VIA EMAIL

September 2, 2010

Ms. Melanie King

Energy Strategies Group

Emissions Standards Division 

D243-01

US EPA

Research Triangle Park, NC

27711

RE: EMA Written Comments on the Proposed Standards of Performance for 

Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark Ignition Internal Combustion 

Engines

DOCKET EPA–HQ-OAR-2010-0295

Dear Ms. King:

Attached for your review and consideration are comments of the Engine Manufacturers 

Association (EMA) on the proposed Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression 

Ignition and Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, as published in the Federal Register on 

June 8, 2010. EMA also has submitted a copy of these comments electronically to EPA Docket 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295 per the instructions in the Federal Register notice.

As indicated in the attached comments, EMA generally supports the proposed revisions 

and additions to the Compression Ignition (CI) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). 

The comments submitted today identify a number of needed changes and clarifications regarding 

the details of EPA‟s proposed changes. We would appreciate your careful consideration of these 

comments and their incorporation into the final rulemaking.

Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or would like to discuss the EMA 

comments.

Very truly yours,

Joseph L. Suchecki 

Joseph L. Suchecki

Director, Public Affairs 
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Standards of Performance for )

Stationary Compression Ignition )

And Spark Ignition Internal ) Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295

Combustion Engines; )

Proposed Rule )

)

COMMENTS OF THE

ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

September 2, 2010 Timothy A. French

General Counsel

Joseph L. Suchecki

Director, Public Affairs

Engine Manufacturers Association

333 West Wacker Drive

Suite 810

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 929-1978
2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Standards of Performance for )

Stationary Compression Ignition )

And Spark Ignition Internal ) Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295

Combustion Engines; )

Proposed Rule )

)

COMMENTS OF THE

ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

These comments are being submitted on behalf of the Engine Manufacturers Association 

("EMA"). EMA is the trade association that represents the interests of the world's leading 

manufacturers of internal combustion engines. Included among the numerous engine products 

that are manufactured by EMA‟s members are the various sizes of stationary internal combustion 

engines that are covered by the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") entitled, "Standards 

of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark Ignition Internal Combustion 

Engines" (hereinafter, the "NSPS Revisions") that the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency ("EPA") released for public comments on June 8, 2010. (See 75 Fed. Reg. 32611; June 

8, 2010.) 

EMA appreciates the efforts of EPA to address the issues brought up by the public, 

including EMA, relating to the final version of the compression-ignition ("CI") NSPS. Most of 

the changes included in the NSPS Revisions proposed on June 8, 2010, are intended to address 

and/or correct those issues of concern. The proposed changes in the NSPS Revisions are positive 

in that they generally provide more flexibility to the regulated community and/or address specific 

technical or equity issues brought to EPA‟s attention. We generally support EPA for proposing 

such needed changes to the final regulation.

Although supportive of most of the proposed changes in the NSPS Revisions, EMA has a 

number of specific comments and recommendations on the proposals. Those specific comments 

and recommendations are provided below.
3

EMA supports EPA’s proposal to apply the recently promulgated new 

marine engine standards for stationary engines 

greater than or equal to 10 L/cylinder and less than 30 L/cylinder.

EMA generally supports harmonizing the stationary standards for medium speed 

stationary diesel engines with the recently promulgated CI marine standards. 

The revised text in 40 CFR 60.4201 does appear to correctly incorporate the marine 

engine requirements. However, preamble Table II does not accurately represent those 

requirements. For instance, there are no Tier 3 Marine PM requirements for engines between 15 

and 30 L/cyl above 2000 kW, but there are Tier 3 NOx standards for engines between 7 and 15 

L/cycl. The table should be modified to match the rule text requirements.

EMA also requests that the liter per cylinder cutoff between medium speed and high 

speed stationary engines and marine engines be harmonized. Specifically, we recommend that 

the limit where stationary engines must meet marine standards be moved from 10L/cyl to 7L/cyl. 

EMA believes that most if not all engines in the 7L to 10L/cyl displacement range are developed 

for marine applications, and thus stationary engine displacement cut points should be fully 

aligned. While medium speed marine and stationary engines share many similar designs, there 

are differences that generally require separate development programs. Therefore, EMA also 

requests that four years leadtime be allowed from the time of stationary engine rule promulgation 

until standards start to phase-in. 

EMA supports EPA’s proposal to provide owners and operators of stationary CI engines 

flexibility to develop their own operations and maintenance plans

The final CI NSPS requires engine manufacturers to certify that all stationary engines,

with a displacement less than 30 Liters/cylinder, offered for sale in the United States comply 

with the applicable emissions standards. It also requires owners and operators to purchase only 

such certified engines and to follow engine manufacturer‟s specifications, operations, and 

maintenance recommendations. 
4

In response to comments by key owner and operator groups, EPA is now proposing that 

owners and operators may develop and follow their own operations and maintenance procedures 

as an alternative to the manufacturer‟s recommended procedures. EPA notes that such engines, 

if maintained and operated not in accordance with the manufacturer‟s recommendations, would 

be considered to be operating in a non-certified manner, and so proposes that owners and 

operators be required to conduct initial performance tests.

EMA supports the concept of providing more flexibility to owners and operators that 

have the capabilities and resources to develop and implement alternative operations and 

maintenance plans. EMA also believes that it is appropriate to require additional testing to verify 

compliance with the emissions standards. EPA needs to clarify, however, that should an owner 

or operator follow this alternative path and implement its own operations and maintenance 

program, then the engine manufacturers or certificate holders are no longer responsible for 

emissions compliance from those engines and, in fact, those engines can no longer be classified

as certified engines. 

EMA also recommends that EPA establish some mechanism for owners and operators to 

designate or identify specific engines or facilities where alternative operations and maintenance 

plans are being implemented. Such documentation and notification is necessary to avoid 

potential conflicts as to which party is responsible for emissions compliance. Without such 

designation, neither the regulatory agency nor the engine manufacturer would know whether the 

owner or operator was maintaining the engine according to the manufacturer‟s or the owner‟s 

procedures, and as a result, disputes could arise regarding who is the responsible party should the 

compliance agency find that the emissions exceed the applicable NSPS standards. A permanent, 

supplemental label, applied by the owner or operator, would be one such method to identify 

those engines that have been altered beyond the manufacturer‟s recommended operation and 

maintenance plans.
5

The proposal to allow owners and operators to adjust CI engines outside of

manufacturer’s recommendations should only be permitted with mandatory testing and 

accompanied by clarifying language in the preamble and final regulation.

Along with the option of using their own operations and maintenance plan, EPA proposes 

to allow owners and operators to adjust CI engine settings outside of the manufacturer‟s settings 

(NSPS Revision Preamble Page 32615 and proposed Section 40 CFR 60.4211 (g)). The CI 

NSPS requires that engine manufacturers certify that all CI engines under 30 L/cyl comply with 

applicable emissions standards for the emissions useful life of the engine. That certification and 

emissions compliance are premised on operating the CI engine within certain parameters and 

settings. Any changes to those settings may cause the engine to operate out of compliance. 

Thus, allowing owners and operators to change those settings is of significant consequence to the 

performance of the engine and its emissions levels.

EMA believes that owners and operators should only be allowed to change the settings on 

a CI engine under the following conditions:

 The owner or operator completes an initial source test at the time the factory settings are 

changed to ensure that the altered CI engine still meets the applicable NSPS emission

standards.

 The final regulation clearly indicates that the engine manufacturer no longer bears any 

responsibility associated with NSPS regulatory or emissions compliance for the engine, 

and that any such adjustments by the owner/operator void any required or implied 

emissions warranty on the part of the manufacturer, both at the time of adjustment and at 

any future time.

 The engine is no longer classified as a certified engine.

 The owner/operator notifies the appropriate regulatory agency that the engine is being 

adjusted outside of engine manufacturer‟s specifications or recommendations and 

acknowledges that it is no longer a certified engine under the NSPS, including nonroad 
6

certification if the engine is originally certified to both applications. Such notification 

must include the engine serial number for each engine being so adjusted.

 A permanent, supplemental label must be applied by the owner or operator to identify 

those engines altered beyond manufacturer‟s recommended settings.

Importantly, EPA also needs to ensure that in its efforts to provide additional flexibility 

by allowing owners/operators to adjust engine settings and operate the engine “in a non-certified 

manner” (see 75 FR at 32615), the Agency does not in any way create any exceptions to the 

NSPS requirements that manufacturers must sell only new NSPS-certified stationary engines, 

and that when owners/operators purchase such new NSPS-covered engines, they must purchase 

only new NSPS-certified engines. EMA does not believe that the Agency intends to alter those 

fundamental requirements in any way, but the preamble to the final rule should make this 

explicit. In other words, the Agency needs to specify in the final rule that the potential 

allowance for owners/operators to operate an otherwise NSPS-covered engine in a “non-certified 

manner” is not an allowance for manufacturers to sell new non-certified NSPS-covered engines, 

nor is it an allowance for anyone to purchase new non-certified NSPS-covered engines.

EMA supports the use of engines on offshore marine platforms

that meet either the nonroad standards or the marine emissions standards

In the Preamble on Page 32616 of the FR notice, EPA requests comments on whether 

engines used on stationary marine platforms should be allowed to meet emissions standards 

applicable to marine engines or emissions standards applicable to nonroad engines. EMA 

supports the use of either nonroad or marine certified engines on stationary offshore platforms. 

Such flexibility provides advantages to owners/operators of such platforms where space and 

weight constraints can create significant considerations. Moreover, because of the remote 

location of such platforms, the difference in emissions levels between marine and nonroad 

engines should be of minimal concern.
7

EMA supports EPA’s interpretation regarding the classification of temporary engines,

but the discussion needs to be further clarified.

In Item II C on Page 32616 of the FR notice, EPA discusses whether engines that are 

brought to the site to temporarily replace a stationary engine are considered mobile nonroad 

engines or stationary engines. In the discussion, EPA concludes that engines brought to a site to 

replace a stationary engine for less than one year should meet the applicable mobile nonroad 

emission standards and are not subject to the NSPS engine standards. EMA supports this 

interpretation and believes that any engine that is temporary and that stays at a single location for 

less than one year is, by definition, a nonroad engine. Further, if the temporary engine is used in 

an offshore stationary platform, it may also be a marine engine.

Although supportive of EPA‟s interpretation, we believe that the discussion is still 

confusing. In particular, in the discussion‟s second paragraph EPA states that engines that 

remain in place at a stationary site are considered mobile nonroad engines, but in the next 

paragraph EPA states that temporary engines that replace stationary engines for less than one 

year are considered stationary engines. We believe that the discussion is inconsistent and needs 

further clarification.

EMA supports EPA’s proposal to align the emissions standards for engines 

greater than 30 L/cylinder more closely with the IMO marine engine standards

EMA strongly supports EPA‟s proposal to revise the emissions standards for stationary 

CI engines greater than 30 L/cylinder as set out in the Preamble on pages 32616-32617 and in 

the proposed changes to 40 CFR 60.4204 and 4215. The current regulation that includes a single 

set of emissions standards or a percent reduction is not necessarily technically or economically 

feasible for the various engine sizes above 30 L/cyl, and also creates conditions that place such 

engines at an economic disadvantage compared to other large size engines or combustion 

technologies. By aligning the emissions standards for these large stationary engines more 

closely with the IMO marine engine standards from which they are derived (but generally with 
8

different turbo specifications due to different loading optimization needs), the Agency will 

establish technically and economically feasible emissions standards and also will provide the 

leadtime needed for the emissions control technologies that are best suited to those very large 

engines.

In addition to the language as proposed, EPA needs to include stipulated allowances from 

Sections 6.3.11 and 6.4.13 of the IMO MEPC58 Revised ANNEX VI, October 2008. Those 

important allowances should be added to the paragraphs in 40 CFR 60.4204 and 4215. 

There also are some minor editorial corrections needed in the emissions units on Page 

32616, third column and Page 32617, first column. The parenthetical emissions units listed as 

“g/kW-hr” should be “g/Hp-hr”. 

EMA supports EPA’s proposal to revise the emissions standards for emergency engines 

greater than 30L/cylinder so that they do not have to meet 

aftertreatment forcing standards.

In the final NSPS, EPA promulgated regulations for CI emergency generators less than 

30L/cyl that aligned with mobile nonroad and marine engine standards, except where those

standards would require aftertreatment. For emergency engines, EPA determined that it was not 

cost-effective to require aftertreatment since they operate so infrequently, and the addition of 

aftertreatment adds large costs to the unit. Moreover, EMA commented that aftertreatment 

devices can negatively affect the performance of emergency engines. The final NSPS regulation, 

however, did not provide similar relief for emergency engines greater than 30L/cyl but required 

those emergency engines to meet the same aftertreatment forcing standards as non-emergency 

engines.

Engines over 30L/cyl also are used to power emergency generators, particularly in 

critically sensitive installations such as nuclear power plants. The addition of aftertreatment 
9

devices on those large engines to lower emissions has the potential to adversely affect the 

performance and reliability of the engine under emergency circumstances, and aftertreatment is 

also expensive so that the same cost-effectiveness arguments apply to engines of this larger size

as well. Consequently, using the same rationale that EPA used to exempt smaller emergency 

engines, aftertreatment devices should also not be required for emergency engines greater than 

30L/cyl. EMA fully supports this change in the NSPS Revisions as set out in the Preamble on 

Page 32617 and proposed Section 40 CFR 60.4205. The comment above regarding the inclusion 

of certain allowances in the IMO standards also applies here. 

We believe that there is an error in the Preamble on Page 32623 and in the proposed 

changes to 40 CFR 60.4205 (d(2)) where the emissions limit for emergency engines is only 

applicable until January 1, 2016. The NOx emissions limit for such engines should also be 

applicable past 2016. The phrase “and before January 1, 2016” should be removed from this 

section so that the proposed emission limits of emergency engines greater than 30 L/cyl apply 

anytime after January 1, 2012.

EMA supports the proposal to set the fuel sulfur limit for engines greater than 30 L/cyl 

at 1000 ppm but believes the new limit should be effective immediately

EPA is proposing to align the sulfur limits for diesel fuel used in engines greater than 30 

L/cyl with the sulfur limits proposed in the IMO marine engine standards for such engines. 

EMA supports this change. Since the emissions limits are being revised to follow IMO marine 

standards, and since those large stationary engines are based on those engine platforms that will 

burn that fuel, it is logical and appropriate to similarly align the diesel fuel sulfur limits for large 

stationary engines.

In the NSPS Revisions, EPA proposes to revise the sulfur limit in fuel used in engines 

greater than 30 L/cyl effective in 2014 (40 CFR 60.4207, FR Page 32624). EMA believes that 

the change should be effective immediately and urges EPA to revise the effective date 

accordingly in the final rule. Currently, 40 CFR 60.4207 requires that engines greater than 30 

L/cyl use diesel fuel with a sulfur limit of 500 ppm. Beginning in October 2010, nonroad 
10

mobile engines and stationary engines less than 30 L/cyl must begin using 15 ppm sulfur fuel. 

Since essentially all of the nonroad mobile and stationary engines in the U. S. will be required to 

use 15 ppm ULSD, 500 ppm sulfur fuel will become very limited - if not unavailable - as 

refineries switch to producing and distributing 15 ppm fuel to meet the regulatory demand. 

Since engines greater than 30 L/cyl are not designed to use 15 ppm fuel, this will create a 

situation where a fuel needed for such large engines may not be available at all or, if available, 

will be significantly more costly.

To remedy this situation, EPA should allow the use of 1000 ppm fuel immediately and 

not wait until 2014. The higher sulfur level fuel is needed to assure that there will be an 

adequate supply of suitable fuel to use in engines greater than 30 L/cyl.

Section 40 CFR 60.4216 regarding fuel requirements in Alaska needs clarification

40 CFR 60.4216 identifies the diesel fuel requirements that owners and operators of 

stationary engines must follow in areas of Alaska that are not accessible by the Federal Aid 

Highway System (FAHS). The final rule refers to 40 CFR Part 69, that in turn identifies the nonmotor vehicle diesel fuel requirements for such areas including nonroad, locomotive and marine 

fuels in paragraph 69.52. Item (f)(1) of this paragraph states that “all model year 2011 stationary 

diesel engines must be fueled with diesel fuel that meets the specifications for NR fuel in 40 

CFR 80.510 (b) or (c).” As a consequence of this language, diesel fueled engines, including 

engines greater than 30 L/cyl, in areas not accessible to the FAHS would have to use 15 ppm fuel 

starting in 2011.

EMA believes that this is an unintentional error since engines greater than 30 L/cyl in all 

other parts of the U.S. are specifically exempted from the regulatory requirement to use 15 ppm 

diesel fuel under the provisions of 40 CFR 60.4207. There is no logic to require use of 15 ppm 

sulfur fuel only in rural areas of Alaska when the use of such fuel is exempted in all other parts 

of the country. We believe that this regulatory requirement may simply be an oversight on the 

part of EPA.
11

EMA requests that EPA review the regulatory language in 40 CFR 60.4216 and clarify 

that 15 ppm diesel fuel is not required for engines greater than 30L/cyl anywhere in Alaska by 

revising Section 60.4216 and removing reference to 40 CFR Part 69.

EMA supports the proposal to set the PM limit for engines

greater than 30 L/cyl at 0.40 g/bkW-hr

EMA agrees with the statement that it is not technically feasible to achieve the final PM 

emission limit promulgated in the final rule without the availability of low sulfur fuel or for 

emergency use engines (See proposed sections 40 CFR 60.4205/4215). EMA previously 

submitted comments on this issue to EPA. Current emissions control technologies cannot 

achieve such a low PM emissions limit without using low sulfur fuels. As a consequence, it is 

important to establish a feasible PM limit in areas where low sulfur fuel is not available or is not 

required to be used, and for emergency use engines in general. EMA therefore supports the 0.40 

g/bkW-hr PM limit for engines greater than 30 L/cyl.

EMA supports the proposed changes and requirements related to the installation and 

operation of stationary engines located in Alaska, including engines greater than 30 L/cyl.

The conditions in rural Alaska provide unique challenges due to its remoteness, isolation, 

need for reliable power, harsh environment and high costs of goods and services. Many of those 

locations rely solely on stationary CI engines for their electricity and heat. As noted in the 

preamble (pages 32617-32619) and described by the State of Alaska, conditions in rural Alaska

require special consideration in order to be able to continue to provide reliable and essential 

power to the citizens of those locations.

EMA believes that the proposal to establish different standards and requirements for 

stationary CI engines in Alaska is needed to address the unique conditions in that State. EMA 

supports EPA‟s proposed changes and requirements in Section 4216. We also believe that those 

same changes (with parallel regulatory language) need to be applied to engines greater than 30 
12

L/cyl. We suspect that EPA inadvertently or mistakenly did not include engines greater than 

30L/cyl when discussing the proposed changes for rural Alaska.

EMA supports the need for a specific definition of “Reconstruction”

but is concerned with EPA’s proposal to require 

a change in the manufacturing date for certain reconstructed engines.

In our comments to EPA on the originally proposed SI NSPS, EMA commented that a 

definition of “reconstruction” specific to engines was needed. In reviewing the generic 

definition from 40 CFR 60, it was clear that the language, crafted in 1975, was focused on major, 

one-of-a-kind emission sources. References to „affected facility‟, „depreciable components‟, 

existing and proposed „air pollution control equipment‟, the need for the Administrator‟s 

determination of whether the replacement of components constitutes reconstruction, etc., are

evidence that the section‟s applicability to „mass-produced‟ sources was simply not

contemplated. 

EMA‟s comments, submitted on October 10, 2006, in response to the Agency‟s SI NSPS 

NPRM, stated:

“...the terms "modification" and "reconstruction" should be specifically defined in the 

final regulation as they apply to internal combustion engines. The standard definitions 

applicable to other stationary sources are not readily or clearly applied to engines because 

of the significant differences in cost, maintenance practices, and application. For 

example, although it may make sense to talk about depreciable assets for a large facility 

such as a power plant or refinery, the application of that term to a reconstructed engine is 

not clear. For small engines, regular maintenance or overhaul of the engine may 

approach the 50% cost milestone to trigger reconstruction, depending on how the 

definition is applied. Clearly, it should not be the intent of EPA to have a definition 

where normal and routine maintenance results in an existing engine being redefined as 

reconstructed.

Since stationary engines are so different from the traditional scope of large stationary 

sources, EMA believes that it is necessary to develop and publish specific definitions of 

modification and reconstruction applicable to the NSPS and NESHAP rules. Such 

definitions would avoid confusing and conflicting interpretations of the general 
13

provisions of the rule. EMA is willing to work with EPA to develop definitions of 

modification and reconstruction for the purposes of the SI rulemaking.”

EPA is proposing to tailor the general definition of “reconstruction” to make it more 

appropriate for stationary IC engines. A common definition is proposed in both 60.4219 and 

60.4248: as follows:

“Reconstruct means to replace or refurbish components of an existing engine to such an 

extent that the fixed capital cost of the new and refurbished components exceeds 50 percent

of the fixed capital cost of a comparable new engine. The fixed capital cost of the new and 

refurbished components includes the capital cost of each component plus the labor cost for 

the replacement or refurbishment. For purposes of reconstruction, an existing stationary 

engine is defined as including those components mounted to or within the cylinder block, the 

engine housings, and engine mounted components, but excluding ancillary components such 

as external cooling or fuel supply.”

EMA generally supports this revised definition of Reconstruction. However, while an 

existing stationary engine is properly defined as excluding “ancillary” components such as 

external cooling or fuel supply, when addressing the costs to reconstruct the existing engine,

EMA believes it is appropriate to also clarify those costs that should be included in total new 

engine costs. When comparing existing engine costs to a new engine, items such as the cooling 

system, fuel storage system, air pollution control equipment and other ancillary equipment 

should be included since those ancillary items are necessary to ensure the proper fit and function 

of the new engine. Such items and systems would be required if a new engine were to be 

purchased and installed and so should be included in the cost for a new engine when comparing 

the reconstruction costs of the existing engine to the costs of purchasing a new engine. This will 

produce a true comparative cost when calculating the threshold for determining whether an 

engine is considered to be reconstructed.

EMA also comments that the proposed definition leaves out a key concept that is 

included in the General Provisions definition of Reconstruction in 40 CFR 60. The original 

definition in 40 CFR 60.15 includes a requirement that technical and economic feasibility be 

considered when determining whether the reconstructed facility can meet new emissions 

standards. In fact, the definition of Reconstruction includes a two part test. First, the capital 
14

costs must exceed the 50% threshold, and second, it must be technically and economically 

feasible to meet the applicable standards. 

The technical and cost feasibility criteria impose an important constraint on the definition 

of reconstruction. The original regulation recognized that the imposition of new emissions 

standards on an existing facility must also consider the technical feasibility for that facility to 

achieve more stringent emissions standards applicable to new facilities and as well as the costeffectiveness of any emissions reductions. Such safeguards in the definition provide assurance 

that the same technological and cost feasibility consideration that EPA must address in 

developing new regulations and emission standards are also inherently considered when 

attempting to impose new emission standards on existing stationary facilities.

With regard to technological and cost feasibility, existing stationary engines are similar to 

other stationary sources in that it is certainly possible that it may be infeasible to meet the 

emissions standards for new engines even if the 50% threshold is met. Thus, EMA believes that 

the final definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII and Subpart JJJJ should be 

revised to include the technological and cost effectiveness criteria that are part of the original 

definition of reconstruction.

EPA should specifically identify the sections of

40 CFR 60.15 that no longer apply to stationary engines

The general provisions of 40 CFR 60 Subpart A identify the general provisions 

applicable for new stationary sources. With regard to the definition of Reconstruction, 40 CFR 

60.15 provides a definition as well as requirements related to notifying the Administrator if an 

owner or operator proposes to replace components meeting the reconstruction threshold. The 

regulation in paragraph (g) indicates that specific NSPS standards may alter or delimit the 

requirements regarding reconstruction.
15

EMA believes that the final NSPS must specifically identify the requirements and 

sections of 40 CFR 60.15 that are being replaced or altered in order to provide a clear indication 

of what sections of the General Provisions are no longer applicable to stationary engines.

EMA opposes the proposed definition of Date of Manufacture since it

differs significantly from EPA regulations for Nonroad and Marine

engines from which stationary engines are derived.

In association with the proposed change to the definition of „reconstruct‟, EPA also has 

proposed changes to the definition of the „Date of Manufacture‟. Again, a common definition is 

proposed in both 60.4219 and 60.4248: 

“Date of manufacture means one of the following things:

(1) For freshly manufactured engines and modified engines, date of manufacture means the 

date the engine is originally produced.

(2) For reconstructed engines, date of manufacture means the date the engine was originally 

produced, except as specified in paragraph (3) of this definition.

(3) Reconstructed engines are assigned a new date of manufacture if the crankshaft is 

removed as part of the reconstruction or if the fixed capital cost of the new and 

refurbished components exceeds 75 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable new 

engine (see the definition of „„reconstruct‟‟). An engine that is produced from a 

previously used engine block does not retain the date of manufacture of the engine in 

which the engine block was previously used if the engine serial number was removed (or 

the engine otherwise loses its identity), or the engine is produced using all new 

components except for the engine block. In all these cases, the date of manufacture is the 

date of reconstruction or the date the new engine is produced.”

The intent of this proposed change is to require an engine that is reconstructed to meet the 

emission requirements that are current at the time of reconstruction. In sum, as stated in the 

preamble, EPA is proposing that reconstructed engines “...meet the emission standards for the 

model year in which the reconstruction occurs if the reconstructed engine meets any of the 

following criteria:

 The crankshaft is removed as part of the reconstruction; or
16

 The fixed capital cost of the new and refurbished components exceeds (50) 75 percent [

preamble language correction per Melanie King] of the fixed capital cost of a comparable 

new engine; or

 The serial number of the engine is removed as part of the reconstruction; or

 The reconstructed engine consists of a previously used engine block with all new 

components.”

EMA has several significant concerns with this approach as proposed.

1) Removal of the crankshaft alone should not trigger the need to comply with new engine 

standards. A relatively new engine that suffers a main bearing failure might require 

removal/replacement of the crankshaft. It is possible that such a repair would not require 

other extensive reconstruction procedures and would not justify the added modifications or 

engine replacement that would be required to meet the new engine standards.

2) Removal of the engine serial number alone should not trigger the need to comply with 

new engine standards. Such a criterion could curtail today‟s practical and effective 

remanufacturing of engines for stationary applications. Such engines are typically built using 

major components from failed or worn-out engines. Those used engines are sent to the 

remanufacturer as cores in exchange for a remanufactured engine. The used engine loses its 

identity and becomes loose parts. The remanufacturer inspects the used components and 

either refurbishes them for re-use or scraps those that are not re-useable. Major castings such 

as cylinder blocks, cylinder heads, etc, are commonly re-usable after reconditioning. The

remanufacturer then assembles “remanufactured” engines using a mix of re-useable 

components and new components as required. The remanufactured engines are built to 

previous, non-current engine configurations. Unique engine serial numbers are assigned; 

there is no correlation to the original engines. The requirement on the purchaser is that, 

relative to the engine being replaced, the remanufactured engine must be of the same or 

newer emissions configuration. The remanufactured engines are built with a high level of 

quality control and are, on average, lower emitting than the cores being returned. This whole 

process provides end-users with a cost-effective alternative to rebuilding an engine in place 
17

or in a repair shop environment. The single largest impact of using the removal of the engine 

serial number alone as a trigger to comply with new engine standards would likely be the 

increased number of rebuilds conducted in less-structured facilities. 

3) A relatively new engine needing extensive repairs should not trigger the need to comply 

with new engine standards. As recommended in EMA‟s letter of April 11, 2007, there 

should be consideration given to the age of the engine. EMA recommended that 

“reconstruction” not be triggered unless “the existing engine is at least 15 years old compared 

to the current model year.” Such a 15-year threshold would be appropriate as one of the 

criteria for determining whether compliance with new engine standards is required during 

reconstruction. Further, the precedent of a 15-year threshold was included in the replacement 

engine provisions of 60.4210(i).

4) The proposed definition goes beyond the applicable requirements for reconstructed or 

remanufactured engines required in EPA regulations related to nonroad and marine engines. 

The proposed definition would impose a separate and new set of requirements on refurbished 

or remanufactured engines applicable to stationary applications only, and thus alter current 

industry practice by changing the date of manufacture, and thus the applicable emissions 

limits for a small subset of such engines. Since EPA has adopted and applied emissions 

standards, test methods, and other regulatory requirements for stationary engines that are 

based on the requirements identified in EPA‟s mobile source nonroad and marine 

regulations, it is not appropriate or correct to apply such different and more-stringent 

requirements on one category of stationary engines, i.e., reconstructed stationary engines.

Rather than impose such different regulatory requirements on stationary reconstructed 

engines, EMA recommends that the paragraph defining when a new date of manufacture is 

assigned be modified to: 

“Reconstructed engines are assigned a new date of manufacture if the engine is more than 

15 years old relative to the current model year and the fixed capital cost of the new and 

refurbished components exceeds 75 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable new
18

engine (see the definition of reconstruct). For reconstructed engines meeting the above 

criteria, the date of manufacture is the date that reconstruction is commenced.‟‟

The definition of Freshly Manufactured Engine

needs to be revised to remove reference to previously used parts

EPA proposes a definition of Freshly Manufactured Engine to include those engines that 

have not been placed into service. The definition is then referenced in the proposed definition of 

Date of Manufacture. EMA agrees that an engine that has not been placed in service can be 

defined as a freshly manufactured engine, and it can be categorized as a freshly manufactured 

engine when it is produced. This definition is similar to that used in EPA‟s recently promulgated 

marine engine regulations.

However, the proposed definition goes on to include engines that are produced using 

some previously used parts if the engine does not retain its original identity. As a result, the

proposed definition of freshly manufactured would include previously used engines.

EMA opposes the inclusion of previously used engines within the definition of freshly 

manufactured engines. This inclusion differs from the definition used in the marine and nonroad 

regulations, and has regulatory significance by impacting the applicable emissions standards for 

previously used and remanufactured engines. Identifying engines with used parts as “freshly 

manufactured” is fundamentally incorrect in that used components have indeed been previously 

placed in service.

Remanufactured engines provide a unique and useful service to end-users by allowing an 

additional customer option to simply rebuilding an engine on-site or in the chassis.

Remanufactured engines may greatly reduce costly downtime associated with rebuilding the 

original engine and provide a more efficient process that recycles the usable engine components. 

Remanufacturing consists of disassembling returned engine cores, reusing parts which 

may be reconditioned, and then building remanufactured engines for other end-users. As the 

remanufacturing process generally occurs in more controlled conditions that rebuilding in the 
19

field, there is usually an improvement in overall mechanical quality. However, there is no 

difference in the air quality at the site relative to rebuilding or remanufacturing. Indeed, site 

emissions tests are identical whether a remanufactured or rebuilt engine is used.

The significance of the proposed definition of freshly manufactured is that it contains 

language that would effectively eliminate the option of the remanufacturing process by applying

a new date of manufacture to such engines and requiring the remanufacturing process to meet the 

same requirements, including certification (where applicable), as the process where new engines 

are built along an assembly line using completely new parts. The proposed definition does not 

take into account the technical or cost feasibility of updating existing engine components to meet 

the latest standards, as if they were new components. Clearly, used components are not new 

components, and thus remanufactured engines containing those parts should not be considered or 

classified as new or freshly manufactured engines. 

Moreover, remanufactured engines typically closely match the characteristics and 

capabilities of rebuilt/reconstructed engines, and should be treated as such. Grouping 

remanufactured engines with rebuilt or reconstructed engines is appropriate since used 

components are employed and it is unreasonable to declare adherence to useful life, emissions 

warranty and deterioration factors. Maintaining the current regulatory and emissions separation 

among new engines, reconstructed engines, and remanufactured engines is needed to clarify the 

requirements for engine manufactures, certificate holders, and those who seek alternatives for

their worn or failed field engines. 

To resolve this issue and maintain the current regulatory separation between new and 

remanufactured engines, the definition of freshly manufactured engines needs to be changed by

removing the last line of the definition in the final version of the regulation.

The definition should be as follows:

Freshly Manufactured Engine means an engine that has not been placed into service. 

An engine becomes freshly manufactured when it is originally produced.
20

EMA supports the proposed change to the definition of emergency

engine to allow participation in demand response programs

EMA supports the revision to the definition of emergency engine to allow a limited 

number of hours for demand response programs. It is appropriate to allow a very limited number 

of hours within those already allowed by the regulation for maintenance, testing, and operations, 

to be used in state demand response programs. EMA is opposed, however, to increasing 

allowable demand response hours beyond the current proposal. If owners and operators wish to 

use a generator for demand response, peak shaving, or other non-emergency use, then we believe 

those engines should be subject to the requirements and emissions standards for non-emergency 

engines.

EMA believes that the proposed definition of “Installed”

is incorrect and needs to be revised

EMA supports clarification of the definition of “installed” as it relates to engines. 

However, the definition sets unnecessarily and unreasonably high criteria. 

EMA agrees that the requirement to have the engine “placed and secured at a location 

where it is intended to be operated” is an acceptable requirement to define “installed”. However, 

the remaining portion -- “...piping and wiring for exhaust, fuel, controls, etc., is installed and all 

connections are made; and the engine is capable of being started” -- is not acceptable.

Stationary engines are often only a part of much larger facilities. They often must be 

purchased, delivered, and placed in a location sufficiently in advance such that they do not delay 

the remainder of the facility construction. This can significantly precede the completion of 

utilities at the larger facility (including local permits and building inspections). Creating the 

foundations and setting a stationary engine at a site demonstrates a significant commitment by 

the owner that the engines are placed on site for a specific use. Completing the remaining 
21

connections are not necessary to prove the owner‟s intent and are often more a function of the 

larger construction project than of the engine‟s need.

The definition of installed in the final regulation should be as follows:

“Installed means the engine is placed and secured at the location where it is 

intended to be operated.”

The applicable test method for engines greater than 30 L/cyl needs to be changed

from Method 5 to Method 5B or 17

EPA solicited comments on the applicability of EPA Test Method 5 to measure PM 

emissions from engines greater than 30 L/cyl. As noted in the request for comment ( see 75FR 

32620), EMA submitted a letter to EPA detailing our concerns with the use of Method 5 and 

recommending that EPA Method 5B or 17 be used instead. EMA‟s original comments can be 

found in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295).

EMA reiterates and reaffirms its original comments as submitted in our previous letters 

on this topic (Reference Letter to Mr. Jaime Pagan from Mr. Joseph L. Suchecki, dated 

December 4, 2008). We continue to believe that EPA Method 5 in general is inappropriate for 

sampling stack emissions from stationary engines. As was mentioned, the primary reason for 

needing an alternative procedure is that Method 5 requires the use of glass fiber filters 

maintained at 120 degrees C. The method also indicates in Paragraph 7.1.1 that “in sources 

containing SO2 or SO3 the filter material must be of a type that is unreactive to SO2 or SO3”. ISO 

9096 2003, Paragraph 6.2.5a states that “glass fiber filters may react with acidic compounds such 

as SO3 leading to an increase in their filter mass. Their use is not recommended where this 

occurs.” CI engine emissions include both SO2 and SO3, and so the requirement in Method 5 to 

use such filters is problematic.

In addition, the filter temperature under Method 5 is required, in general. to be 120 

degrees C ( Chapter 6.1.1.2 “default level” if some other temperature is not specified by an

applicable subpart of the standard) which is much lower than the typical exhaust gas temperature 
22

from large CI engines. As we noted in our previous comments, this means that to use Method 5, 

the exhaust gas would have to be cooled which will result in the formation of additional 

condensation particles and thus affect the sampling results. Note also that Method 5 does not 

contain any advice on how to perform the cooling in order to achieve the prescribed probe (filter) 

temperature, and therefore, different approaches will be used resulting in inconsistencies in the 

results. Because of the uncertainties associated with cooling the exhaust, Method 5 results will 

not yield reproducible samples. This requirement is in contrast to other standards or regulations 

where the filter temperature is higher or can be adjusted to match exhaust gas temperature (e.g., 

40 CFR 60.50Da governing industrial steam generating units). It should be noted that 

internationally recognized PM standards such as ISO 9066 and EN 13284-1 allow both in- and 

out-stack measurements and recommend a much higher filtration temperature than EPA Method 

5 in order to achieve reproducible, valid measurement results.

In the “US 40 CFR Part 60 NSPS for Electricity Steam Generating Units and IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units” Final Rule, dated June 13, 2007, this issue

was addressed by utilizing the particular application temperature approach allowed according to 

EPA Method 5 by altering the sample temperature from 120 degree C to 160 degrees C, which is 

close to the actual flue gas temperature out of the boiler. Also, for the boiler plants, EPA PM 

measurement methods 5, 5B and 17 (in-stack) are allowed. For a large stationary engine, the 

situation is less certain due to the much higher flue gas temperature (typical range 250 - 350 

degrees C) implying that the flue gas must be cooled in order to reach 160 degrees C at the filter. 

In order to avoid inconsistencies and non-reproducible results in the PM, sampling using an instack method such as EPA Method 17 should be allowed.

EMA recommends that the PM sampling temperature be raised at a minimum up to 160 

degrees C (i.e., change from EPA Method 5 to Method 5B) for stationary engines as is the case 

for boilers (actual flue gas temperature for this prime mover). Due to the much higher flue gas 

temperature from large stationary engines (>> 160 degrees C) the international approach of

allowing in-stack sampling (methods as under US EPA Method 17) should be allowed as an 

alternative.
23

The EPA should include provisions in the NSPS that

incent and promote engines with high energy efficiency.

The impact of EPA regulations on energy use should be a key consideration when 

developing and finalizing emission standards as described in the recent EPA ANPRM on 

greenhouse gas emissions. The NSPS should include provisions promoting energy and fuel 

efficiency. Reducing fuel use through the use of combustion sources with high fuel-energy 

conversion rates is a key element of federal energy policy to reduce the nation‟s dependence on 

imported petroleum. Further, the use of high efficiency engines also results in lower greenhouse 

gas emissions and can be an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

EPA should include a provision within the CI NSPS that provides an energy efficiency 

incentive allowing increases in the emission of criteria pollutants for engines and generation 

systems that meet certain thresholds of energy efficiency. EPA has already adopted such 

incentives for other technology in NSPS regulations governing steam generator boilers, and 

stationary combustion turbines as follows:

US Steam-generating (boiler) Unit NSPS, page 32739: “For the purposes of determining 

compliance with the emission limits in paragraph 60.45Da the owner or operator of 

generating unit which is also a cogeneration unit shall ... calculate emission rates based 

on electrical output to the grid plus 75 percent of the equivalent electrical energy 

(measured relative to ISO conditions) in the unit‟s process stream.” Note paragraph 

60.45Da is for the Hg emission, i.e., a 75 % bonus for the recovered heat.

US stationary combustion turbine NSPS, page 38499: “... For combined-cycle and 

combined heat and power complying with the output-standard ...gross energy output is 

calculated as the sum of the total electrical and mechanical energy generated by the 

combustion turbine, the additional electrical or mechanical energy (if any) generated by 

the steam turbine .. and 100 percent of the total useful thermal energy output that is not

used to generate additional electricity or mechanical output expressed in equivalent 

MW.” 

Note that the emission bonus is applied on the regulated emissions: NOx and SO2. A

100 % bonus for the recovered heat and full bonus for extra generated electrical/mechanical 
24

energy - (e.g. a 30 % electrical + 60 % heat recovery = 90 % efficiency) results in an emission 

limit 3-times higher compared to the electricity production only case.

EMA requests that EPA develop and incorporate a similar efficiency provision for CI 

engines in the final NSPS regulation. Adoption of such a program will recognize the importance 

of energy efficiency and the benefits of reducing fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Moreover, incorporating efficiency considerations in the regulation will provide a level playing 

field for engine-based systems compared to boilers and turbine that can already take advantage 

of such energy efficiency provisions in NSPS regulations governing those technologies. EMA is 

prepared to work jointly with EPA on an efficiency provision.

Conclusions

EMA appreciates the opportunity to provide these additional comments to EPA on the 

proposed revisions to the CI NSPS. We believe that, for the most part, the proposed revisions 

have addressed satisfactorily the majority of the outstanding issues that EMA has previously 

noted. We are particularly pleased to see the changes in the emissions standards and 

requirements for engines greater than 30 L/cyl as well as the alignment with marine engine 

standards.

EMA does, however, remain highly concerned with some of the proposed changes, and 

has submitted comments on a number of key issues and concepts. Of significance is the need for 

EPA to review and revise sections of the final regulation regarding the need to provide more 

appropriate and workable emissions measurement methods for large engines, the definition of 

“reconstruction” and its considerable implications, as well as the definition of “installation” and 

“date of manufacture.” 

As we have in the past, EMA would be pleased to work with EPA to resolve these issues 

for inclusion in the final NSPS, and we look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Respectfully submitted, 

ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION