simultaneous repIicate Method 23 dioxin measurements. Run ID TO1 TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5 TO6 TO7 f l 0 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 EERTRCl EERTRC2 EERTRC3 wes­ runl­ 1 wes­ run 1­ 2 wes­ run13 wes­ run2­ 2 wes­ rur12­ 3 TOTAL DIOXINS totdxna totdxns 2.1840 0.1291 2.8496 0.2731 1.3521 0.3703 3.2676 0.6022 0.8941 0.0900 15.3254 3.9617 0.0558 2.0002 8.2172 0.1709 5.3342 0.1218 1.9771 0.9554 5.5100 ,0.8090 0.9638 0.1478 1.0459 0.7357 4.7550 1.8872 15.7800 0.7797 27.5550 0.2924 ITEQ DIOXINS iteqa itqs 0.2524 0.0572 0.1086 0.0016 0.1256 0.0227 0.0731 0.0261 0.1486 0.0361 0.0426 0.01 30 0.5208 0.0833 0.9128 0.0537 0.41 90 0.0727 0.3813 0.0002 0.2489 0.0202 0.0508 0.01 71 0.0582 0.0354 0.0357 0.0009 0.0459 0.0286 0.0408 0.0117 0.0423 0.0222 0.0209 0.001 5 0.0489 0.01 17 0.1776 0.001 7 0.3182 0.0019 7.7605 0.2028 7.5280 0.7809 3.5069 0.4250 4.3743 0.4541 3.5287 0.2606 WHO98 DIOXINS who98a who98s 0.161 1 0.0349 0.0709 0.0039 0.0876 0.0042 0.0482 0.0130 0.0896 0.0229 0.0332 0.0035 0.3268 0.0087 0.6133 0.0420 0.2793 0.0437 0.2430 0.0071 0.1620 0.0126 0.0508 004 0.0496 055 0.0286 0.0006 0.031 1 0.01 05 0.0314 0.0043 0.0310 0.0217 0.0223 0.0027 0.0203 0.0022 8.5165 0.1963 8.1251 0.8271 3.8095 0.4470 4.4339 1.1388 3.9597 0.201 3 Notes: all standard deviations are sample size bias corrected ­ multiplied by 1.253 all statistical results derived from pairs, EERTRC results are cross­ traverse " wes" runs are new since ASMEIRCIMW ReMAP report ( October 2000 testing) 0 0 0 ' 8 3 Z 1 n U i e * b ­ r I I LI U ¶

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:41.000419

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0050

Supporting & Related Material

UN~ TED STATES ENVIRONME~~ TAL PROTEGT~ ON AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFIGE OF AIR AND RnoMTlON Dr. H. Gregor Rigo, President H G Rig0 & Associates, Inc, Columbia Road Is, OH 44138­ 2206 Dear Dr. Rigo: Thank you for your letter dated December 28,2001. In your letter, you conclude that the wtitation ( PLQ) for Method 23, the Environmental Protection Agency's test method for measuring polychlorinated dibenzodioxins ( PCDD's) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans ( PCDF's), is higher than the emission limits for PCDD's and the various regdations limiting the emission of these compounds itom municipal Again, according to your letter, this is important because the EPA's Method " that under the current regulatory scheme, test results can only be used for they are above the practical quantification limit." While I share your concern about measurement uncertainty, there is no requirement in any other EPA compliance test method to establish a PLQ or to prohibit the use ata that fall below the PLQ. The procedure in Method 301 for determiping the eled as an " optional" procedure and not a required one, as proposed in the Federal Register on June 13,1991 In the Preamble to the final rulemaking for Method 301,, we responded to several comments suggesting the EPA revise the proposed method to include specific procedures to defrne the meas comments noted that Method 301 re level of the pollutant in the waste s limit or require the tester to estabIi 301 " provided' cedures for dete I t range of the method. EPA's ester to validate measurement methods at the t declined to set an absolute lower measurement it. Our response also pointed out that Method g a limit of quantitation and that it ` advocated" the use to help defrne a method's measurement range. It did not choose to make I regret any confusion that this may have caused and appreciate the oppo irements of Method 301. Although Metbod 301 does not require that a tester determine the PLQ of a method, it does have limits on the allowabie precision for a compliance test method. As defined in Section 6.3.1.1, the precision of a method is unacceptable if the relative standard deviation is equal to or greater than 50%. Based on your analysis and that of the American Society of Mechanical , h Committee on Reference Method Accuracy and Precision, the relative n ofMethod 23 was always less than 50% over the entire range of emission Internet A& ress ( URL) http: l/ www­ epagov Rffiycle& RecycbWe Prtnled with Vegetable OII Based inks on Recycled Peper ( Minimum 30% Postconsumer) ­­­­­­~­­ ­

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:41.005140

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0051

Supporting & Related Material

8­ 15 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF 6 2 2 2w I AIR AND RADIATION Mr. Frank P. Prager Xcel Energy 4653 Table Mountain Drive, Golden, Colorado 80403 Dear Mr. Prager: Thank you for your petition of July 8,2002, to Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, in which you requested an additional carbon monoxide ( CO) emission limit be added to the Clean Air Act Section 129 maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) standards for large municipal waste combustion ( MWC) units ( Subpart Cb). We appreciate your concern with ths issue. As you note, the MACT standards adopted in 2000 for small MWC units ( Subpart BBBB) do contain a unique CO emission limit for this type of fluidized bed MWC. We understand that you are simply requesting that the CO limit in the small MWC standards be limits in the large MWC standards. After careful consideration and review, I add your request to the issues to be addressed in the 5­ year review of the MACT e MWC units. That review will be initiated next month ( September 2002). As you are aware, any changes made to the MACT standards will go through proposal and public comment prior to adoption. Changes made to the MACT standards would­ then be incorporated into the Federal plan ( Subpart FFF) for laxge MWC units. . Again, thank you for your petition. I appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust the information provided is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Bob Wayland ( 919­ 541­ 1045) or Walt Stevenson ( 919­ 541­ 5264). Sincerely, Internet Address ( URL) http:// www. epa. gov Recycled/ Recyclable Prlnted with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper ( Mlnlmum 30% Postconsumer)

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:41.007492

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0072-0052

Supporting & Related Material

MEMORANDUM DATE: September 18,2002 SUBJECT: Addition to Performance I Test Data for Large Municipal ( MWCs) at MACT Compliance ( Year 2000 data) FROM: Bradley Nelson Alpha­ Gamma Technologies, Inc. Walt Stevenson, EPAEmission Standards DivisiodCombus TO: The attached table in this memorandum is a companion table to the memorandum, " PerformanceJTest Data for Large Municipal Waste Combustors ( MWCs) at MACT Compliance ear 2000 Data)" Docket A­ 90­ 45; Item VIII­ 3­ 2. The attached table provides emission factors in units of pollutant emissions per electrical generation ( kg pollutantlMWe­ hr). These emission factors were developed using the emission factors from Table 3 in the companion memorandum and developing a conversion factor to convert from tons of municipal solid waste ( MSW) fired to nerated. The conversion factor was developed by totaling the MSW fired by all MWCs ( Mg per year) and dividing by the total electrical power generated ( m e ­ h r per year), based on EIA data ( Year 2000). The conversion factor was calculated to be 1.5 tons MSWIMWe­ hr. 1 Table 3b. Emission Factors of Large MWC units after MACT Retrofits Section 129 Pollutants ( kg pollutant per ( kg pollutant per ' The emissions factors ( kg emissions per Mg waste fired) were developed by totaling the emissions of all167 units and dividing by the total waste combusted. ( see Docket A­ 90­ 45; Item VIII­ B­ 3). ' The emissions factors in the first coliumn ( kg emissions per Mg waste fired) were converted into units of ons per electrical generation by using a conversion factor of 1.5. The conversion factor is based on EIA data ( year 2000). The conversion factor was developed by totaling the waste fired by all MWCs ( Mg per year) and ding by the total electrical power generated ( W e ­ h r per year). ( The Tulsa MWC was excluded because of incomplete data).

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:41.010313

regulations

EPA-HQ-OECA-2002-0004-0002

Rule

Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule, Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 1601Monday. August 19, 2002 Latitude 60 ° 58.93' N. 146O48.86W and southwest of a line bearing 307' True from Tongue Point at 61 ° 02.10' N. 146 ° 40.00' W. * * * * * PART 1674FFSHORE TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEMES 3. The authority citation for part 167 Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1223; 49 CFR 1.46. , 4. Add § § 167.1700 through 167.1703 continues to read as follows: to read as follows: § 167.1700 In Prince William Sound: General. The Prince William Sound Traffic Separation Scheme consists of four parts: Prince William Sound Traffic Separation Scheme, Valdez Arm Traffic Separation Scheme, and two precautionary areas. These parts are described in 55 167.1701 through 167.1703. The geographic coordinates in $ 6 167.1701 throueh 167.1703 are ­ ~. ­ Longitude ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. iefined using Nor& American Datum 1983 ( NAD 83). ................ 60" 20.59" 60O49.49" ................ $ 167.1701 In Prince William Sound: Precautionary areas. precautionary area is established and is bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions: ( a) Cape Hinchinbrook. A SUMMARY: Because EPA received 146' 46.18' W 146' 56.19W Latitude Latitude 60' 20.59" ................ 60' 12.67" ................ 6OD11.01' N ................ 60' 05.47" ................ 60" 00.61' N ................ 60" 05.44" ................ 59' 51.60" ................ 59Y3.52" ................ 60" 07.76" ................ 60" 11,51' N ................ 60? 20.60" ................ Longitude Latitude I Lonoitude ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 60" 49 10' h 6070 6 0 h AGENCY 60" 20.77" ................ 146' 52.31' W 60" 46.12" ................ 40 CFR Parts 19 and 27 60" 48.29N ................ 146" 59.77' W 60" 20.93" ................ [ FRL­ 7261­ 51 147' 04 19W 146' 54 31' W ( b) A traffic lane for northbound Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule traffic between the separation zone and Latitude 146" 48.64' W 146" 54,31' W a line connecting the following geographical positions: AGENCY: Environmental Protection Aaencv IEPA). Longitude Washington, DC 20460, ( 202) 564­ 2413. 60O49.39" ................ 60' 58.04" ................ Dsted August 13, 2002. 146O58.19' W 146' 46.52' W John Peter Suarez, the direct final rule amending the find Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment ~ ~ l ~ , which was by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. That leeislation reauired IC) A traffic lane for southbound traffic between the separation zone and a line connecting the following geographical positions: federal agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation on a periodic basis. EPA published the direct final rule on June 18,2002 ( 67 FR 41343). We stated in the direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by July 18, 2002, we would publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register. The Arm Traffic Separation We subseouentlv received one adverse $ 157.1703 In Prince William Sound: Valdez A­ TraMc Separation scheme. Scheme consists of the following: line connecting the following geographical positions: comment bn thedirect final rule. We will address that comment in a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal also published on June 18, 2002 ( 67 FR 41363). As stated in the ( a) A separation zone bounded by a Latitude Longitude oarallel orooosal. we will not institute ( b) A precautionary area is established of radius 1.5 miles centered at geographical position 60' 49.63". 147~ 01.33' W. ( 4 A pilot hoarding area located near the center of the Biigh Reef precautionary area is established. Regulations for vessels operating in these areas are in 5 165.1109( d) of this chapter. § 167.1702 In Prince William Sound: Prlnce William Sound Traffic Separation Scheme. The Prince William Sound Traffic Separation Scheme consists of the following: ( a) A separation zone bounded by a line connecting the following geographical positions: 41344 Federal Regisler I Vol. 67. No. 11 7 I Tu~ sdd) ~ ] uric 18. 2002 / Kulus dnd Kegidation& affei.? the terms under which civil penalties UP assess~ d by EPA. In addition. Ef. 4 has rilade minor conforming ctimgcs to the regulaticns to reflpct thc effective date of the new rates prescrihcd by Congress w'lrich haw no substantive ctfwi. The furrimla for the umount of the penalty aniusrrnciit is prescribed hy Congress in the UCIA and the5echanw a e n o l subjert to the exrrrisc cf dismction by EPA. Ilo! varer 1110 rounding requirement of Ilk? statute is subjuct to diffwenr interpretations and EVA has rounded based on the amount of the increase resulting friirn the CPI pwcentagc Lalculation. This apprnach achiet'es tllc intcnl uf the DClh because a rounding nilir hnsed on thc i l ~ i u u ~ t Of the increase will rcsult in incrcasc ~ m u u ~ i t s that more closely track rhc manges in the CI'! a i d uould $ readily incro'isc the ilmuun! of the CMPj over time in liue wilh increase$ in thn CPI. Calculi~ tions bas14 on ut! ier interpret. itions oi tho rounding requirercmt could resnlr in CMY ndjustmeiits that i y i r either several tinleu d ~ r CPI percentage or in no increase at all p w n with increoscs i n the CPI. In the " Pmpoced Rules" section 01 today'.< Pcderiil Registur publication. we are publishing R separstc dorumcnt that will uenc 3s the proposal to adiusl Et'A's civil mon& q ycrid~ tiez fur inflation iiadversc i. umments arc f i l d This nile will be etttxtivo on August 19. 2002 wilhuut further notice unless we receiae adrorso commmt I I ~ J u l y 18, 2002. If EPA rweii'?~ adverse comment. we u< ll puhlish n tiinelv ivithdrarval in the Federal Register infornung the public that fhe rule will not take oihn: t. \ Vu Xviil hddrcss all public comments in II subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule We wil: not institute a secuud coinmen\ period on tnis action. An) partias interested in cornrriimting mnst do so at this lime. Under Cxcculive Order 12866. I58 FR 51,705 ( OL. tober 4, 1WJ)) thcAgcI1c). must determint? whcther tho rcgulhtory action is " signifkant" and : herefole subject tu O W review a d thc requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines " significant regulatory action' as onc that is like.? io resiilr i n a rule thkr mav: IIJ tin." i l l ) ", Nt" dl * rr,! eCl 011 IlW ,' vu, lolr> y id $> or mi1l; on or mom nr p d v n n d y H f l w t in B malexiitt LWY Iha econum;. a S R ~ U I ut I t s t ~ rxclucrmy ~ mncluriiwiy, umqx! ritior., iobr. iht: m v i m m w u ~ , ( JUIAIS. laultlr iw sixbl) , $ 17 Stnlc. IxA71. of 1~ 111. t1 ! m w r w t ~ W l . ~ UT ~ communities; otherwise interfere with an action taken or [ Z] Create a serious inconsistency or planned by another agency: ( 3) Materially slter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, usm fees, or loan programs or Ihs rights and obligations of recipiants thereof, or ( 4) Raise novel legal N policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that this rule is not a " significant regulatory action" under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Title I1 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRAI, Public Law 104­ 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of theb regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section ZGZ of the UMRA, EPA 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 i n any one yeas. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statament is needed, section 205 of tha UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cast­ 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 EPA 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 EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including trihal goveriiments, it must have developed under section 203 of the Uh4RA a small government agency plan. 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating. and advising small governments on compliance with the re ulatnr requirements. Todgay's d e contains no Federal mandates ( under theregulatory provisions oETitle IIof the UMRAl for State, local, or trihal governments or the privete sector because the rule implements mandate($ specifically and explicitly set iorth by the Congress without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UXIRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquoly affect small governments. ' Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, ZOOO), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " nieaningful and timely input by tribal officials in tho development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." As this direct final rule 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 lhe Federal government and Indian tribes, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. Executive Order 13132, mititled 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 thc 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 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, nr on the distribution of power and responsihilities among the various levels of government, as specified in executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Ordsr 13132 does not apply tn this rule. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 8s amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 [ SEREFA), 5 U. S. C. GO1 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 rule on small entities, small , Federal RegisterIVol. 67, No. 117/ Tuesday, June 18, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 41345 7 U. S. C. 1361.( a)( l) ......................... entity is defined as ( 1) a small business; ( 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. This action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: EPA is required by the DCIA to adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation. The formula for the amount of the penalty adjustment is prescribed by Congress and is not subject to the exercise of discretion by EPA. EPA's action implements this statutory mandate and does not substantively alter the existing regulatory framework. This rule does not affect mechanisms already in place. including statutory provisions and EPA policies, that address the special circumstances of small entities when assessing penalties in enforcement actions. EPA's media penalty policies generally take into account an entity's " ability to pay" in determining the amount of a penalty. In addition, entities may he affected by this rule only if the federal government finds them in violation and seeks monetary penalties. This would constitute a very small fraction of the universe of regulated facilities. Additionally, the final amount of any civil penalty assessed against a violator remains committed to the discretion of the Federal Judge or Administrative Law Judge hearing a particular case. Accordingly, although EPA cannot predict the precise impact on individual cases, the adjustment is likely to result in at most a relatively minor change to the actual penalties in cases affecting a small fraction of regulated entities. After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23,1997). applies to any rule that: ( 11 Is determined to he " economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, 8 RODENTICIDE ACT CIVIL 6,200 the Agency must evaluate the envirimmental health or safety effects ( tlie planned rule on children. and explain why the planned rcgulation is preferablo to other polentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). For the reasons outlined above. however, this action will take effect August 19, 2002. List of Subjects 4OCFRPori19 ) f ' Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties. 40 CFR Pari 27 Administrative practice and procedure, Assessments, False claims, False statements, Penalties. , Dated: May 31.2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, Envimnmentol Protection Agency. preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 1. Revise part 19 to read as follows: For the reasons set out in the PART 19­ ADJUSTMENT OF CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES FOR applying only to those re ulatory risks, such that the analysis required under section 5­ 501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. Because this action does not involve technical standards, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note). This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.) because it does not require persons to obtain, maintain, retain, report, or publicly disclose information to or for a Federal agency. Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order Set. 12898. entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 19.3 [ Reserved] Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations ` 59 7629' 16' Authority: Pub. L. 101­ 410.28 U. S. C. 2461 1994). This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That p19.1 Applicability. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, This part applies to each statutory Distribution, or Use ( 66 FR 28355, May provision under the laws administered 22,2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order the Protection concerning the maximum civil monetary penalty which may he 12866. Congressional Review Act assessed in either civil judicial or administrative proceedings U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 019,2 Effective date, Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides The increased penalty set that before a rule may take effect, the forth in this Part apply to all violations agency promulgating the rule must under the applicable statutes and copy of the rule, to each House of the . 2o02. Congress and to the Comptroller General 619.3 peseweq of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the US. Senate. the US. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it actions that are based on a ealth or safety INFLATION 19.1 A plicability. 19.2 Ekctive Date. 19.4 penalty adjustment and table. note; Pub. L. 104­ 134, 31 U. S. C. 3701 note. The Congressional Review Act, 5 a rule which includes a regulations which occur after August 19, 019.4 Penalty adjustment and table. The adjusted statutory penalty provisions and their maximum applicable amounts are set out in Table 1. The last column in the table provides the newly effective maximum penalty amounts. TABLE 1. OF SECTiON 19.4.­ cIVIL MONETARY PENALTY INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS I New maximum penal& amount ldoilaml US. Code citation I Civil monetary penalty description ­ U. S. Code citation 41346 Federal Re& ter/ Vol. 67, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18. 2002 / Rules and Regulations 7 U. S. C. 136I.( a)( 2) ........................ 15 U. S. C. 2615( a) .......................... 15 U. S. C. 2647( a) .......................... 31 U. S. C. 3802( a)( 1) ...................... 31 U. S. C. 3802( a)( 2) ........ :............. 33 U. S. C. 1319( d) .......................... 33 U. S. C. 1319( g)( Z)( A) ................. 33 U. S. C. 1319( g)( 2)( B) ................. 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 6)( 8)( 1) ............. 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 6)( E)( ii) ............. 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 7)( A) ___.............. 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 7)( B) ................. 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 7)( C) ................. 33 U. S. C. 1321( b)( 7)( D) ................. 33 U. S. C. 1414b( d) ........................ 33 U. S. C. 1415( a) .......................... 42 U. S. C. 300g3( b) ...................... 42 U. S. C. 300* 3( c) ...................... 42 U. S. C. 300* 3( g)( 3)( A) 42 U. S. C. 300p3( g)( 3)( B) 42 U. S. C. 300* 3( g)( 3)( C) ............., 42 U. S. C. 300h­ Z( b)( l) ................... 42 U. S. C. 300M( c)( l) ................_.. 42 U. S. C. 3OOh­ Z( c)( 2) ................... 42 U. S. C. 300M( c)( l) ................... 42 U. S. C. 300h­ 3( c)( 2) ................... 42 U. S. C. 300i( b) ............................ 42 U. S. C. 300cl( c) 42 U. S. C. 300j( e)( 2) 42 U. S. C. 300j­ 4( c) ........................ 42 U. S. C. 300@( b)( 2) .................... 42 U. S. C. 300j­ 23( d) ...................... 42 U. S. C. 4852d( b)( 5) ........___........., 42 U. S. C. 4910( a)( 2) 42 U. S. C. 6926( a)( 3) 42 U. S. C. 6928( c) ......... Civil monetaly penalty description FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, a RODENTICIDE ACT civiL PENALTY4RIVATE APPLICATORS­ FIRST AND SUESE­ ' QUENT OFFENSES OR VIOLATIONS. TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT CIVIL PENALTY ................... ASBESTOS HAZARD EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT CIVIL PEN­ PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACTNIOLATION INVOLVING ALTY. FALSE CLAIM. ­. . ­. . , . . CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATIONICIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY OF CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATIONICIVIL JUDICIAL PENALN OF SEC 3110). CLEAN WATER ACT VlOLATlONlMlNlMUM CIVIL JUDICIAL PEN­ ALTY OF SEC 311( b)( 3)­ PER VIOLATION OR PER BARREU UNIT. MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH 8 SANCTUARiES ACT VIOL SEC 104b( d). MARINE PROTECTION RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT VIO­ SAFE DRINKING WATER ACTlClVlL JUDICIAL PENALN OF SEC SAFE DRINKING WATER ACTICIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY OF SEC SAFE DRINKING WATER ACTICIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY OF SEC SEC 311( c) a ( e)( I)( E). LATIONS­ FIRST a SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS. 1414( b). 1414( c). 1414faM3Mal. 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACTlMAXlMUM ADMINISTRATIVE PEN­ SAFE DRINKING WATER ACTTHRESHOLD REQUIRING CIVIL JU­ SDWNCIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTYNIOLATIONS OF REQS­ UN­ SDWNClVlL ADMIN PENALNNIOLATIONS OF UIC R E Q W E R SDWNClVlL ADMlN PENALNNIOLATIONS OF UIC REQS­ PER SDWANlOLATlONlOPERATlON OF NEW UNDERGROUND INJEC­ SDWANYILLFUL VIOLATION/ OPERATION OF NEW UNDER­ SDWNFAILURE TO COMPLY WITH IMMINENT AND SUESTAN­ SDWNAlTEMPTiNG TO OR TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC WATER SDWNFAILURE TO COMPLY WIORDER ISSUED UNDER SEC. SDWNREFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH REQS. OF SEC. 14451a1 OR ALTIES PER SEC 1414( g)( 3)( E). DICIAL ACTION PER SEC 1414( g)( 3)( C). DERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL ( UIC). VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM. VIOLATION AND MAXIMUM. TION WELL. GROUND INJECTION WELL. TlAL ENDANGERMENT ORDER. SYSTEWCIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTY. 1441( C)( l). . . ( b). SDWNFAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ADMIN. ORDER ISSUED TO SDWANlOLATlONSlSECTlON 1463( bHlRST OFFENSHREPEAT FEDERAL FACILITY. OFFFNSF I ­ . . _. RESIDENTIAL LEAD­ BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION ACT OF NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 19724IVIL PENALTY ........................... 1992. SEC IOIB­ CIVIL PENALTY. RESOURCE CONSERVATION a RECOVERY ACTNIOLATION SUBTITLE C ASSESSED PER ORDER. COMPLIANCE ORDER. RES. CONS. 8 REC. ACTICONTINUED NONCOMPLIANCE OF 1992 SEC i n i g i v i i PFNAI TY . . ­ ­. . . . . . . . .­ . ­. .. .­ . . . New maximum penalty amount ( dollan) 63011,300 31,500 6,200 6,200 6.200 31,500 12,000/ 31.600 12,0001157,500 12,000131,500 12.0001157.560 31.500 or 1,300 per barrel or unit 31.500 31.500 125,000 or 3,700 per barrel or unit 750 62,0001157.500 31.500 31,500 31.500 ~, 200128.000 28.000 31,500 12,0001157,500 3,20011 57.500 3,200 12.000 17.000 25,000162,000 3.150 31,500 ! 6.000 ~. 200162,000 12.000 12,000 31,500 31,500 1 Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 117/ Tuesday, June 18, 20021Rules and Regulations 41347 U. S. Code citation 42 U. S. C. 6928( g) ........................... 42 U. S. C. 6928( h)( 2) 42 U. S. C. 6934( e) 42 U. S. C. 6973( b) 42 U. S. C. 6991e( a)( 3) 42 U. S. C. 6991e( d)( l) 42 U. S. C. 6991e( d)( 2) 42 U. S. C. 6992d( a)( 2) 42 U. S. C. 6992d( a)( 4) ..................... 42 U. S. C. 6992d( d) ......................... 42 U. S. C. 7413( b) ........................... 42 U. S. C. 7413( d)( i) .............. : ........ 42 U. S. C. 7413( d)( 3) ....................... 42 U. S. C. 7524( a) ........................... 42 U. S. C. 7524( a) ........................... 42 U. S. C. 7524( c) ........................... 42 U. S. C. 7545 d 42 U. S. C. 9604{ e]( 42 U. S. C. 9606( b)( l) ....................... 42 U. S. C. 9609( a) 8 ( b) ............__._.. 42 U. S. C. 9609 b 42 U. S. C. 96091~ 1 ........................... 42 U. S. C. 9609( c) ........................... 42 U. S. C. 11045( a) 8 ( b)( l). ( 2) 8 ( 3). 42 U. S. C. 11045( bp) a ( 3) ........... 42 U. S. C. 11045( c)( I) 42 U. S. C. 11045( c)( 2) ..................... 42 U. S. C. 11045( d)( l) ..................... Civil monetary penalty description RESOURCE CONSERVATION a RECOVERY ACTNIOLATION RES. CONS. a REC. ACTINONCOMPLIANCE OF CORRECTIVE RES. CONS. a REC. ACTINONCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 3013 RES. CONS. a REC. ACTNIOLATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RES. CONS. a REC. ACTINONCOMPLIANCE WITH UST ADMINIS­ RES. CONS. a REC. ACTIFAILURE TO NOTIFY OR FOR SUBMIT­ SUBTITLE C. ACTION ORDER. ORDER. ORDER. TRATIVE ORDER. TlNG FALSE INFORMATION. MENTS. ASSESSED THRU ADMlN ORDER. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. ClAL PENALTIES. TIONARY AIR POLLUTION SOURCEUUDICIAL PENALTIES. TIONARY AIR POLLUTION SOURCEWDMINISTRATIVE PEN­ CLEAN AIR ACTMNOR VIOLATIONS/ STATIONARY AIR POLLU­ TION SOURCES­ FIELD CITATIONS. TAMPERING OR MANUFACTUREEALE OF DEFEAT DEVICES IN VIOLATION OF 7522( a ( 3 ( A OR ( a)( 3 B)­ BY PERSONS. VIOLATION OF 7522( a)(& A) b R ( a)( 3)(& BY MANUFACTURERS OR DEALERS: ALL VIOLATIONS OF 7522( a)( I), ( 2). ( 4). 8 ( 5) BY ANYONE. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES AS SET IN 7524( a) 8 7545( d) WITH A MAXIMUM ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY VIOLATIONS OF FUELS REGULATION RCWIOLATIONS OF SPECIFIED UST REGULATORY REQUIRE­ RCWNONCOMPLIANCE WlMEDlCAL WASTE TRACKING ACT RCWNONCOMPLIANCE WlMEDlCAL WASTE TRACKING ACT RCRANIOLATIONS OF MEDICAL WASTE TRACKING ACTAUDI­ CLEAN AIR ACTNIOLATION~ OWNERS a OPERATORS OF STA­ CLEAN AIR ACTNIOLATIONIOWNERS a OPERATORS OF STA­ ALTIES PER VIOLATION a MAX. SUPERFUND'AMEND. a REAUTHOR ANCE WIREQUEST FOR INFO OR ACCESS. TIAL ENDANGERMENT. SECT. 9603, 9608. OR 9622. SUPERFUNDNVORK NOT PERFORMED W/ IMMINENT. SUBSTAN­ SUPERFUNDIADMIN. PENALTY VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U. S. C. SUPERFUNDIADMIN. PENALTY VIOLATIONMUBSEQUENT ....., SUPERFUNDICIVIL JUDICIAL PENALTYNIOLATIONS OF SECT. SUPERFUNDlClVlL JUDICIAL PENALTYEUBSEQUENT VIOLA­ EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT­ TO­ KNOW 9603, 9608, 9622. TIONS OF SECT. 9603, 9608. 9622. ACT CLASS I a II ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL PENALTIES. EPCRA CLASS I a II ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL PENALTIES­ SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS. EPCRA CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 11022 OR 11023. EPCRA CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING PENALTIES FORVIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 11021 OR 11043( b). EPCRA4RIVOLOUS TRADE SECRET CLAIMS­ CIVIL AND AD­ MINISTRATIVE PENALTIES. New maximum penally amount ( dollars) 31,500 31.500 6,200 6,200 31,500 12,000 12,000 31.500 31.500 31,500 31.500 31,5001250,000 6.200 3.150 31,500 250,000 31,500 31,500 31,500 31,500 92,500 31.500 92,500 31,500 92,500 31,500 12,000 $ 31.500 PART 27+ AMENDED] 2. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows: Authority: 31 U. S. C. 3601­ 3812: Pub. L. 101­ 410.104 Stat. 690, 28 U. S. C. 2461 note; Pub L. 104­ 134.110 Stat. 1321, 31 U. S. C. 3701 note. 3. Section 27.3 is amended by revising paragraphs ( a)( l)( iv) and ( b)( l)( ii) to read as follows: 021.3 Bask for civil penalties and assessments. ( a) * * ( 1) * f * ( iv) Is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed, shall he subject. in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $ 6,200 1 for each such claim. * . * * * ( b) * * * ( 1) * * ( ii) Contains, or is accompanied by, an express certification or affirmation of 2 As adjusted in accordance with ths Federal Civil Penellies Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 [ pub. L. 101­ 410.104 Stst. 8901, as amended by the Deb1 Collection hpmvemenl Act of 1996 ( Pub. L. 104­ 134,110Slat. 1321). 41348 . Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 117/ Tuesday, June 18, 20021Rules and Regulations the truthfulness and accuracy of the contents of the statement, shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may he prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $ 6,2002 for each such statement. [ FR Doc. 02­ 15190 Filed 6 1 7 4 2 : 8: 45 aml BlLUNG CODE w. ' * * * . . DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Pad 571 [ Docket No. 02­ 124801 RIN 2127­ Al86 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Impact Protection AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA], Department of Transportation [ DOT). ACTION: Interim final rule, request for comments. SUMMARY: This interim final rule amends the schedule for compliance by manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages with the upper interior ~ head protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior impact. This intbrim final rule delays the date on which manufacturers of vehicles built in two or more stages must produce vehicles meeting the upper interior head protection performance requirements of Standard No. 201 from September 1. 2002, until September 1, 2003. The agency is issuing this interim final rule to provide the agency time to complete a rulemakiing action initiated by petitions for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA consider modifying the requirements of Standard No. 201 as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. As that rulemaking action may result in modification of Standard No. 201 as it applies to these multi­ stage vehicles, the agency has decided to extend the compliance date until the final action is taken on the petitions, It expects to take final action before September 1,2003. DATES: This interim final rule becomes effective on July 18,2002. Comments on this interim rule are due no later than August 19,2002. Penalties Innation Adjusunenl Act of 1990 ( Pub. L. 101­ 410.104 Stet. 890). as amended by the DBbt Collection lmpmvernent Act of 1996 ( Pub. L. 104­ 134.110StBl. 13211. ' As adjusted in accordance wilh ths Federal Civil ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing or electronically. Written comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and he submitted ( preferably in two copies1 to: Docket Management, P­ 01, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. ( Docket hours are Monday­ Friday from 10 a. m. to 5 pm., excluding holidays.) Electronic comments can he submitted through the worldwide web at http:// dms. dot. gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,: For non­ legal issues, you may call Dr. William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at ( 202) 366­ 4922, facsimile ( 202) 3664329. For legal issues, you may call Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, at 202­ 366­ 5263. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Cantents added proc6dures for a new in­ vehicle component test in which a Free Motion Headform ( m) is fired at certain target locations on the upper interior of a vehicle at an impact speed of up to and including 24 kmlh ( 15 mph). Data collected from a FMH impact are translated into a value known as a Head Injury Criterion ( HIC] score. The resultant HIC must not exceed 1000. April 8.1997 ( 62 FR 16718). provides manufacturers with four alternate phase­ in schedules for complying with the upper interior impact requirements. First, as set forth in S6.1.1. manufacturers may comply by having the following percentages of their production meet the upper interior impact requirements: 10 percent of production on or after September 1. 1998 and before September 1,1999; 25 percent of production on or after September I, 1999 and before September 1,2000, 40 percent of production on or after September 1, 2000 and before Seotemher 1.2001.70 The standard. as further amended on ­. . . . _. . 111. Standard 201 and Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages IV. Interim Final Rule percent of productibn on or after September 1,2001 and before Seutember 1.2002. and 100 nercent of V Written Comments VI Regulatury Analyses nnd Notices prbduction after Scptembcr i, 2002. Second, an alternative schedule set I. Background 18, 1995, amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201. Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to require passenger cars, and trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms ( 10,000 pounds) or less, to provide head protection during a crash when an occupant's head strikes the upper interior, i. e., the roof pillars, side rails, headers. and the roof itself of the vehicle. ( 60 FR 430341) The final rule responded to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 ( sections 2500­ 2509 of the Internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (" ISTEA']), Pub. L. 102­ 240). ISTEA required NHTSA to address several vehicle safety matters through rulemaking. One of these matters, set forth in section 2503( 5), is improved bead impact protection from interior components ( i. e,, roof rails, pillars, and front headers) of passenger cars. The final rule, which mandated compliance with the new requirements beginning on September 1, 1998, significantly expanded the scope of Standard 201. Previously, the standard applied to the instrument panel, seat hacks, interior compartment doors, arm rests and sun visors. To determine compliance with the upper interior impact requirements, the final rule NHTSA issued a final rule on August forth in 56.1.2 provides that manufacturers may comply hy. meeting the following phase­ in schedule: 7 percent of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,1998 and before September 1,1999; 31 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,1999 and before September 1,2000: 40 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1,2000 and before September 1,2001; 70 percent of vehicles manufactured on or after September 1.2001 and before September 1.2002; and 100 percent of all vehicles manufactured after Se temher 1, 2002. fhird, under the phase­ in schedule set forth in S6.1.3, manufacturers need not produce any complying vehicles before September 1, 1999. However, all vehicles produced on or after that date must comply. Fourth, 56.1.4 of the April 8,1997 final rule provided that multi­ stage vehicles produced after September 1, 2002, were required to comply. 11. Petitions for Rulemaking The Recreation Vehicle Industry Association ( RVIA) filed a petition for rulemaking on October 4,2001 requesting that the agency modify Standard No. 201 to exclude conversion vans and motor homes with gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms ( 10,000 pounds) or less, from the application of the upper interior head

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:41.030499

regulations

EPA-HQ-OECA-2002-0004-0003

Supporting & Related Material

~ ­ a o o l ­ s o ~ I V­ D­ 00 j United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 B­ 290021 I­ Received I flus ­ g ,2002 Enfmement & Compliance oockt # ' u 8 Information Center July 15,2002 Mr. Robert E. Fabricant General Counsel US. Environmental Protection Agency Subject Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adiustment Act Dear Mr. Fabricant Earlier this year, GAO initiated a review of the implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended (" Inflation Adjustment Act").' This act generally requires. federal agencies to issue regulations adjusting their covered civil monetary penalties for changes'in the cost of living by October 23,1996, and to make necessary adjustments at least once every & years thereafter. Section 4, 28 U. S. C. $ 2461 note. The statute defines a " cost­ of­ living adjustment" as the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index ( CPI) between June of the calendar year indhich the penalty was last set or adjusted and June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment. Section 5,28 U. S. C. $ 2461 note. The statute limited the fistadjustment to 10 percent and includes a mechanism for rounding penalty increases. Sections 5 and 6,28 U. S. C. $ 2461 note. With regard to rounding, the statute sets out penalty ranges, from amounts less than or equal to $ 100 to amounts greater than $ 200,000, and provides different dollar multiples for rounding the increase in each penalty range. Section 5,28 U. S. C. $ 2461 note. The statute provides, for example, that "[ ajny increase shall be rounded to the nearest. . . multiple of $ 10 in the case of Denalties less than or equal to $ 100." Id. ( Emphasis added.) The Environmental Protection Agency @ PA) made its fist round of civil penalty adjustments under the Inflation Adjustment Act on December 31,1996. 61 Fed. Reg. 69,360: Because all of EPA's covered penalties had been in place for at least 5 years, and the amount of inflation occurring during that period was more than ' The Inflation Adjustmpt Act is codified at 28 U. S. C. $ 2461 note. The 1990 act was amended in 1996 by the Debt Collection Improvement Act, which added the requirement for agencies to adjust their civil penalties by regulation. Pub. L. NO. 104134, $ 31001, 110 Stat. 1321­ 373 ( 1996). , .1 . .­, 10 percent, the agency adjusted all of its penalties by the statutory maximum of 10 percent, and the rounding mechanism did not apply. On June 18,2002, EPA published a direct final rule implementing a second round of penalty acljustments to account for the 13.6 percent change in the CPI between 1996 and June 2001. 67 Fed. Reg. 41,343 ( June 18,2002). 2 EPA calculated the penalty increase by multiplying the existing penalty amounts by 13.6 percent. EPA then used the size of the penalty increase to determine the category of rounding. However, the statute provides that the category of rounding should be determined by the size of the penalty, not the size of the increase. In the preamble to the June 2002 direct final rule, EPA noted that the agency's approach of rounding based on the amount of the increase achieves the intent of the Inflation Adjustment Act because it " will result in increase amounts that more closely track the changes in the CPI." 67 Fed. Reg. 41,344. EPA also indicated that calculations based on other rounding approaches " could result in penalty adjustments that are several times the CPI percentage or in no increase at all even with increases in the CPI." Id. As noted in our informal discussions with your staff, the method of rounding that the EPA proposes in its June 2002 NPRM and direct final rule is inconsistent with the requirements of the statute. The so­ called " plain meaning" rule of statutory construction dictates that " if the Congress has clearly expressed its intent in the plain language of the statute," then the courts and the agency must give effect to that intent. MississiDDi Poultrv Ass'n. Inc. v. Madigan, 31 F. 3d 293 ( 5" Cir. 1994). The language in the Inflation Adjustment Act makes clear that rounding is based on the dollar amount of the penalty. In this regard, the statute specifically requires the rounding of " the increase," rather than the penalty, and uses the term " penalty" for determining which rounding range should be used to round the increase. Thus, when the statute states that any increase " shall be rounded to the nearest. . . multiple of $ 100 in the case of penalties greater than $ 100 but less than or equal to $ 1,000," you must iirst determine the percent increase, apply it to the current penalty, and then, if the penalty falls in the range of greater than $ 100 but less than or equal to $ 1,000, round the increase to the nearest multiple of $ 100. Nothing in the plain language of the statute, nor in the legislative history, permits an agency to use the size of the increase to determine the appropriate category of rounding. On that same date, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM), 67 Fed. Reg. 41,363, that proposed to similarly adjust the civil monetary penalties for inflation, because, if " EPA receives adverse comment by July 18,2002," the direct final rule " will not take effect." EPA would then address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. Page 2 E290021 Other agencies have used the Same analysis of the statute to reach the Same result as we do. 3 In addition, the Department of the Treasury guidelines issued in 1996, after the Mation Aaustment Act was enacted, state that rounding is based on the amount of the penalty, not the amount of the increase. We also note that Congress used identical language for rounding when it enacted the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act ( Improvement Act), Pub. L. No. 101­ 608,104 Stat. 3110 ( 1990). The Improvement Act authorized the Consumer Product Safety Commission to acijust civil penalties for inflation every 5 years. 15 U. S. C. $ 2069 ( 2000). From a reading of the Commission's acijustment regulations, it is clear that the Commission also rounds on the basis of the penalty, and not on the in~ rease.~ While we recognize some advantages to rounding on the basis of the size of the increase rather than the size of the penalty, such a determination does not comport with the language of the statute. Consequently, if EPA wishes to pursue the approach outlined in the Federal Register notices, we respectfully suggest that EPA seek appropriate legislation. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me on 202­ 512­ 5400 or Ms. Susan Poling, Managing Associate General Counsel, on 202­ 512­ 2667. Sincerely yours, ­ See, u, the National Credit Union Administration's inflation adjustment regulation, 65 Fed. Reg. 57,277, n. 5 ( 2000). ' 59 Fed. Reg. 66,523 ( 1994) and 64 Fed. Reg. 51,963 ( 1999). Page 3 E290021

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:41.045583

regulations

EPA-HQ-OECA-2002-0005-0003

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities, ICR Number 1127.07, OMB Number 2060-0083

78452 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Notices ( 202) 566 1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e­ mail to docket. oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills subpart BB ( OMB Control Number 2060 0021 and EPA ICR Number 1055.07). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: The NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills, published at 40 CFR part 60, subpart BB, was proposed on September 24, 1976, and promulgated on February 23, 1978. Revisions to the standards were promulgated on May 20, 1986. This rule addresses total reduced sulfur ( TRS) and particulate matter emissions from new, modified and reconstructed Kraft Pulp Mills. In addition to the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements listed in the General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart A), Kraft Pulp Mills are required to continuously monitor and record at least once per shift specific parameters at the applicable affected facilities: The opacity of the gases discharged into the atmosphere from any recovery furnace; the concentration of TRS emissions on a dry basis and the percent of oxygen by volume on a dry basis in the gases discharged to the atmosphere; for an incinerator, the combustion temperature at the point of incineration of effluent gases being emitted by the affected facilities; and for any lime kiln or smelt discharge tank using a scrubber emission control device, the pressure loss of the gas stream through the control equipment and the scrubbing liquid pressure to the control equipment. Sources are also required to record on a daily basis 12­ hour average TRS concentrations and oxygen concentrations ( for the recovery furnace and lime kiln) for two consecutive periods of each operation. Sources must report semiannually measurements of excess emissions as defined by the standard for the applicable affected facility. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 62.4 hours per response. 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 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. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Kraft Pulp Mills/ brown stock washer systems, recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks, lime kilns, black liquor oxidation systems and condensate stripper systems. Estimated Number of Respondents: 92. Frequency of Response: Initial, semiannual and on occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 12,107. Estimated Total Annual Non­ labor Cost: $ 3,143,600, includes $ 300,000 annualized capital costs and $ 2,844,000 annualized O& M costs. There is an increase of 2,148 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to an increase and a more accurate estimate of the number of kraft pulp mills in the United States. The estimates on the number of existing and new sources were based on the active ICR, Federal Register publications on other sector­ related rules, consultation with OAQPS and industry, and queries conducted on two EPA databases including the Sector Facility Index Project and the Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem. Dated: December 10, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02 32392 Filed 12 23 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OECA 2002 0005; FRL 7426 6] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities, ICR Number 1127.07, OMB Number 2060 0083 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart I), VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 49 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEN1. SGM 24DEN1 78453 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Notices ( OMB Control Number 2060 0083, EPA ICR Number 1127.07). The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Fried, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D. C. 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 564 7016; fax number: ( 202) 564 0050; E­ mail address: fried. gregory@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 20, 2002 ( 67 FR 41981), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA 2002 0005, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center ( ECDIC) in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the ECDIC is ( 202) 566 1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by E­ mail to: docket. oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart I) ( OMB Control Number 2060 0083, EPA ICR Number 1127.07). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2003. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities were proposed on June 11, 1973, and promulgated on July 25, 1977. These regulations apply to the following facilities in 40 CFR part 60, subpart I: Dryers; systems for screening, handling, storing, and weighing hot aggregate; systems for loading, transferring, and storing mineral filler; systems for mixing hot mix asphalt; and the loading, transfer, and storage systems associated with emission control systems. The Administrator has judged that Particulate Matter ( PM) emissions from hot mix asphalt facilities cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the purpose of this NSPS is to control the emissions of particulate matter ( PM) from hot mix asphalt facilities. The standards limit particulate emissions to 90 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter ( mg/ DCM) and a 20% opacity. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart I. In order to ensure compliance with the standards promulgated to protect public health, adequate reporting and recordkeeping is necessary. Owners/ operators of hot mix asphalt facilities must notify EPA of construction, modification, or reconstruction of a new or existing facility and submit a notification and the results of an initial performance test. In addition, a facility subject to this NSPS must record any startups, shutdowns or malfunctions. The purpose of the notifications is to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to this standard. Performance tests are conducted to ensure that the new plants operate within the boundaries outlined in the standard. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act. Under this standard the data collected by the affected industry is retained at the facility for a minimum of two years and made available for inspection by the Administrator. The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards are labor costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response. 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 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. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 49 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEN1. SGM 24DEN1 78454 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Notices Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,835. Frequency of Response: Initial and on occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 10,303 hours. Estimated Total Annual Labor Cost: $ 588,507. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 3,413 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to an increase in the number of existing facilities that will undergo modifications such that they will be required to submit notifications and conduct the appropriate performance tests required by the standard. Dated: December 10, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02 32393 Filed 12 23 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL 7426 8] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys, OMB Control Number 2090 0019, expiring March 31, 2003. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost, where appropriate, it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1711.04 and OMB Control No 2090 0019 to the following addresses: Susan Auby, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 0001, and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby at EPA by phone at 202 566 1672, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or download off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr and refer to EPA ICR No 1711.04. For technical questions about the ICR contact: Patricia Bonner by phone at 202 566 2204 or by e­ mail at bonner. patricia@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Voluntary Customer Satisfaction Surveys, OMB Control No. 2090 0019, EPA ICR Number 1711.04 expiring March 31, 2003. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection. Abstract: EPA uses voluntary surveys to learn how satisfied EPA customers are with our services, and how we can improve services, products and processes. EPA surveys individuals who use services or could have. During the next three years, EPA plans up to 185 surveys, and will use results to target/ measure service delivery improvements. By seeking renewal of the generic clearance for customer surveys, EPA will have the flexibility to gather the views of our customers to better determine the extent to which our services, products and processes satisfy their needs or need to be improved. The generic clearance will speed the review and approval of customer surveys that solicit opinions from EPA customers on a voluntary basis, and do not involve `` fact­ finding'' for the purposes of regulatory development or enforcement. An Agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it has a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this information collection was published July 26, 2002 ( FR 67 48893); no comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes to 2 hours per response. 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 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. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Individuals or households. Estimated Number of Respondents: 58,827. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,966. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O& M Cost Burden: 0. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including use of automated collection techniques, to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1711.04 and OMB Control No. 2090 0019 in any correspondence. Dated: December 10, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02 32395 Filed 12 23 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL 7426 9] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Emergency Planning and Release Notification Requirements Under Emergency Planning and Community Right­ to­ Know Act Sections 302, 303, and 304 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Emergency Planning and Release Notification Requirements under Emergency Planning and Community Right­ to­ Know Act Sections 302, 303, and 304, OMB Control Number 2050 0092, expiring January 31, 2003. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost; where VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 49 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEN1. SGM 24DEN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:41.050041

regulations

EPA-HQ-OECA-2002-0006-0003

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission of EPA ICR No. 1130.07 (OMB No. 2060-0082) to OMB for review and Approval; Comment Request

78457 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Notices for Enforcement Analysis ( IDEA) database. Dated: December 10, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02 32397 Filed 12 23 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OECA 2002 0006; FRL 7427 2] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission of EPA ICR No. 1130.07 ( OMB No. 2060 0082) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: NSPS for Grain Elevators subpart DD, OMB Control No. 2060 0082, EPA ICR No. 1130.07, expiration date January 31, 2003. The ICR, which is abstracted below describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost. DATES: Additional Comments must be submitted on or before January 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Harmon, Compliance Assistance and Sector Programs Division, Office of Compliance, 2224A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 564 7049; fax number: ( 202) 564 7083; e­ mail address: harmon. kenneth @ epa. gov. Refer to EPA ICR Number 1130.07. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 20, 2002 ( 67 FR 41981), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA 2002 0006, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center ( EDIC) Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number of the EDIC is ( 202) 566 1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e­ mail to docket. oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov./ edocket. Title: NSPS Grain Elevators subpart DD ( OMB Control No. 2060 0082; EPA ICR No. 1130.07). This is a request to renew a collection that is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2003. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: This ICR contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR 60.300, et seq., subpart DD, New Source Performance Standards for Grain Elevators. This information notifies EPA when a source becomes subject to the regulations, informs the Agency if a source is in compliance. In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions from grain elevators cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NSPS were promulgated for this source category, as required under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Controlling emissions of particulate matter from grain elevators requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Particulate emissions from grain elevators are the result of grain drying and grain handling operations, including loading and unloading. These standards rely on the proper operation of particulate control devices such as baghouses and equipment such as shed doors and spouts designed to reduce particulate emission during grain unloading and loading. Owners or operators of the affected facilities subject to NSPS subpart DD must make the following one­ time­ only reports: notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility that may increase the rate of emission of the regulated pollutant; notification of the date of the initial performance test; and the results of the initial performance test, including information necessary to determine the conditions of the performance test and performance test measurements and results, including particulate matter concentration and opacity. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, as well as the nature and cause of the malfunction ( if known) and corrective measures taken. These notifications, reports and records are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS. Without such information, enforcement personnel VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 49 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEN1. SGM 24DEN1 78458 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Notices would be unable to determine if the standards are being met. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 1764, March 23, 1979). Approximately 127 sources are currently subject to the standard. EPA estimates that three additional sources will become subject to the standard in each of the next three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. 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 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. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are each truck unloading station, truck loading station, barge and ship unloading station, barge and ship loading station, railcar loading station, railcar unloading station, grain dryer, and all grain handling operations at any grain terminal elevator or any grain storage elevator subject to NSPS subpart DD. Estimated Number of Respondents: 132. Frequency of Response: 155 annually. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 259. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 14,811. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 9 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This slight increase in burden results from the slight growth in the number of regulated grain elevators. Dated: December 10, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02 32398 Filed 12 23 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OECA 2002 0007; FRL 7427 3] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 1167.07 ( OMB No. 2060 0063) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: NSPS for Lime Manufacturing, ( OMB Control No. 2060 0063, EPA ICR No. 1167.07). The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Fried, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, mail code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number ( 202) 564 7016, fax number: ( 202) 564 0050; e­ mail address: fried. gregory@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 20, 2002 ( 67 FR 41981), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA 2002 0007, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center ( ECDIC) Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center ( ECDIC) is ( 202) 566 1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( DOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use DOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using DOCKET ( our preferred method), by e­ mail to oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in DOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in DOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in DOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 49 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEN1. SGM 24DEN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:41.067817

regulations

EPA-HQ-OECA-2002-0007-0003

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 1167.07 (OMB No. 2060-0063) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request

78458 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Notices would be unable to determine if the standards are being met. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 1764, March 23, 1979). Approximately 127 sources are currently subject to the standard. EPA estimates that three additional sources will become subject to the standard in each of the next three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response. 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 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. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are each truck unloading station, truck loading station, barge and ship unloading station, barge and ship loading station, railcar loading station, railcar unloading station, grain dryer, and all grain handling operations at any grain terminal elevator or any grain storage elevator subject to NSPS subpart DD. Estimated Number of Respondents: 132. Frequency of Response: 155 annually. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 259. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 14,811. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 9 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This slight increase in burden results from the slight growth in the number of regulated grain elevators. Dated: December 10, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02 32398 Filed 12 23 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OECA 2002 0007; FRL 7427 3] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 1167.07 ( OMB No. 2060 0063) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: NSPS for Lime Manufacturing, ( OMB Control No. 2060 0063, EPA ICR No. 1167.07). The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Fried, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, mail code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number ( 202) 564 7016, fax number: ( 202) 564 0050; e­ mail address: fried. gregory@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 20, 2002 ( 67 FR 41981), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA 2002 0007, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center ( ECDIC) Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center ( ECDIC) is ( 202) 566 1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( DOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use DOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using DOCKET ( our preferred method), by e­ mail to oeca@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in DOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in DOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in DOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 49 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEN1. SGM 24DEN1 78459 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2002 / Notices Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov./ edocket. Title: NSPS for Lime Manufacturing ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart HH) ( OMB Control No. 2060 0063, EPA ICR Number 1167.07). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2003. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Lime Manufacturing Plants were proposed on May 3, 1977 and promulgated on April 26, 1984. These standards apply to each rotary lime kiln used in lime manufacturing, which commenced construction, modification or reconstruction after May 3, 1977. The standards do not apply to facilities used in the manufacture of lime at kraft pulp mills. The purpose of this NSPS is to control the emissions of particulate matter ( PM) from lime manufacturing plants, specifically from the operation of the rotary lime kilns. The standards limit particulate emissions to 0.30 kilogram per megagram ( 0.60 lb/ ton) of stone feed, and limit opacity to 15% when exiting from a dry emission control device. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart HH. There are three types of reporting requirements for owners or operators of facilities under this NSPS: ( 1) Notifications ( e. g., notice for new construction or reconstruction, anticipated and actual startup dates, initial performance test, and demonstration of the CMS); ( 2) a report on the results of the performance test; and ( 3) semiannual reports of instances of occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunctions. The purpose of the notifications are to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to this standard. Performance tests are conducted to ensure that the new plants operate within the boundaries outlined in the standard. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. Under this standard the data collected by the affected industry is retained at the facility for a minimum of two years and made available for inspection by the Administrator. The Administrator has judged that PM emissions from lime manufacturing plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Owners/ operators of lime manufacturing plants must notify EPA of construction, modification, startups, shutdowns, malfunctions and performance test dates, as well as provide reports on the initial performance test and annual excess emissions. The industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards are capital costs and O& M costs associated with continuous emissions monitoring and labor costs associated with recordkeeping and reporting. In order to ensure compliance with the standards promulgated to protect public health, adequate reporting and recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/ or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 42 hours per response. 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 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. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Lime Manufacturing Plants. Estimated Number of Respondents: 53. Frequency of Response: On occasion, initial, and semiannual. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 4,434 hours. Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 91,500. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 244 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to an increase in the number of existing facilities subject to this standard resulting from the availability of more accurate data. Dated: December 10, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02 32399 Filed 12 23 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP 2002 0283; FRL 7277 5] Bronopol; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP 2002 0283, must be received on or before January 23, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bipin Gandhi, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308 8380; e­ mail address: gandhi. bipin@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, pesticide manufacturer, or antimicrobial pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Industry ( NAICS 111), e. g., Crop production. Industry ( NAICS 112), e. g., Animal production. Industry ( NAICS 311), e. g., Food manufacturing. VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 19: 49 Dec 23, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24DEN1. SGM 24DEN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:41.073061

regulations