Matthew To dd Policy Advisor

1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

- 4070
USA Telephone 202

- 682

- 8319
Email toddm@api.org www.api.org

September 8, 2010

Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 1 0

- 0 295 EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode 6102T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

Re: Docket ID Number EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295 , Environmental Protecti on Agency Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark Ignition
Internal Combustion E ngines ; Proposed Rule

Dear Docket Clerk:

The American Petroleum Institute (API) submits the enclosed comments on the Environmental

Protectio n Agency‟s (EP A‟s) proposed rule : Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines; Proposed Rule (hereinafter referred as the Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule was published in the Federal Regist er on June 8, 2010, at 75 FR

32612

– 32634. API‟s comments address proposed revisions to the rule for spark ignition engines in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ , as well as compression ignition engines subject to Subpart IIII

.

API is a national trade assoc iation with more than 400 member companies that are involved with all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry and internal combustion (IC) engines are used in many applications in our member company operations. These engines are primarily natural gas

- fired spark ignition units. API member companies have worked with the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) in recent years on a number of rulemakings, including the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Spark Ignition (SI) and co mpression ignition (CI) IC engines

,

a mendments to the RICE NESHAP ( Subpart ZZZZ ) for IC engines, NESHAPs for other combustion sources, and the NESHAP for major source and area source dehydrators.

The API comments that follow address three primary areas of concern :
New or revised definitions in the Proposed Rule related to reconstruction and re

- defining the engine manufacture date;

Hour limits associated with emergency engines; and,

Issues and requests for rule clarifications from letters to EPA since Part 60, Subpart JJJJ was finalized in March 2008 that should be addressed while the rule is open.API appreciates the opportunity to provide substantive comment on this rulemaking and the

extension for comment submittal that provided the time needed to complet e these comments . If you have any questions about these comments, please feel free to contact me at 202.682. 8319 or

t odd m @api.org

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Matthew Todd

cc: Melanie King , USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Robert Wayland

, USEPA

, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

### COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REVISIONS T O THE

STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR STATIONARY COMPRESSION

IGNITION AND SPARK IGNITION INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

75 Federal Register 32612, June 8, 2010

40 CFR, Par ts 60, 1039, 1042, et al. Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine NSPS

P repared by:

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005

Prepared for:

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Ai r and Radiation Docket and Information Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode

- 6102T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460

September 8 , 2010[This Page Intentionally Blank]September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

i 

### COMMENT SUMMARY

API offers a number of comments and recommendations to EPA that are further expounded on in

the detailed comments that follow this outline . The following list summarize s comments in four topical areas :

Topic 1 : Comments and I ssues with N ew D efinitions that R e

- define E ngin e S tatus

.

1.0 Newly added definitions (“reconstruction”, “date of manufacture”, “freshly

manufactured” and “ installed ”) have been included in this proposed rule for the purpose

of re

- designating existing

, older stationary RICE undergoing routine maintenanc e, repair, rework

, and overhaul as “new/reconstructed ” units triggering more stringent

emission limits. The addition of these new definitions inequitably impacts the New

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for stationary internal combustion engine s withou t providing adequate justification . For example, benefits from emissions

reductions and associated costs are not defined . The corresponding changes represent a significant departure from historical NSPS definitions and applicability determinations regard ing “ reconstruction ” and unduly restrict integral system components included in the cost analysis.

1.1 API recommends that the historical definition of “reconstruction” from §60.15 and associated interpretive guidance reflected in previous applicability de terminations be retained, and that the proposed definition specific to this source category be deleted. At a minimum, revisions to the proposed definition are needed.

1.2 If a new definition is retained, API requests that the new definition be applied onl y to

events that began after the effective date of the final rule. In addition, all related terms

used or referenced in the definition of reconstruction should be defined and the interrelationships be established. The newly added and or retained terms sh ould be defined and placed into the proper regulatory context and intent.

1.3 The addition of four criteria in the definition of “date of manufacture” for the purpose of model year re

- designation and emission standard applicability should be eliminated.

T he need and basis for these criteria are not clearly explained and are arbitrary. Specifically: t he historical fixed capital cost basis determination for reconstruction

contained in 40 CFR Part 60‚ Section 15‚ Paragraph (b) should be retained ; t he year

re construction is completed and the date when the engine is placed into service should determine which standards apply ; r emoval of the crankshaft should not require an engine to meet new engine emission standards if not replaced because r emoving the

cranksha ft may be necessary for inspection or as part of engine maintenance, repair, or workover, and in and of itself does not constitute a physical change to the engine.

1.4 The new definition for “date of manufacture” should be deleted or revised.

1.5 For SI e ngines, if EPA retains new definitions of “reconstruct” and “date of manufacture” in the final rule, confusion could occur for actions completed on existing engines since June 2006 and prior to the final rule effective date.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

ii 1. 6 The new §60.4248 and §60.42 19 definition for “ installed ” should be deleted o r revised.

Topic 2: Emergency E ngine D efinition

2.0 API supports clarifications to the definition of “emergency engine”, but recommends revising proposed hour restrictions for demand response operation.

To pic 3: Su b part JJJJ I ssues P reviously I dentified S hould be A ddressed W hile the R ule is O pen

3.0 Since promulgation of Part 60, Subpart JJJJ in March 2008, API and other Stakeholders have provided EPA with questions and requests to clarify rule requirement s and implementation issues. EPA should take the opportunity available during this revision to Subpart JJJJ to

address these concerns.

3.1 Initial Notification requirements should be clarified, including documentation of required engine information when t he information is not available due to purchasing and siting practices standard for reciprocating engines.

3. 2 Concentration

- based limits should be included for engines between 25 and 100 hp.

3. 3 Table 1 size categories include errors in the symbols for “less than” and “greater than,”

and these basic errors in mathematical symbols should be corrected.

3. 4 Subpart JJJJ, Table 2 should be revised to clarify that engine exhaust flowrate measurement is not required for units complying with concentration lim its.

3. 5 Compliance requirement for NOx + HC emission limits should be specified in the rule.

3. 6 The emission standards and time constraints associated with import or initial installation of engines manufactured prior to Subpart JJJJ applicability dates should be

clarified.

3. 7 Timing for initial compliance tests should be consistent with NESHAP requirements.

3. 8 Test scheduling should provide a reasonable scheduling allowance around the anniversary date.

3. 9 Subpart JJJJ should include a burn

- in period consistent with the RICE NESHAP for new, modified, reconstructed, or rebuilt engines to avoid catalyst damage

.
3. 10 Manufacturer rating and operating load requirements should be clarified.

3. 1 1 Requirements for certification documentation should be clar ified.

3. 1 2 §60.4233(f)(4) should be revised to address requirements for modified or reconstructed lean burn natural gas engines from 500 to 1350 hp.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

iii Topic 4: Proposed R evisions that API S upports and R esponse to EPA R equests

4.0 API supports proposed revisions to §60.4243(a) and (a)(1) to clarify that 40 CFR part 1068 requirements only apply to certified engines (operated as certified).

4.1 API supports EPA‟s continued use of a redline version of the proposed rule changes in

the docket.

4.2 API suppor ts the revisions to 60.4216 for engines used in Alaska

.
4.3 EPA requested comment on the need for stationary engines in marine offshore settings to use engines meeting the marine engine standards rather than the land based engine

standards.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 1 of 21 DETAILED COMM ENTS

Topic 1 : Comments and I ssues with N ew D efinitions that R e

- define E ngine S tatus.

1.0 Newly added definitions (“reconstruction”, “date of manufacture”, and “ install ed ”) have been included in this proposed rule for the purpose of re

- designating existing, o lder stationary RICE undergoing routine maintenance, repair, rework, and overhaul as

“new /reconstructed ” units triggering more stringent emission limits. The addition of these

new definitions inequitably impacts the New Source Performance S tandards (NSPS) for stationary internal combustion engines without providing adequate justification. For example, benefits from emissions reductions and associated costs are not defined. The corresponding changes represent a significant departure from historical NSPS d efinitions and applicability determinations regarding “reconstruction” and unduly eliminate integral
system components from the cost analysis. The definition also conflicts with the NESHAP

definition.

New definitions contain undefined terms

, a dd u nneces sary c omplexity

, l ack r ationalization for the

n eed, a re u nnecessarily r estrictive

, and introduce costs and restrictions unique for this s ource

c ategory

. EPA has introduced unnecessary definition conflicts by revisi ng the NSPS definition

which is not consi stent with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) General Provisions. If EPA intends for the NSPS definition to provide “clarification” of NESHAP criteria, then that should be addressed through proposed revisions to the N ESHAP.

This rulemaking increases the burden and implementation complexity beyond the unresolved

RICE NSPS regulatory implementation labyrinth that continues to challenge both state agencies

and affected sources. (For examples of issues that require clar ification see March 10, 2010 API letter outlining issues and requests for clarification on the current version of Subpart JJJJ, as well

as comments below in Section 3

. )

1.1 API requests that the historical definitions for reconstruction contained in 40 CFR Pa rt 60‚ Section 15‚ Paragraph (b) be retained and appropriately cited in Table 3 of the

rule. T he newly added definition of reconstruct under 40 CFR § 60.4219 and §60.4248

should be eliminated

. Alternatively, EPA should revise the proposed definition to

e nsure inclusion of hardware components in the reconstruction calculation that are necessary for engine operation. The definition of reconstruct for existing stat ionary engine is too narrowly defined, not consistent with historical precedent or the RICE

NES HAP , technically unfounded, and must be redefined to include all engine
components necessary for the stationary engine to operate.

The newly added definition of reconstruction is in direct conflict with the definition of reconstruction relied upon in NE SHAPs General Provisions 40 CFR §63.2 and referenced as applicable in Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, Table 8. The inconsistency resulting from this change between overlapping and related engine NSPS (IIII and JJJJ) and NESHAP (ZZZZ) rulemakings causes unnecessary confusion, added burden, applicability determination uncertainties, and implementation concerns. EPA should eliminate the new definition ofSeptember 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 2 of 21 reconstruction or ensure rule consistency through revisions to the NSPS and NESHAP General provisions. API strong ly recommends retaining the definitions contained in the NSPS and NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR 60.15 and 40 CFR 63.2 and eliminating the newly added definitions.

In the January 2008 Response to Comments document for the original rule, EPA‟s respons e to comment 12.4.1 on page 246 supports the use and retention of the terms already defined within the General Provisions of §60.14 and §60.15.

Response : EPA disagrees with the commenters that the terms “modification” and “reconstruction” should be spec ifically defined in the final rule. These terms are already defined within the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 60, in sections 60.14 and 60.15.

These definitions have been used for years and EPA believes they are appropriate for stationary engines as cur rently defined in the General Provisions [ emphasis added ].

The docket and preamble to the Proposed Rule do not discuss the need, basis, or rationale for the proposed change or EPA‟s change in thinking since its 2008 response to comments.

EPA should elimi nate these definitions from the final rule. If not, an explanation and discussion is warranted describing in detail the logic, rationale, costs and benefit for these changes. That discussion should explain EPA‟s change in thinking that occurred since thi s response to comment noted above that now necessitates a significant rule revision.

Under §60.4219 for CI engines and §60.4248 for SI engines

, “ reconstruct means to replace or refurbish components of an existing engine to such an extent that the fixed c apital 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 ...” [emphasis added]

Reconstruction is a cost

- based, event

- driven review process that examines the capital cost of the components and established precedent from EPA applicability determinations for similar sources (e.g., boilers ) demonstrate that the cost analysis follows definitions and procedures explained in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual ( EPA/452/B

- 02

- 001) . These costs allow latitude and professional judgment for inclusion of project and equipment related

costs, e ngineering, and other relevant expenses. EPA‟s interpretation of “fixed capital cost” includes peripheral and indirect costs associated with facility engineering, installation, and
startup. It has historically included all depreciable components associat ed with a functional unit (with exceptions for driven equipment associated with the emission source) as well as costs associated with engineering, installation, etc

.

A reconstruction event has consist ed of all applicable cost s from a single point in time, unless the related changes are phased due to cost or compliance purposes. In the simplest

terms, the historical and standard approach for assessing reconstruction costs considers the fixed capital cost of the new components for the numerator includ ing th e cost of all new parts, labor, transportation, and other associated cost for completing the work and returningSeptember 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 3 of 21 the engine to operation. The fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable new source (the denominator) include all parts , labor, transportation, engineering and other associated cost to obtain, install, and startup a similar new unit. API understands

the reasonable bounds have been considered

– e.g., for IC engines the costs are limited to the engine and do not include the driven equipment (e.g., a separable compressor).

The new definition attempts to narrowly define an existing stationary engine as including those components mounted to or within the cylinder block, the engine housings, and engine mounted components, but e xcluding ancillary components such as ex ternal cooling for fuel supply. This shows a continued reliance by EPA on a mobile source or small, packaged engine paradigm, which can be completely misplaced for many stationary applications. In

the initial NSPS rulemaking and subsequent correspondence, API ha s repeatedly pointed out problems with mobile source analogues, especially for larger engines. In this instance, the

“on

- engine” nature of the definition is completely misplaced for stationary sources, as it does not consider the demands for larger engines (e.g., engine cooling for a large unit in a building co

- located with other engines ) or lack of a need for compactness if space is not constrained (i.e., at a larger stationary facility rather than for a mob ile engine or smaller, packaged engine). EPA should not use a paradigm

– e.g., mobile source physical

characteristics and constraints

– that is inappropriate for many stationary units affected by the rule. This new definition also represent s a significan t departure from

historical EPA guidance on regulatory applicability and reconstruction cost s for determining when NSPS applicability is triggered

.

Under the NSPS General Provisions 40 CFR Part 60‚ Section 15‚ Paragraph (b)

“ Reconstruction ” means the repl acement of components of an existing facility to such an

extent that:

(1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely new facility, and

(2) It is tech nologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable standards set forth in this part.

The difference between the § 60.15 and § 60.4219 or §60.4248 definitions is substantive as it:

1. adds unnecessary and unfounded regulatory complexity,

2. is conflicte d with the General Provisions and historical regulatory applicability

determinations , and

3. designat es many rebuilt engines as “reconstructed” that would have remained “existing” under the § 60.15 definition, thus subjecting it to the emission limit for a

ne w engine.

The economic justification and cost basis does not warrant such a revision and the need has not been adequately established. For example, without consideration of the many complexities and inconsistencies caused by the add ition of the new defi nition, if an engine is reconstructed (or modified) it will have to comply with NSPS emission standards that resultSeptember 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 4 of 21 in reductions relative to an uncontrolled existing engine. The emission standards for reconstructed engines with retrofit emission controls are marginally higher than a new engine (e.g., 3 g/bhp

- hr NOx versus 1 or 2 g/bhp

- hr). In fact, EPA acknowledged and justified this differentiation in its January 2008 Response to Comments (6.7.1 on page 143) document for the original rule, indicating th at:

“The proposed standards for reconstructed engines built prior to proposal are slightly more lenient, and EPA believes that these levels can be achieved with retrofit technology without extensive hardware replacements at a reasonable cost.”

Further, E PA‟s response to comment 2.3.1 on page 41 addresses and supports the definition

of reconstruction contained in 40 CFR 60.15 and 63.2 and discusses expectations that routine maintenance should not trigger reconstruction.

“EPA does not believe that the co st of regular engine maintenance would cost more than 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable new source.”

EPA supports that maintenance delays would not result and maintenance would not be

avoided.

“ Fur ther, it is unlikely that owners/operators would delay or avoid routine engine maintenance as it is in their best interest to ensure that their engine(s) are well maintained and operate as expected.”

However, the proposed revisions are contrary to the log ic reflected in these response s
, as well as the response noted above where EPA indicated §60.15 is appropriate. I t is unclear why EPA now believes these proposed revisions are necessary . EPA has not discussed or

defined the benefit that would result relat ive to the added complexity and divergence from the historical and broadly applicable §60.15 definition. EPA indicates that this rulemaking intends to add clarity, but API believes that the opposite would occur due to new complexity, divergence from histo rical precedent, and different NSPS and NESHAP definitions. T he new approach does not comport with the decision reflected in the Response to Comments document, and EPA has not rationalized the costs or benefits from this change.

API acknowledges that t rivial emissions reductions may result from implementation of this

rule (i.e., by capturing some additional engines under “reconstruction” or redefining reconstructed engines as new (see Comment 1.3 and 1.4) ; however

, the regulatory burden and unnecessary rule complexity does not justify the expected reductions or engine replacement costs resulting from the inability to achieve the emission limits imposed by the more stringent reconstruction definition. EPA has not adequately explained the rationale,

assoc iated benefits, and additional costs that result from this change to support the revisions in the Proposed Rule

.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 5 of 21 The proposed amendments contain substantive changes to definitions associated with

, and

related to

, engine reconstruction

, and trigger s that redesignat e an existing engine as a “new” engine. This new definition for „„reconstruct‟‟ is specific to the NSPS for stationary compression ignition (CI) and spark ignition ( SI ) internal combustion engines and would supersede the §60.15 definition of re construction (see Table 3 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 60

-- Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJ )

.

In another important divergence, t he proposed definition would also inappropriately eliminate the provision for demonstrating technological and economic feasib ility for the reconstructed source to meet the relevant standard(s) established by the Administrator (or a State) pursuant to section 112 of the Act under § 60.15. The newly added definitions contained within this proposed rule would supers ede and eliminate the longstanding (40 FR 58418) provision and rationale established in 60.15(b)(2) to specifically allow for an assessment of technological and economical feasibility. The cost, implications, and burden

have not been addressed in this rule making for the divergence from the historical definition that includes a feasibility assessment for the “reconstruction” determination:

“(2) It is technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable standards set forth in this part.”

The in tent of § 60.15(b)(2) is to allow the Administrator to determine when it is technologically and economically feasible to comply with the applicable standards of performance. Elimination of this key provision has not been justified nor elaborated upon.

This provision is necessary

– and was an integral component of the original rulemaking that addressed reconstruction and precedent since that time. M any existing engines may not be capable of retrofit controls that can either technically or cost

- effectively a chieve the new

emission level. In fact, the new definitions could require engine replacement in come cases. The preamble and docket provide no indication that EPA has thoughtfully considered these implications

– or solicited feedback from operators when devising these new, unsubstantiated proposed requirements.

T echnology and/or cost limitations preclude achieving new source emission rates for some retrofit applications because of inherent engine design that limits technology performance. For example, t his is an important issue for some existing large bore, 2 stroke slow speed integral IC engines (engine and compressor are a single non

- separable unit that use a common drive train) prevalent in the oil and gas sector. The only option for these sources is replacement and these costs have not been considered as part of this proposed rule. Cost to replace a “typical” 2SLB integral engine is on the order of 3 to 5 million dollars. This is especially relevant when considering the newly added criteria for d efining “date of

manufacture” (further discussed in comment 1.3 below) that would require emission levels beyond the realm of technical or economic feasibility for some engines

.

In addition, the EPA Applicability Determination Index (ADI) provides in terpretive guidance that further informs the reconstruction definition. The Proposed Rule definition represents a significant departure from well established precedent. The proposed definitionSeptember 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 6 of 21 deviates from ADI and Control Cost Manual principles that hav e been applied for

reconstruction

– and does not adequately explain the rationale and cost

- benefit of this divergence as the need and implications for these changes are not clearly discussed in the preamble or support documentation.

Determinations from th e ADI provide guidance for reconstruction costs

The ADI includes previous EPA determinations for NSPS, NESHAPs, and other standards.

Two relevant reconstruction determinations are discussed here as important examples that have been relied upon for interpr etation of reconstruction costs. T hese determinations clarify

costs that should be included in the reconstruction cost analysis. Although these determinations are for other industrial source types or sectors, the principals are generally

relevant for rec onstruction (e.g., context includes another type of combustion device) and should also be applied to IC engines.

From the ADI, Control Number 0200048 from September 1999 addresses reconstruction

costs for an oil

- fired boiler as follows:

Q1 . Do internal costs of engineering and installation constitute "fixed capital costs" even though a company would typically not capitalize them, or are only external contractor and consultant fees counted as fixed capital costs?

A1 . In a May 11, 1998 determination perta ining to reconstruction costs, EPA stated that the engineering, purchase and installation costs, and contractor fees should be included in the affected facility reconstruction costs (i.e., fixed capital cost) to the extent that they are

associated with rec onstruction of affected process equipment.”

ADI Control Number 9800085 from May 1998 is referenced in the previous determination:

Q 2 : A project is proposed to refurbish recovery boilers and smelt dissolving tanks at a pulp mill. Which cost components are to be considered in determining whether reconstruction has taken place pursuant to 40 CFR 60.15 ?

A 2 : Engineering, purchase and installation costs, and contractor fees should be included in the affected facility reconstruction costs to the extent that they are associated with reconstruction of affected process equipment... ”

These determinations provide an interpretation of reconstruction costs that have been applied for a number of years and include the costs that comprise Total Capital Investment ( TCI )

fr om the EPA Control Cost Manual. In addition, the determinations reference “process equipment” and a reasonable interpretation of that term should include components that are necessary for the equipment to operate

.

The proposed definition appears to ign ore standard and commonplace system configurations for larger stationary engines that will be affected by the rule. The rule and support documentation do not indicate that EPA has considered these issues that may be more important for larger engines

– or rationalized the need for this new definition within the context of the range of affected sources

. The proposed definition in §60.4219 and §60.4248September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 7 of 21 may provide some insight for smaller engines where hardware components are “typically” packaged on the engi ne (i.e., for transportability or analogous to addressing space constraints such as fitting “under the hood” of a vehicle). However, for many stationary source applications, the engine may be located near (e.g.

, not on the engine skid or pad) the required ancillary equipment (e.g.

, radiator or engine coolant system) and applying the “package”

concept for these engines is inappropriate for bounding the definition of reconstruction

. In addition, the proposed definition does not consider that locating requir ed components “off of the engine” may be an engineering necessity in some cases. For example, engine cooling for multiple engines located in a building will be achieved by locating the heat exchanger (i.e., analogous to a radiator on a smaller or mobile e ngine) external to the building. Engine cooling necessary for operation “mounted to or within” the engine is impractical, unsafe, and illogical using not only engineering principles but commonsense. EPA has ignored this standard engineering design consid eration in its new definition.

E ngines at stationary sources regularly include spatial separation of fundamental hardware necessary for the engine to operate

– and also to address necessary engineering design criteria (e.g., cooling fans and a heat exchan ger external to an engine building to cool the engine) . Examples include but are not limited to the engine coolant system, where the cooling process includes equipment in the yard rather than engine mounted, and fuel gas

scrubbers that may be located in p roximity to the engine but are not “onboard” the engine or

“ mounted to or within the cylinder block ”.

This proposed definition seeks to restrict the existing stationary engine components to a narrow prescribed list of included and excluded components

– a nd the list will differ for a small packaged engine and larger stationary engines . API strongly recommends relying on the Subpart A definition and associated determinations for this definition . D etermining new source applicability following engine repair, maintenance, overhaul, or rework should

include all depreciable components and parts, necessary for a functional engine including but not limited to water cooling and radiator systems, fuel gas scrubbers, ignition and fuel delivery systems, pistons, cylin ders, block, etc. The labor, transportation, and indirect costs associated with facility engineering, installation, and startup and other associated costs with completing the work and returning the engine to operation should also be included in this

deter mination

– based on established EPA decisions reflected in the ADI . API acknowledges that this cost determination should exclude the driven equipment with the exception of integral units (i.e., where a “driven” compressor is integrated into the engine

de sign and shares a common drive shaft)

.

API questions the need for divergence from historical precedent, and EPA has not explained this divergence. The attempt to revise and limit the historical reconstruction definition based

on costs that have historic ally been allowed and approved by EPA disproportionately impacts this source category as compared to other affected sources covered by NSPS. EPA has not demonstrated a need to go beyond what is currently required of this source category

. T he rationale an d justification for disproportionally regulating reconstructed RICE has not been elucidated and the range of engine types ha s not been considered

.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 8 of 21 API strongly recommends eliminating the new definition of “reconstruct” in §60.4219 and §60.4248 that is spe cific to this source category . Subpart s IIII and JJJJ should retain the conventional definition in §60.15. The need for this revision is unclear. If EPA is attempting to reconcile deficiencies identified by the agency or other stakeholders, API
requests that the need for revisions and the objectives be clearly identified. If EPA believes that clarifying definitions are required

, EPA should revise the proposed definition to ensure inclusion of hardware components in the reconstruction calculation that ar e necessary for engine operation

. Absent insight into EPA motives for this revision

, API cannot offer

constructive comment on “improving” revisions to the proposed reconstruction definition.

1.2 If a new definition is retained, API requests that the new definition be applied only to

events that began after the effective date of the final rule. In addition, all related terms

used or referenced in the definition of reconstruction should be defined and the interrelationships be tween these terms be esta blished. The newly added and or

retained terms should be defined and placed into the proper regulatory context, meaning and intent.

As elaborated upon above, API strongly recommends retaining the historical definition of reconstruction under §60.15. If EPA implements a new definition in the final rule, at a

minimum the new definition should only apply to determinations made following the

effective date in the final rule . Determination of whether a rebuilt engine has been

reconstructed has been based on historical precedent. It is not reasonable to expect that decisions based on precedent would align with those made using the proposed § 60.4219 or §60.4248 definition. Operators should not be penalized for using the best information

available to them and retrospective review should not be required and is not warranted

.

A dditional ly, t he new definitions introduce additional terms that are undefined and cause or contribute to vagueness, ambiguity, and unneeded complexity . This significant burden for

o perators and implementing agencies comes without adequate justification for a departure from historical guideline documents and regulatory determinations contained in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual and Applicability Determination Index

. For exam ple, the new

definition introduces additional undefined terms including “ refurbish ” and “ refurbished

components ”. These terms are not distinguished or reconciled with other terms such as routine preventative maintenance, repair, overhaul, replacement

, and rework. If new terms are introduced, it is incumbent on EPA to provide reasonable definitions or expository text to preclude unnecessary compliance uncertainty. Related precedent and applicability

determinations should continue to serve as the primary g uideline for determining engine reconstruction and NSPS applicability cost thresholds

.

1.3 The addition of four new criteria in the definition of “date of manufacture” for the purpose of model year re

- designation and emission standard applicability shoul d be

eliminated

. The need and basis for these criteria are not clearly explained and are arbitrary. Specifically: t he historical fixed capital cost basis determination for

reconstruction contained in 40 CFR Part 60‚ Section 15‚ Paragraph (b) should be

re tained ; t he year reconstruction is completed and the date when the engine is placedSeptember 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 9 of 21 into service should determine which standards apply ; r emoval of the crankshaft should

not require a reconstructed engine to meet new engine emission standards if not replac ed because r emoving the crankshaft may be required for inspection or as part of engine maintenance , repair, or workover
, and removal in and of itself does not
constitute a physical change to the engine

.

EPA is proposing to add provisions to the NSPS th at require reconstructed engines to 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 [emphasis added] as part of the reconstruction; or The fixed capital cost of the new and refurbished [emphasis added] components
exceeds 75 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable new engine; or

The serial number [emphasis added] of the engine is removed as part of the reconstruction; or

The reconstructed engine consists of a previously used engine block [emphasis added] with all new components.

API‟s understanding is that these criteria must be considered when an engine is

reconstructed

– i.e., the reconstruction determination is completed f irst, and then EPA intends that these additional criteria be assessed to determine whether a reconstructed engine is assigned a new data of manufacture per §60.4219 or §60.4248

. In all these cases, the date

of manufacture is the date of reconstruction or t he date the new engine is produced. The “new” engine is then subject to the emission standards for the model year in which reconstruction occurs. As an example, if the serial number is removed from the block as part

of the maintenance or rebuild activiti es, reconstruction is triggered and the engine is now new and subject to the emission standards for the model year in which reconstruction occurs.

These criteria are flawed and inconsistent with historical approaches to define reconstruction. For exampl e, the removal [i.e.

, not replacement ] of the crankshaft for the purpose of inspection or as part of maintenance of other engine components should not , in and of itself, warrant designating the engine as new and adopting more stringent emissions

limits. I n addition, these changes ignore the historical criteria for existing engines that require a feasibility assessment when determining whether reconstruction applies. As discussed above, §60.15(b)(2) considers technical and economic feasibility and the prop osed

definitions do not retain those criteria. Since retrofit control to achieve “new engine” emission standards may not be feasible, the proposed revisions would likely require engine replacement in some cases.

This is an important issue because the pro posed definition could have costly implications with little or no benefit. For example, overhaul of an integral 2

- stroke lean burn engine may require removal of the crankshaft to access components

– but not crankshaft replacement

. If the engine is reconst ructed, t he proposed definition would categorize this unit as “new” by

re

- defining the date of manufacture, and subject it to emission standards (e.g., 1.0 g/bhp

- hr NOx) that may not be achievable. Thus, the new definition could trigger engine replacement. Since these integral engines were designed and built specifically for gas compressionSeptember 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 10 of 21 applications, and are no longer available for purchase in most cases, significant impacts

occur.

The resulting impacts could include system efficiency losses (i.e., integral units are better performers than new, separable engines), significant cost for replacement (i.e. approximately $3

- $5MM per unit) , and very minimal incremental emission reductions relative to a reconstructed engine assigned a new date of manufactur e. As discussed above, EPA notes that retrofit emission standards are “slightly more lenient” and achieved “ at a reasonable

cost ”. That logic is defied in the Proposed Rule and EPA has not considered or rationalized extreme implications that could result , or explained its significant departure from decisions

in 2008.

In addition, t he reuse of the engine block or change in serial number in and of itself should not constitute reconstruction or change the date of manufacturer including the commensurate

em ission limit. Rather the activity and replacement components should be reviewed against

the traditional 50% cost threshold contained in § 60.15 to determine whether the activity

constitute reconstruction.

As discussed above, API does not understand EPA‟ s motivation or objectives for this significant revision, so detailed comments to improve EPA‟s proposal cannot be offered at

this time. If EPA elects to retain this approach, at a minimum API recommends the following changes to the definition to address crankshaft related criteria :

“ (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 cap ital 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 ser ial 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 pro duced. ”

If EPA is unwilling to delete reference to the crankshaft, the introductory sentence should be revised to more appropriately characterize the activity:

“ (3) Reconstructed engines are assigned a new date of manufacture if the crankshaft is replace d removed as part of the reconstruction or if the fixed capital cost ...”

In addition, not all engines have a serial number and engines are not currently required to have a serial number. Relying on tracking a change in serial number or nameplate change (i.e ., nameplate often contains the serial number) will result in confusion, recordkeeping issues, and implementation concerns for engines that may not have a serial number (i.e., lost or missing serial numbers). EPA has not adequately addressed the cost asso ciated with a review and requirement for the presence of engine serial numbers for the approximate 300,000 SI engines.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 11 of 21 1.4 The newly added date of manufacture definition adds unnecessary rule complexity and

should be eliminated

, re defined , and revised.

Th e Proposed Rule adds a new definition for “date of manufacture” which appears to be intended to address “significant” changes to existing engine s that necessitates reclassification
as “new” rather than as an existing, reconstructed engine. API believes th at EPA should eliminate this approach because it adds unnecessary complexity with minimal benefit. If EPA retains this approach in the final rule, at a minimum, revisions to the definition are warranted.

Per §60.4248 and §60.4219, the new definition of D ate 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. [emphasis added]

(2) For reconstructed engines, date of manufacture mean s 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 cos t 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 th a t 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. [emphasis added]

T he addition of the term freshly manufactured engine means an engine that has not been placed into service. An engine becomes freshly manufactured when it i s originally produced.

Note that this includes an engine that is produced using some previously used parts if it does

not retain its original identity. The definition identifies “removal” [i.e. not replacement] of

the crankshaft as the mechanism to redef ine the engine as new. This should be deleted or

revised

– i.e., if a maintenance activity requires crankshaft removal to facilitate maintenance, that action does not warrant redefining an engine as new if other criteria are not triggered.

The added regul atory complexity associated with review , applicability determination, implementation and enforcement surrounding the additional three paragraphs that defin e a

“ freshly manufactured engine ” is an unnecessarily complex approach that appears to desire

redefin ing the new source applicability date and marginal additional emission reductions that would occur (relative to a reconstructed engine) from the commensurate phased emission

limit. The basis, need, benefit, and costs from this added complexity is not clea r. API does not support the addition of yet an additional category of engine s within the NSPS and

NESHAP rules based on a new capital cost threshold value of 75 percent. It is not apparent that EPA has appropriately considered the benefit versus the adde d complexity and unique departure from Part 60 (and Part 63) criteria for other source types.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 12 of 21 In addition, EPA should provide justification for the need to further obscure the NSPS

, and add clarity on the intended date the new engine is produced to elim inate the vague and ambiguous language. API recommends that the text below be replaced with “ the date the engine is placed into service following reconstruction ”.

“ 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 c ases, the date of manufacture is the date of reconstruction or the date the new engine is produced. ”

1.5 If EPA retains new definitions, the rules should include a provision to clearly indicate that retrospective application of the definitions does not a pply for previous reconstruction

determinations.

For SI engines, if EPA retains new definitions of “reconstruct” and “date of manufacture” in the final rule, confusion could occur for actions completed on existing engines since June 2006 and prior to the final rule effective date of June 8, 2010 (Similarly, this is an issue for CI engines since the Subpart IIII proposal date of July 11, 2005)

. Previous reconstruction determinations relying on definitions in §60.15 should not be required to revisit or re

- e valuate previous applicability determinations (i.e., applicability is not retrospective) based on new definitions contained in §60.4248 and §60.4219 . If EPA is unwilling to strike or significantly modify these new definitions as discussed above, the rule effective date for these amendments to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart s JJJJ and IIII should be used to determine whether reconstruction has commenced using the new definitions. It would have been impossible for operators to know this definition in the interim pe riod for the review that was completed, and a retroactive “re

- determination” should not be required. However, the Proposed Rule does not consider or address this issue.

For SI engines, o nce new definitions are included in the final rule, the retrospecti ve status will not be apparent for a subsequent “look back” to engine work completed between June 2006 and the final rule effective date. Thus, a subsection should be added to §60.4233 to indicate that engine work, including maintenance, rebuild, reconstr uction determinations, etc., that occurred between June 12, 2006 and the final rule effective date are subject to §60.15 definitions and not subject to the definition of “reconstruct” or “date of manufacture” in § 60. 4248.

A similar provision for CI engi nes should be added to Subpart IIII to clarify that “reconstruct” and “date of manufacture” definitions in §60.4219 do not apply to CI engine actions between July 11, 2005 and the final rule effective date, and that §60.15 applies.

If EPA believes it is p recluded from using the final rule effective date, then the rule proposal date of June 8, 2010 should be used rather than effective date.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 13 of 21 1. 6 The new §60.4248 and §60.4219 definition for “ install ed ” should be deleted of revised.

EPA has added a new de finition of “installed” which means the engine is placed and secured at the location where it is intended to be operated; piping and wiring for exhaust, fuel, controls, etc., is installed and all connections are made; and the engine is capable of being sta rted. Based on the precedent of start of construction, installation has meant the start of site construction, not the point at which the engine is ready to run. Installation is referenced in the engine “anti

stockpiling” provision. Adding a new definiti on that modifies the installation date was not a predictable or foreseeable definition change or rule outcome. If the definition of installed is retained, it must only be applied from the effective date of the rule forward and not applied retroactively. T he Proposed Rule does not consider or address this issue.

Topic 2: Emergency E ngine D efinition

2.0 API supports clarifications to the definition of “emergency engine”, but recommends revising the proposed time limit on demand response operation.

The Proposed Rule revises the definition of emergency engines to provide additional detail and clarify grid support under a demand response program. API supports changes, but recommends additional revisions and flexibility be included

.

In the definition of emergency engine, a closing sentence has been added to clarify and revise limitations on supporting the electric grid. The new sentence conflicts with the immediately preceding sentence, which exclude s grid support. To avoid confusion, the preceding sentence retained from the previous definition excludin g grid support should be deleted, as follows:

“ Emergency stationary interna l combustion engine means any stationary internal combustion engine whose operation is limited to emergency situations and req uired testing and maintenance. Examples include stationary ICE used to produce power for critical networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a facility) when electric power from the local utility (or the normal power source, if the faci lity runs on its own p ower production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water in the ca se of fire or flood, etc. Stationary SI ICE used for peak shaving are not considered emergency stationary ICE. Stationary SI ICE used to supply power to an electric grid or that supply nonemergency power as part of a

financial arrangement with another entity are no t considered to be emergency engines, except as permitted under § 60.4243(d). ”

In addition, §60.42343(d)(4) includes limitations on operating hou rs for different scenarios, and

the proposed revisions specify operating hours for grid support. API believes that the time limit for grid support is unnecessarily restrictive, and may affect the viability of demand response programs crucial to ensuring e nergy reliability. While this is not a key issue for oil and gas operations, the added complexity is not warranted.

§60.4243(d) includes a clear 50 hour limitation for operation during non

- emergencies

. API recommends striking the 15 hour limitation for demand response programs because operation is only allowed if warranted by a legitimate emergency regarding power availability. In addition, theSeptember 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 14 of 21 final sentence in §60.4243(d)(4) limits operation to emergencies where power is provided to other entities pu rsuant to financial arrangements, but does not establish a time limit during an

emergency. If EPA is unwilling to delete this additional hour restriction, justification is warranted that provides the cost and environmental benefit commensurate with the ad ded restriction and regulatory burden.

API recommends the following revisions to §60.4243(d)(4) to delete two references to the 15 hour

limit:

“ (4) You may operate your emergency stationary ICE up to 50 hours per year in non

- emergency situations, but thos e 50 hours are counted towards the 100 hours per year provided for maintenance and testing. The 50 hours per year for non

- emergency situations cannot be used for peak shaving or to generate income for a facility to supply power to an electric grid or other wise supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity; except that owners and
operators may operate the emergency engine for a maximum of 15 hours per year as part of a

demand response program if the regional transmission organization or equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator has determined there are emergency conditions that could

lead to a potential electrical blackout, such as unusually low frequency, equipment overload, capacity or energy deficiency, or unacceptable voltage level. The engine may not be operated for

more than 30 minutes prior to the time when the emergency condition is expected to occur, and the engine operation must be terminated immediately after the facility is notified that the emergency condition is no longer imminent. The 15 hours per year of demand response operation are counted as part of the 50 hours of operation per year provided for nonemergency

situations. The supply of emergency power to another entity or entities pursuant to financial

arra ngement is not limited by this paragraph (d)(4), as long as the power provided by the financial arrangement is limited to emergency power. ”

In addition, API acknowledges that revisions to Subpart JJJJ are consistent with recent amendments

to the RICE NESHA P, Subpart ZZZZ. API appreciates EPA efforts to provide consistent criteria in these two related rules. Thus, the final rule text for §60.4243(d) should also be addressed in the RICE NESHAP as soon as practicable.

Topic 3: Su b part JJJJ I ssues P reviousl y I dentified S hould be A ddressed W hile the R ule is O pen

The preamble indicates that objectives of the Proposed Rule include fixing minor mistakes and adding flexibility for owners and operators. However, API and others have previously offered comments an d questions on Subpart JJJJ that require clarification as well as minor errors that need to be addressed, but those issues are not considered in the Proposed Rule. API requests that previous issues identified to EPA be addressed during this rulemaking, an d this section discusses previous correspondence and summarizes those

issues.

3.0 Since promulgation of Part 60, Subpart JJJJ in March 2008, API and other Stakeholders have provided EPA with questions and requests to clarify rule requirements and implemen tation issues. EPA should address these issues by providing responses to clarify regulatory intent and include revision s to Subpart JJJJ to address these concerns

.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 15 of 21 Subsequent to promulgation of Subpart JJJJ in March 2008, questions and issues have been

id entified associated with rule implementation, unclear rule requirements, and inconsistencies between Subpart JJJJ and requirements under the RICE NESHAP (Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ). API and INGAA supported and participated in “rule implementation” workshops i n the summer of 2008 that were designed to assist operators understand rule requirements and facilitate compliance with this complex rule. A number of questions arose during the workshops triggered by unclear rule requirements, and a “list of issues” was documented based on discussion at the workshops. Several of those issues were subsequently discussed with EPA, and API provided a letter on March 10, 2010 that documented the issues and requested clarification. API recommends that this rulemaking

should address items from those letters during this unique opportunity when the rule is open to accommodate other revisions deemed necessary by EPA. For example, in some cases EPA is proposing revisions to a section related to the items that follow, but does not address the item below from previous communications. Additional changes recommended below should also be addressed

in those sections at this time.

API understands that some of the items in previous communications may be more appropriate to address in g uidance memos, but there are a number of items that should be addressed in rule text rather than guidance. Previously communicated issues that API recommends addressing in the Subpart JJJJ amendments are summarized here as items (3.1) through (3.12). The original letters communicating these issues to EPA should be reviewed for additional details.

3.1 Initial Notification requirements should be clarified, including documentation of required engine information when the information is not available due to purchasing and siting practices standard for reciprocating engines.

Under § 60.4230, “the date that construction commences is the date the engine is ordered by the owner or operator.” A single order will often include multiple engines, with engine siting determined at a subsequent date that may exceed the required notification schedule.

Under §60.4245(c)

, initial notification is required for uncertified engines 500 hp or larger per the requirements in § 60.7(a)(1) , and the notification must include the ad dress of the affected source. §60.7(a)(1) requires submittal as follows, “ A notification of the date constructio n... of an affected facility is commenced postmarked no later than 30 days after such date. This requirement shall not apply in the case of mass

- produced facilities which are purchased in completed form.” The unique definition for commencing construction in §60.4230 introduces problems meeting the Initial Notification requirements.

The 30 day criterion is problematic for engine orders where sit ing (or even engine delivery) does not occur within this time period. In addition, it is unclear whether IC engines are considered

“mass

- produced facilities which are produced in completed form.” If so, it appears that notification is not required. Sinc e General Provision criteria do not consider the unique definition of commencing construction under Subpart JJJJ, the Initial Notification requirements should be

revised to consider this issue

– i.e., by providing an alternative to the §60.7 schedule withi n Subpart JJJJ. If notification is required, the rule should clarify how to address the case where engine delivery or siting is not achieved within 30 days of the engine order.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 16 of 21 In addition, if EPA does not address this issue, it can raise an issue wher e operators feel obligated to provide a “general submittal” to multiple agencies, because an ordered engine could possibly be sited in one of several states. In this instance, with engine locati on, serial number, etc. possibly not yet known, it could caus e the unnecessary burden for operators to send notifications to multiple states or EPA regional offices where a newly ordered engine may eventually be located.

In addition, third party packagers and rental companies often provide notification and the le ssee should not be expected to provide or retain records of notifications. EPA should clearly define expectations and regulatory intent for notifications for the various parties involved with purchasing, packaging, leasing, and operating engines and the di stinctions between third party packagers and/or operators and site “owners”. API expects that multiple notification exercises were not intended by EPA, but the resulting burden will remain unless the rule is revised.

3. 2 Concentration

- based limits should be included for engines between 25 and 100 hp.

In the March 2008 final rule, EPA added concentration

- based emission limits to Subpart JJJJ for owners and operators of non

- emergency engines 100 hp and larger. However, concentration limits

were not added for engines 25 < hp < 100 . T hese engine s require testing in some cases, and

concentration

- based limits were added to provide flexibility and lower compliance costs . Thus, it is especially important for small engines to include this lower cost compliance o ption. EPA

should add concentration

- based emission limits for engines 25 < hp < 100. The limits should correspond to the emission rate (g/hp

- hr) limits from §60.4233(d)

– e.g., the 2.8 g/hp

- hr NOx

emission standard equates to 230 ppmv NOx (dry, at 15% O 2 ) based on the engineering conversions used in Subpart JJJJ

, Table 1 and §60.4233(f)(4)

3. 3 Table 1 size categories include errors in the symbols for “less than” and “greater than,” and these basic errors in standard mathematical symbols should be correct ed.

In Table 1 of Subpart JJJJ, emission limits are identified for various engine types and sizes. T here are several examples where the symbols for “greater than” and “less than” appear to be incorrect and are not consistent with the size categories defin ed in Subpart JJJJ text (e.g., §60.4230). For example, to represent engine sizes from 500 hp to 13 5 0 hp, the line “500 > hp < 1350” in Table 1

should be revised to “500 < hp <1350”. API has commented on this error on several occasions.

There are several examples of this error when expressing the range “X < hp < Y” in Table 1 where

the first “<” or “ < ” sign in the expression is reversed and should be corrected. Five (5) symbols in Table 1, columns 1 and 2 are inappropriately reversed when expressing a si ze range , including:

Four times where “500 > HP<1350” is incorrect and should be changed to “500 < HP<1350”;

One time where “25 > HP<130” is incorrect and should be changed to “25 < HP<130”.

It is important to fix this error, because the current symbols as writ ten result in duplicative requirements for several engine size subcategories

– i.e., multiple subcategories apply to some types of engines.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 17 of 21 3. 4 Subpart JJJJ, Table 2 should be revised to clarify that engine exhaust flowrate measurement is not required f

or units complying with concentration limits.

In the rulemaking for the March 2008 final rule, t he 2006 proposed rule only included mass

- based limits (in g/bhp

- hr)

, but the March 2008 final rule include s concentration

- based emission limits (i.e., ppmv limi ts). Compliance tests for a concentration

- based emission standard do not require engine exhaust flowrate measurement. However, with the addition of concentration limits, EPA did not revise Table 2 of the rule, and Subpart JJJJ Table 2, column 3, items (1 )(a)(iii), (1)(b)(iii), and (1)(c)(iii) indicate that you must

, “Determine the exhaust flowrate of the stationary internal combustion engine exhaust”

F lowrate measurement is unnecessary for complying with concentration limits . Thus, t hese requirements f

or exhaust flow measurement should be limited to units complying with mass

- based limits. API recommends revising Subpart JJJJ, Table 2, column 3, requirements (1)(a)(iii), (1)(b)(iii), and (1)(c)(iii) to read:

“ If necessary ( i.e., for compliance with ma ss

- based emission standards, determine

Determine the exhaust flowrate of the stationary internal combustion engine exhaust ”

Failure to address this minor revision will result in implementing agencies requiring tests that

incur costs associated with unn ecessary tests.

3. 5 Compliance requirement for NOx + HC emission limits should be specified in the rule

. The rule should be amended to clarify the basis for determining hydrocarbon (HC) for “NOx +

HC” emissions limits. The NSPS includes NOx + HC limits f or natural gas

- fired engines >25 hp to <100 hp, and for emergency engines <130 hp. For the former category, the rule indicates that HC is assumed to be zero for performance tests of natural gas

- fired units. API assumes that the

intent is to assume that H C emissions are to be zero for natural gas

- fired emergency engines.

This should be clarified in the rule because compliance determinations will otherwise be unnecessarily complicated. If HC should be assumed as zero for all natural gas

- fired units with NOx + HC limits, this should be indicated in the rule for emergency engines. If this is not the

case , additional issues arise

– for example: these limits were added to the March 2008 rule but not clearly supported or explained; the species that comprise HC are not defined; and, species that

should be excluded are not identified. This issue should be clarified in the final rule.

3. 6 The emission standards and time constraints associated with import or initial installation of engines manufactured prior to Subpart JJJJ applicability dates should be clarified.

T he title to §60.4236 causes confusion, i.e., use of the phrase “... the previous model year” rather than “...any previous model year” or “...previous model years”. It appears that § § 60.4236(a)

– (d) are int ended to allow two years from the initial applicability date for import or initial installation of an engine manufactured prior to the applicability date. However, by stating “the” previous year in the section title, the literal meaning is limited to engi nes imported / installed

within the prior year from the dates identified in §60.4236(a) through (d)

– i.e., within a timeSeptember 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 18 of 21 period where the standard already applies. Thus, the wording in the title should be revised

. In addition, the applicable emission st andards are not clear, but should be based on Stage 1 standards.

The title of §60.4236 should be revised to clearly state that it applies to “previous model years.” In addition, the text should clearly indicate that the Stage 1 standards are the applic able emission standards for engines subject to this section

. (See comment 1.6 that addresses the addition of a new definition of installed).

3. 7 Timing for initial compliance tests should be consistent with NESHAP requirements.

The s chedule for the initi al NSPS performance test for an uncertified engine is 60 days “after achieving the maximum production rate”, per §60.8(a). For engines, this will typically be about 60 days after startup. Certified engines that require performance tests are allowed up to a year to complete the initial test. If the engine is subject to RICE NESHAP testing requirements in Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, 180 days is allowed for the initial test. The 60 day test requirement is burdensome due to the timing for scheduling, test plan p reparation, test notification, etc. In addition, this schedule introduces NESHAP and NSPS inconsistencies. API recommends consistency in requirements where feasible. The NSPS initial test requirements for uncertified engines should be revised to 180 day s.

3. 8 Test scheduling should provide a reasonable scheduling allowance around the anniversary date.

If Subpart JJJJ tests are required, engines >500 hp must test every 8760 operating hours but no less frequent than once every three years. For engines that run constantly, this requires a test once a year. Historically, testing requirements often include a scheduling interval

– e.g., within 30 days of the “due date”. Subpart JJJJ does not appear to provide such an allowance, and this adds complexity to test scheduling

– especially for continuous use engines. For engines that operate nearly continually, the annual date will move progressively forward on the calendar from year

- to

year to ensure that the test is completed within one year. For scheduling purposes, maintaining a common anniversary data provides efficiency and lessen unwarranted scheduling burden. In addition, this schedule must accounts for issues such as the ability to achieve “peak load”, engine maintenance downtime, test contractor avai lability, etc. It is reasonable for annual test schedules (i.e., for engines that are expected to operate close to 8760 hours annually) to be related to an anniversary date that is constant over time. For example, tests for these engines could be

schedul ed within 30 days of the annual anniversary. With a large number of engines eventually affected by Subpart JJJJ, this scheduling efficiency is needed. Tests would still be completed within a reasonable time frame. Subpart JJJJ should be revised to allow testing within a reasonable window (e.g., 30 days) of the deadline triggered by 8760 operating hours.

3. 9 Subpart JJJJ should include a b urn

- in period consistent with the RICE NESHAP for new, modified, reconstructed, or rebuilt engines

.
The NESHAP inc ludes a 200 hour “ engine burn

- in period” for new , reconstructed, and rebuilt engines in §63.6640(d). This allowance is provided to prevent damage to an exhaust catalyst, which can occur when a new or overhauled engine is initially run. However, the NSPS does not

include this all owance, thus subjecting catalysts to damage or premature failure. By not including this provision in Subpart JJJJ, EPA is forcing operators to run equipment in a mode that may voidSeptember 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 19 of 21 emission guarantees, substantially increase contro l costs, increase waste streams from damaged catalysts, and cause unnecessary emissions. It is imperative that this “burn

- in period” be added to

the NSPS for consistency across stationary engine rules

. As discussed above regarding mobile

source analogies , API does not believe that criteria related to engine burn

- in for mobile sources should be relied upon for stationary source applications. The re are differences, including application , more continuous duty, and longer run time

, that introduce differences for stationary engines and catalyst vendors have recommended this burn

- in period to ensure appropriate catalyst performance and life. The stationary engine standards should heed recommendations and current practices and consistently allow a burn

- in perio d for both the NSPS and NESHAP.

Since many NESHAP affected units will also be subject to the NSPS, the NESHAP allowance is superseded for those units by NSPS requirements, thus precluding the ability of operators to avoid catalyst damage

– which EPA a cknowledged in that rulemaking. As EPA noted in the r esponse to comments in the preamble of the June 2004 RICE MACT Final Rule,

“We agree with the commenter that an engine burn

- in period of 200 hours is appropriate prior to installing the catalyst to pre vent damage to the catalyst. We have, therefore, specified that

new or rebuilt engines may operate for up to 200 hours prior to installing the catalyst in the
final rule and that this will not be considered a violation.”

Clearly, the burn

- in period was i ncluded in the NESHAP to preclude catalyst damage. The same issues apply for units that comply with the NSPS using a catalyst. This issue should be consistently addressed in both the NESHAP and NSPS. Since NSPS amendments are underway,

EPA should add the text from NESHAP §63.6640(d) to Subpart JJJJ, and also include the minor revision needed to address the “modification” scenario that is only relevant under the NSPS:

“For new, reconstructed, modified, and rebuilt stationary RICE, deviations from the emis sion or operating limitations that occur during the first 200 hours of operation from engine startup (engine burn

- in period) are not violations. ”

This requirement is included in the NESHAP as a standalone subsection in the section on demonstrating continu ous compliance and could be added to the analogous NSPS section that addresses operator compliance requirements

– e.g., as §60.4243(j).

3. 10 Manufacturer rating and operating load requirements should be clarified.

Subpart JJJJ does not clearly define “ma ximum engine power” or peak load. Under Subpart ZZZZ, engine rating is more clearly defined as the site

- rated horsepower. Engines 25 hp and smaller also have a relatively clear definition under Subpart JJJJ, with multiple citations leading to

a definiti o n from §90.3, “Maximum engine power means the maximum value of gross power at rated speed.” However, the Subpart JJJJ definition for engines >25 hp is unclear due to multiple layers of citations that delve deeply into mobile source rules without a clear a nd concise endpoint.

Based on discussions with operators and engine manufacturers, one conclusion is that maximum engine rating is the “nameplate rating” provided by the manufacturer without consideration of site conditions such as elevation. However, “nameplate rating” does not have a clear definition. SubpartSeptember 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 20 of 21 JJJJ should provide clear definitions of rule criteria related to engine rating and load, and definitions should be provided for “maximum engine horsepower”, “engine rating”, and “peak load” in terms that can be easily understood by manufacturers, operators, and implementing agencies.

3

. 11 Requirements for c ertification documentation should be clarified.

§60.4245(a)(3) requires operators to retain documentation for certified engines. This appe ars to apply whether the engine is operated as certified or operated as non

- certified. The information must meet the requirements of Parts 90 and 1048, and operator requirements associated with these mobile source rules are unclear. Subpart JJJJ should b e amended to clearly identify operator documentation requirements and whether records (or perhaps streamlined records) must be retained if a certified engine is operated as non

- certified.

3

. 12 §60.4233(f)(4) should be revised to address requirements for m odified or reconstructed lean burn natural gas engines from 500 to 1350 hp

. Subpart JJJJ includes an applicable manufacture date of January 1, 2008 for lean burn natural gas or LPG engines 500 < hp < 1350 hp. In §60.4233(f)(4), emission limits for modifie d or reconstructed natural gas

- fired engines >25 hp are specified with unique subsections included for each subcategory (e.g., size

- based subcategories) that have a unique manufacture

- based applicability date . However, §60.4233(f)(4)(i)

– (iii) do not in clude the 500

– 1350 hp subcategory. An additional section [i.e., §60.4233(f)(4)(iv)] that is analogous to subsections (i) through (iii) is needed to appropriately address implementation dates and emission limits for this engine category. If not, there i s confusion regarding emission limits and applicability for engines in this subcategory manufactured from July 1 to December 31, 2007 that are subsequently modified or reconstructed. The new subsection (iv) should indicate:

“(iv) Prior to January 1, 2008 , for non

- emergency lean burn natural gas and LPG engines with a maximum engine power greater than or equal to 500 HP and less than 1350 HP.”

For clarity, subsection (i) which addresses engines 500 hp and larger should also be revised to exclude this uniq ue subcategory . For clarity and continuity, it may be preferable to rename sections (ii) and (iii) as sections (iii) and (iv) and add this new section as section (ii)

– i.e., the requirements in the four sections are ordered from larger to smaller non

- eme rgency units followed by emergency units.

Topic 4: Proposed R evisions that API S upports and Response to EPA Requests

4 .0 API supports the EPA revised §60.4243(a) and (a)(1) to clarify that 40 CFR part 1068 requirements only apply to certified engines (o perated as certified).

Based on comments provided by API and others, EPA has revised §60.4243 to more clearly differentiate requirements for certified engines operated as “certified” and other engines (i.e., uncertified engines are certified engines operat ing as uncertified). API supports revisions that more clearly limits certain requirements to certified engines operated as certified.

4.1 API supports EPA’s continued use of a redline version of proposed changes in the docket

.September 8, 2010

Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0295

Page 21 of 21 Engine NSPS and NESHAP rule text revisions to the complex and varied requirements for categories and subcategories necessitates redlined revisions to streamline review and agency and

stakeholder comment. In previous rulemakings, EPA has not provided a complete rule that

shows redli ned text, but redlined versions of both Subpart JJJJ and Subpart IIII were provided in the docket. API appreciates this clearer text and strongly recommends that EPA standardize this approach and always provide complete rule text showing edits (i.e., add itions and deletions) for future rulemakings.

4.2 API supports the revisions to of 60.4216 for engines used in Alaska

API supports revisions to the requirements for engines in rural portions of Alaska that are not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway Sys tem

.

4.3 API supports the regulatory language in 60.4200(e) regarding temporary replacement

units. However, the support does not include the rationale discussed on page 32616 of the preamble.

API appreciates the addition of 60.4200(e) to clarify that engines meeting the definition of a nonroad engine and meeting the standards for the appropriate nonroad engine are not required to meet the provisions under this subpart. However, we do not completely agree with the preamble

discussion in Section II.C ( see 75 F R 32616) that support s the regulatory amendment. API

continues to believe that a nonroad engine is subject to the applicable nonroad engine requirements until it no longer meets the definition of nonroad engine under 40 CFR 1068.30. We do not believe, as discussed in the preamble, a nonroad engine is considered a nonroad engine and a stationary engine

.

Also, API requests the same amendment made to 60.4200(e) be added to 60.4230 for stationary spark ignited internal combustion engines.

4. 4 EPA reques ted comment on the need for stationary engines in marine offshore settings to use engines meeting the marine engine standards rather than the land based engine

standards.

EPA solicited comment ( 75 FR 32616) on the need for stationary engines in marine of fshore settings to use engines meeting the marine engine standards, rather than land

- based engine

standards

. API supports the use of marine based standards for offshore platform installations. Such engines are nonroad engines subject to marine standards as applicable unless the engine remains at a single location on the platform more than 12 months. These criteria should apply whether the engine replaces a stationary engine, or is brought to the platform for less than 1 year for purposes of general maint enance or construction activities

. In the event that the marine NRE becomes a stationary engine, the addition of language in 60.4200(e) or another section of Subpart IIII indicating stationary engines in marine offshore settings may comply with applicable marine engine standards rather than the land based engine standards in Subpart IIII. For consistency, this approach should also be applied to the spark ignition NSPS (Subpart JJJJ) and the RICE NESHAP, Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ.