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 En gine Manufacturers Association (EMA) on the proposed Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark I gnition 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 Affairs1 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

- 19782 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Standards of Performance for ) Stationary Compression Ignition ) And Spark Ignition Internal ) Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 02 9 5 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 co mbustion 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 ; J une 8, 2010 .)

EMA appreciates the efforts of EPA to address the issues brought up by the public, including EMA, rel ating to the final version of the compression

- ignition ("CI") NSPS. Most of the changes included in the NSPS R evisions proposed on June 8, 2010, are intended to address
and/or correct those issues of concern

. The proposed changes in the NSPS Revisions ar e 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 prop o sing such needed changes to the final regulation.

Alth ough supportive of most of the proposed changes in the NSPS Revisions, EMA has a number of specific comments and recommendations on the proposal s . Those specific comments
and recommendation s 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. H owever, preamble Table II d oes not accurately represent tho se 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 ma rine standards be moved from 10 L/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. W hile medium speed marine and stationary engines sha re 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 require s 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 opera tors to purchase only
such certified engines and to follow engine manufacturer‟s speci fications, 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 cons idered to be operating in a non

- certified manner
, and so proposes that owners and

o perators 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 mainte nance
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 o wners 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 confl icts as to which party is responsible for emissions compliance. Without such designation, neither the regulatory agency nor the engine manufacturer would k now whether the

ow ner 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
tho se engines that have been altered beyond the ma nufacturer ‟ s recommended operation and maintenance plans

.5

The proposal to allow owners and operators to adjust CI engines outside of manufacturer’s recommendations sh ould 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 out side of the manufacturer ‟s settings ( NSPS Revision Preamble P age 32615 and proposed Section 40 CFR 60.4211 (g)). The CI NSPS requires that engine manufacturers certify that all CI engines under 30 L/cy l 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 setting s 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 meet s the applicable NSPS emission
standa rds.

 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 im plied 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 nonroad6

certification if the engine is originally certified to both applications

. Such noti fication 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 an y exception s to t he NSPS requirements that manufacturers must sell only new NSPS

- certified stationary engines,
and that when owner s /operators purchase such new NSPS

- covered engines, they must purchase only new NSPS

- certified engines. EMA does not believe that the Agency i ntends 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 otherwis e NSPS

- covered engine in a “non

- certified
manner” is not an allow ance 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 P age 32616 of the FR notice, EPA requests comments on whether engines used on stationary marine platforms should be allowed to meet e missions standards applicable to marine engine s 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/oper ators 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 concer n.7

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

but the discussion needs to be further clar i fi ed.

In Item II C on Page 32616 of the FR notice , EPA discusses whether engine s 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 sho uld 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 d efinition, 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 ar e 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 reg ulation that include s 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 create s 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 with8

different turbo specifications due to different loading optimization needs)
, the Agency will establish technically and economically feasible emissions standards and also will provide the
lead time needed for the emissions control technologies that are best sui ted to tho se 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 s hould 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 32 617, 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 em ergency generators less than
30 L/cyl that aligned with mobile nonroad and marine engine standards
, except where thos e standards would require aftertreatment. For emergency engines, EPA determined tha t 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 em ergency engines greater than 30 L/cyl but required those emergency engines to meet the same aftertreatment forcing standards as non

- emergency engines.

Engines over 30 L/cyl also are used to power emergency generators, particularly in
critical ly sensitive installations such as nuclear power plants. The addition of aftertreatment9

devices on those large engines to lower emissions has the potential to adversely affect the performance and reliability of the engine under emergency circumsta nces, and aftertreatment is also expensive so that the same cost

- effectiveness arguments apply to engines of this larger size
as well . C onsequently, using the same rationale that EPA used to exempt smaller emergency engines, aftertreatment devices should also not be required for e mergency 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 allow ances 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 e mergency engines greater than 30 L/cyl ap ply 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 immediatel y

EPA is proposing to align the sulfur limits for diesel fu el 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 sta tionary 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 prop o ses to revise the sulfur limit in fuel used in engines greater than 30 L/cyl effective in 2014 ( 40 CFR 60.42 07
, 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. C urrently, 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, nonroad10

mobile engines and stationary engines less than 30 L/cyl must begin using 15 ppm sulfur fuel.
Since essentially all of the no nroad 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 e ngines 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 shoul d allow the use of 1000 ppm fuel immediately and
not wait until 2014. T he 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 f uel 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 ac c essible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) . The final rule refers to 40 CFR Part 69 , that in turn identifies the non

motor 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 stationa ry 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 FAH S 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 p pm diesel fuel unde r the pro visions 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 refer ence to 40 CFR Part 69.

EMA supports the proposal to set the PM limit for engines

greater than 30 L/cyl at 0.4 0 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 emissio ns limit without using low sulfur fuels. As a consequence , it is important t o 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 th e 0.40 g/ b kW

- 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 locatio ns.

EMA believes that the propos al 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 3012

L/cyl. We suspect that EPA inadvertently or mistakenly did not include engines greater than 30L/cyl when discussing the proposed change s 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 cons ti tutes 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 signifi cant 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

no t 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 no rmal 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 general13

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 “ rec onstruction” to make it more appropriate for stationary IC engines . A common definition is proposed in both 60.4219 and
60 .4248: as follows:

“R econstruct 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 exis ting 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 support s 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 pollut ion 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. S uch items and systems would be required if a new engine were to be purchased and installed and so should be in cluded in the cost for a new engine when comparin g the reco nstruction costs of the existing engine to the costs of purchasing a new engine. T his will produce a true comparative cost when calculating the threshold for determining whether an engine is cons idered to be reconstructed

.

EMA also comments that the proposed defi ni tion leaves out a key concept that is
included in the Gen e ral Provisions definitio n of Reconstruction in 40 CFR 60

. The original
definition in 40 CFR 60.15 includes a re quirem e nt 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 capital14

costs must exceed the 50% thresho ld, and second, it must be technically and economically feasible to meet the applicable standards.

The technic al 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 achi e ve more stringent emissions standards applicable to new facilities and as well as the cost

effectiveness of any emissio ns 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 reconstructi on 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 requi rements and
sections of 40 CFR 6 0.15 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 M arine engines from which stationary engines are derived

.

In association with the proposed change to the defi nition of „reconstruct‟, EPA also has proposed cha nges to the definition of the „Date o f M anufacture‟. 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 ori ginally 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 cran kshaft 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 f rom 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 i s to require an engine that is recons tructed to meet the

em ission 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 eng ine meets any of the following criteria:

 The crankshaft is removed as part of the reconstruction; or16

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

pream ble 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 th at 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

- o ut engines. Those used engines are se nt to the
remanufacturer as cores in exchange for a remanufactured engine. The used engine loses its
identit y and becomes loose parts. The remanufacturer inspects the used components and
either refurbishes them for r e

- 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 n ew components as required. The remanufactured engines are built to previous , non

- current engine configuration s . Unique engine serial numbers are assigned; there is no correlation to the original engines. The requirement on the purchaser is that
, relativ e 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. T his whole process provides end

- users with a cost

- effective alternative to rebuilding an engine in place17

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 engin e 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 r ecommended 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 wou ld 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 r efurbished or remanufactured engines applicable to stationary appli cations 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 adopt ed 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 t o apply such d ifferent and more

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

R ather than impose such different regulatory requirements on stationary reconstructed engines, EMA recommends that the paragraph defini ng 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 new18

engine (see the definition of r econstruct )

. For r econstructed engines meeting the above
criteria , the date of manufacture is the date that reconstruction is commenced. ‟‟

The d efinition 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. T his 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 iden tity. 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 def inition used in the marine and non r oad 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 e ngine on

- site or in the chassis.
R emanufactured engines may greatly reduce costly downtime associated with rebuilding the original engine and provide a more efficient pr ocess that recycles the usable engine components

.

Remanufacturing consists of disassembling returned eng ine 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 the19

field, there is usually an improvemen t in overall mechanical quality. H owever , 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 certif ication (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 updati ng 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 par ts should not be considered or
classified as new or freshly ma nufactured engines.

Moreover , remanufactured engines typically closely match the characteristics and capabilities of rebuilt/reconstructed engines, and should be treated as such . G rouping 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. Maintain ing the current regula tory 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 manufact ured engines needs to be changed by removing the last line of the definition in the final version of the regul ation.

The definition should be as follows:

Freshly Manuf

a ctured 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 re sponse 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

- em ergency engines.

EMA believes that the proposed definition of “ I nstalled ”
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 unreasona bly 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 require ment 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). Cre ating 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 remaining21

connections are not necessary to prove the owner ‟ s intent a nd 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 5 B or 17 be used instead. EMA‟s original comme nts 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 f rom 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 proc edure is that Method 5 re quires the use of glass fiber filters maintained at 120 degrees C. The method also indicates in Paragraph 7.1.1 that “in sources containing SO 2 or SO 3 the filter material must be of a type that is unreactive to SO 2 or SO 3 ” . ISO 9096 2003, Par a graph 6.2.5 a states that “glass fiber filters may react with acidic compounds such
as SO 3 leading to an increase in their filter mass. Their use is not recommended where this occurs.” CI engine emissions include both SO 2 and SO 3 , 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 temperature22

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
condensatio n 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 h igher 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 meas urements 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 Industrial

Commercial

- 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 degree s 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 les s certain due to the much higher flue ga s temperature (typical range 250

- 350 degree s C) implying that the flue gas must be cooled in order to reach 160 degree s C at the filter.
In order t o avoid inconsistencies and non

- reproducible results in the PM
, sampling us ing a n in

stack method such as EPA Method 17 should be allowed.

EMA recommends tha t the PM sampling temperature be raised at a minimum up to 160 degree s 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 thi s prime mover). Due to the much higher flue gas temperature from large stationary engine s (>> 160 degree s 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 promo ting energy and fuel efficiency. R educing 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 n ation‟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 re gulations governing steam generator boilers, and stationary combustion turbines as follows:

US Steam

- generating (boiler) U nit NSPS, page 32739: “For the purposes of determining compliance with the emission limits in paragraph 60.45Da the owner or operato r 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.” Not e 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
calculate d 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 e mission bonus is applied on the regulated emissions: NOx and SO 2 . A 100 % bonus for the recovered heat and full bonus for extra generate d electr ical/mechanical24

energy

- (e.g. a 30 % electrical + 60 % h eat recovery = 90 % efficiency ) results in an emission
limit 3

- times higher compared to the e lectricity production only case

. EMA requests that EPA develop and incorporate a similar efficiency pro vision 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 manufact ure.” As we have in the past, EMA would be pleased t o work with EPA to resolve the se issues
for inclusion in the final NSPS, and we look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Respectfully submitted,

ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION