1

Summary of Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) 

Regarding the Proposed Stationary Existing RICE NESHAP 

June 22, 2009 

Attendees 

Penny Lassiter, EPA Brady Winkleman, Caterpillar 

Bob Wayland, EPA Gordon Gerber, Caterpillar (by phone) 

Melanie King, EPA Jack Gehring, Caterpillar (by phone) 

Jaime Pagán, EPA Bob Stachowicz, Waukesha (by phone) 

Michael Horowitz, EPA (by phone) John Peffer, Waukesha (by phone) 

Tanya Parise, AGTI (by phone) Mike Brand, Cummins (by phone) 

Joe Suchecki, EMA Chris Armbruster, Cummins (by phone) 

Tim French, EMA Adoley Azu, Cummins (by phone) 

 Johan Boij, Wartsila (by phone) 

 Christine Ueno, MTU (by phone) 

 

Purpose of Meeting 

 The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the proposed national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engines (RICE). The proposed NESHAP for existing stationary 

RICE was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2009 (74 FR 9698). 

Summary of Meeting

General

The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) requested this meeting with EPA 

to discuss the recently proposed NESHAP for stationary engines. EMA has previously 

worked with EPA on other rulemakings affecting stationary engines and wanted to 

address its specific concerns regarding this proposal. An agenda was provided by EMA 

and is included as Attachment 1 to this meeting summary. The summary of this meeting 

will be available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-

0708). 

EMA indicated that it primarily wanted to discuss the recently proposed rule for 

existing stationary engines and the comments EMA submitted, but that there are still 

some outstanding issues on the compression ignition (CI) new source performance 

standards (NSPS) that it also wished to touch on. 

Specific Issues

The main issues that EMA discussed during the meeting are shown in the attached 

agenda. Further details on these issues can be found in EMA’s comments on the 

proposed rule, which are available from the rulemaking docket as Document ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0096. 
2

1. SSM Limits 

 The proposed startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) limits are an area of 

great concern to EMA. The limits during SSM periods are based on the best performing 

engines without aftertreatment controls, which is a false premise, according to EMA. 

The standards are not feasible during startup periods, plus there is no definition for what 

constitutes a startup, EMA said. In addition, there are no feasible test procedures and 

there is no emissions data for engines during startup. Therefore, EPA cannot have an 

enforceable standard, in EMA’s opinion. EMA noted that under section 112(h) of the 

Clean Air Act, EPA can rely on work practice standards (e.g., EPA could limit the startup 

time and include work practice standards) if it is technically infeasible to set a standard 

and it is impossible to measure the standard. EPA said that it recognizes the issues that 

EMA and others have brought up and that it acknowledges that there are aspects that will 

need to be addressed and resolved for the final rule. EPA indicated that it would be 

receptive to different ideas to consider for the final rule. 

2. Standards for Emergency Engines 

 EMA expressed that it is not reasonable to put add-on controls on emergency 

engines and that there is no other way to alter the emissions from existing stationary 

emergency engines. Based on how the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 

floor is set, i.e., based on the top 12 percent, means that 88 percent of the sources will not 

be able to meet the standards. EMA indicated that it thought that many emergency 

engines might need to be replaced as a result of EPA’s standards. EPA asked if the 

proposed standards were way off, but EMA responded that no matter what the numerical 

limit is, the fact is that 88 percent of engines will not be able to meet the standards. Other 

than aftertreatment, there is nothing that can be done for these engines and EMA added 

that Congress probably did not intend to regulate standby engines. EMA also pointed out 

that there is small net environmental benefit in regulating emergency engines. 

3. Covering all Engine Sizes 

 EMA is concerned that EPA’s proposal is covering all size engines, particularly 

considering that smaller size engines could be home owned, which means it would be 

impractical to require anything from these engines, according to EMA. In EMA’s 

opinion, an exemption is necessary for these engines. Similar arguments that EMA had 

for emergency engines apply to small engines. 

4. Formaldehyde Standards 

 The proposed formaldehyde standards are problematic because of the limited 

availability of viable and cost effective measurement methods and EMA recommended 

that EPA consider finalizing the standards in terms of volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

instead of formaldehyde. 

5. Regulatory Charts 
3

EMA discussed various issues related to specific proposed standards. The issues 

were summarized in charts that are available from EMA’s public comments (see pages 

13, 15, 17 and 21 of Document ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0096) and are 

discussed in EMA’s comments. Only a brief summary of the main issues is provided in 

the below bulleted points: 

• There is nothing reasonable an owner/operator can do to change the emissions 

from emergency CI engines in order to meet the limits. 

• Engines fueled by landfill and digester gas cannot use aftertreatment controls and 

the only option is to rebuild the engines at a high cost. Also, EPA did not 

consider fuel variability. 

• The 2 parts per million (ppm) formaldehyde limit that was proposed for CI 

engines less than 50 horsepower (HP) is difficult to measure under lab conditions 

and nearly impossible to measure in the field. In addition, testing is very 

expensive and could exceed the cost of running the engine for a year. 

• For CI engines at area sources, it is recommended that EPA adopt work practices 

in the form of having owners/operators follow engine manufacturers 

recommendations instead. 

• The 200 parts per billion formaldehyde standard that applies to certain rich burn 

engines is infeasible to measure and it is recommended that VOC is used instead 

of formaldehyde. 

• It is unreasonable to require 2 ppm formaldehyde for engines at area sources and 

no limit on engines at major sources greater than 500 HP. Area sources should 

not be more heavily regulated than major sources. 

Regarding EMA’s last point, EPA indicated that it did not revisit the requirements for 

engines greater than 500 HP at major sources that were promulgated in 2004. Under the 

residual risk program that follows 8 years after a standard is finalized, EPA will again 

look at major sources. 

6. Existing Standards vs. New Standards 

 

EMA pointed out that there are some standards for existing engines that are more 

stringent than standards that apply for new engines and asked EPA if this is an issue. 

EPA indicated that the NSPS program is different than the MACT program, in that for 

example the MACT program allows less flexibility. The MACT program confines EPA 

to look at the best performing 12 percent of sources. EPA acknowledged that it has little 

data and that the lack of data may lead to more stringent floors. EPA is interested in 

getting data from industry in order to supplement the data that it has. 

7. >30 Liters/Cylinder Engines 
4

It is necessary to separate stationary diesel engines that are greater than 30 liters 

per cylinder from other diesel engines in the rule, in EMA’s opinion. EMA pointed out 

that it has met with EPA several times on this issue and sent several letters. It is 

necessary to level the playing field for these engines. A definition for installation is also 

needed. EMA said that the timeframe associated with the American Petroleum Institute’s 

(API) settlement is too long (potentially 1 year to proposal). EPA indicated that the 

113(g) notice has gone out and that EPA is going to start working on API and EMA 

issues, but that an earlier schedule is probably not likely. 

Wrap-Up

 EPA indicated that it needs to review all the comments received on the proposal 

and determine what latitude it has in moving forward. Absent of receiving new data, it 

will be difficult to avoid a final rule that has the same approach as the proposal, EPA 

said. EMA was curious if EPA planned on recreating a database. EPA indicated that 

doing so is not likely, but that it may fold in some new data if such data is received and 

added that it has been asking industry for a long time for new emissions data. Waukesha 

indicated that it would be happy to provide data and would like to work with EPA to find 

out what specific data is needed. EMA added that if there are data gaps, it could try to 

fill some of those holes. 

 In EMA’s opinion, the proposed rule is difficult to follow and it is unclear what a 

source is supposed to comply with due to several inconsistencies, referrals to other rules, 

and so on. EMA also thought that there had not been much industry involvement for this 

rulemaking. 

 EMA asked if there is any consideration to changing the promulgation date. EPA 

indicated that a delay on finalizing the rule for gas engines has been requested by several 

parties. 
5

Attachment 1 

EMA/EPA Meeting 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

June 22, 2009 

Stationary Engine Issues 

Agenda 

I. Introductions 

II. RICE NESHAP Issues, New and Existing Engines (20 minutes) 

A. Overview of EMA Comments (copy attached) and Key Issues 

B. Start-Up/Malfunction Emissions and proposed controls 

C. Alternative to Formaldehyde Standard for 4SRB Engines 

D. Inconsistent and Infeasible Standards 

III. Resolution of RICE NESHAP Issues (40 minutes) 

A. Overview of EMA Developed Regulatory Diagrams 

B. EMA Recommendations on High Priority Issues 

C. EPA Response to High Priority Issues 

IV. Outstanding CI NSPS Issues and >30-l/cyl Engines (15 minutes) 

A. History of EMA requests 

B. Issues Needing Resolution 

C. API Settlement and Proposed Regulation 

V. Regulatory Process Discussion for Stationary Engines (30 minutes) 

A. Need for New EPA – Industry Process 

B. Example: OTAQ Regulatory Process 

C. EMA Recommendations and Support for Change 

D. Potential Paths Forward 

VI. Summary and Follow-up Actions (15 minutes)