Matthew Todd

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-2010-0295 

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 Protection Agency

Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark Ignition 

Internal Combustion Engines; Proposed Rule

Dear Docket Clerk:

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

Protection Agency‟s (EPA‟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 Register 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 association 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 compression ignition (CI) IC engines, 

amendments 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 complete these comments. If you 

have any questions about these comments, please feel free to contact me at 202.682.8319 or 

toddm@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 TO THE

STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR STATIONARY COMPRESSION 

IGNITION AND SPARK IGNITION INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

75 Federal Register 32612, June 8, 2010

40 CFR, Parts 60, 1039, 1042, et al.

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine NSPS

Prepared by:

 American Petroleum Institute

 1220 L Street NW

 Washington, D.C. 20005

Prepared for:

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0295

Air 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 summarizes comments in four 

topical areas:

Topic 1: Comments and Issues with New Definitions that Re-define Engine Status.

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 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 Standards (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 definitions and applicability determinations 

regarding “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 determinations 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 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 established. The newly added and or retained terms should 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. 

The need and basis for these criteria are not clearly explained and are arbitrary. 

Specifically: the historical fixed capital cost basis determination for reconstruction 

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

reconstruction is completed and the date when the engine is placed into service should 

determine which standards apply; removal of the crankshaft should not require an 

engine to meet new engine emission standards if not replaced because removing the 

crankshaft 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 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.
September 8, 2010 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0295

ii

1.6 The new §60.4248 and §60.4219 definition for “installed” should be deleted or revised. 

Topic 2: Emergency Engine Definition

2.0 API supports clarifications to the definition of “emergency engine”, but recommends 

revising proposed hour restrictions for demand response operation.

Topic 3: Subpart JJJJ Issues Previously Identified Should be Addressed While the Rule is Open

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 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 the 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 limits.

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.

3.11 Requirements for certification documentation should be clarified.

3.12 §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 Revisions that API Supports and Response to EPA Requests

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 supports 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 COMMENTS

Topic 1: Comments and Issues with New Definitions that Re-define Engine Status.

1.0 Newly added definitions (“reconstruction”, “date of manufacture”, and “installed”) have 

been included in this proposed rule for the purpose of re-designating existing, older 

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 Standards (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 definitions 

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, add unnecessary complexity, lack rationalization for the 

need, are unnecessarily restrictive, and introduce costs and restrictions unique for this source 

category. EPA has introduced unnecessary definition conflicts by revising the NSPS definition 

which is not consistent 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 NESHAP. 

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 clarification 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 Part 

60‚ Section 15‚ Paragraph (b) be retained and appropriately cited in Table 3 of the 

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

should be eliminated. Alternatively, EPA should revise the proposed definition to 

ensure inclusion of hardware components in the reconstruction calculation that are 

necessary for engine operation. The definition of reconstruct for existing stationary 

engine is too narrowly defined, not consistent with historical precedent or the RICE 

NESHAP, 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 NESHAPs 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 of 
September 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 strongly 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 response 

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 specifically 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 currently 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 eliminate 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 this 

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 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...” [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, engineering, 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 associated 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 consisted of all applicable costs 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 including the cost of all new 

parts, labor, transportation, and other associated cost for completing the work and returning 
September 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 excluding ancillary components such as external 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 has 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 mobile 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 represents a significant departure from 

historical EPA guidance on regulatory applicability and reconstruction costs for determining 

when NSPS applicability is triggered.

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

“Reconstruction” means the replacement 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 technologically 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 conflicted with the General Provisions and historical regulatory applicability 

determinations, and 

3. designates many rebuilt engines as “reconstructed” that would have remained 

“existing” under the §60.15 definition, thus subjecting it to the emission limit for a 

new 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 addition of the new definition, if an engine is 

reconstructed (or modified) it will have to comply with NSPS emission standards that result 
September 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 that:

“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, EPA‟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 cost 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. 

“Further, 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 logic reflected in these responses, as 

well as the response noted above where EPA indicated §60.15 is appropriate. It is unclear 

why EPA now believes these proposed revisions are necessary. EPA has not discussed or 

defined the benefit that would result relative 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 historical precedent, and different NSPS and NESHAP definitions. The 

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 trivial 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, 

associated 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 triggers that redesignate 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 reconstruction (see Table 3 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 60 --

Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJ). 

In another important divergence, the proposed definition would also inappropriately 

eliminate the provision for demonstrating technological and economic feasibility 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 supersede 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 rulemaking 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 intent 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. Many existing engines may not be 

capable of retrofit controls that can either technically or cost-effectively achieve 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. 

Technology 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, this 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 defining “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 interpretive 

guidance that further informs the reconstruction definition. The Proposed Rule definition 

represents a significant departure from well established precedent. The proposed definition 
September 8, 2010 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0295

Page 6 of 21

deviates from ADI and Control Cost Manual principles that have 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 the 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 interpretation of reconstruction costs. These 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 reconstruction (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 pertaining 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 reconstruction of affected process equipment.”

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

Q2: 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? 

A2: 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)

from 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 ignore 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 §60.4248 
September 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 engine (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 required 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 engine) 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 consideration in its new definition.

Engines 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 exchanger 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 proximity 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 – and 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. Determining 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, cylinders, 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 

determination – 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 

design 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 historically 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. 

The rationale and justification for disproportionally regulating reconstructed RICE has not 

been elucidated and the range of engine types has 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 specific to this source category. Subparts 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 are 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 between these terms be established. 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. 

Additionally, the new definitions introduce additional terms that are undefined and cause or 

contribute to vagueness, ambiguity, and unneeded complexity. This significant burden for 

operators 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 example, 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 guideline 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 should be 

eliminated. The need and basis for these criteria are not clearly explained and are 

arbitrary. Specifically: the historical fixed capital cost basis determination for 

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

retained; the year reconstruction is completed and the date when the engine is placed 
September 8, 2010 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0295

Page 9 of 21

into service should determine which standards apply; removal of the crankshaft should

not require a reconstructed engine to meet new engine emission standards if not 

replaced because removing 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 that 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 first, 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 the 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 activities, 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 example, 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. In 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 proposed 

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 proposed 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 reconstructed, the 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 compression 
September 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 manufacture. 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, the 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 

emission 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 capital cost of a comparable new 

engine (see the definition of "reconstruct"). An engine that is produced from a previously 

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

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

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

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

reconstruction or the date the new engine is produced.”

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 

replaced 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 associated 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, redefined, and revised.

The Proposed Rule adds a new definition for “date of manufacture” which appears to be 

intended to address “significant” changes to existing engines that necessitates reclassification 

as “new” rather than as an existing, reconstructed engine. API believes that 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 Date of manufacture means one of the 

following things:

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

the date the engine is originally produced. [emphasis added]

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

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

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

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

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

new engine (see the definition of "reconstruct"). An engine that is produced from a 

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

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

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

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

the date of reconstruction or the date the new engine is produced. [emphasis added]

The addition of the term freshly manufactured engine means an engine that has not been 

placed into service. An engine becomes freshly manufactured when it is 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 redefine 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 regulatory complexity associated with review, applicability determination,

implementation and enforcement surrounding the additional three paragraphs that define a 

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

redefining 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 clear. API does 

not support the addition of yet an additional category of engines 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 added 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 eliminate 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 cases, 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 apply 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-evaluate 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, Subparts 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 period 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, once new definitions are included in the final rule, the retrospective 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, reconstruction 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 engines 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 precluded 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 “installed” should be deleted of revised.

EPA has added a new definition 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 started. 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 “antistockpiling” provision. Adding a new definition 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. The Proposed Rule does not consider or address this issue. 

 

Topic 2: Emergency Engine Definition

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 excludes grid support. To avoid confusion, the preceding sentence 

retained from the previous definition excluding grid support should be deleted, as follows:

“Emergency stationary internal combustion engine means any stationary internal combustion 

engine whose operation is limited to emergency situations and required 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 facility runs on its own power production) is 

interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water in the case 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 not considered to be emergency engines, except 

as permitted under § 60.4243(d).”

In addition, §60.42343(d)(4) includes limitations on operating hours 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 energy 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, the 
September 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 pursuant 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 added 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 those 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 otherwise

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 

arrangement 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 NESHAP, 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: Subpart JJJJ Issues Previously Identified Should be Addressed While the Rule is Open

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 and 

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, and 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 

implementation issues. EPA should address these issues by providing responses to clarify 

regulatory intent and include revisions 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 

identified 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 in 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 guidance 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 address of the affected source. 

§60.7(a)(1) requires submittal as follows, “A notification of the date construction... 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 siting (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. Since 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 within 

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 where 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 location, serial number, etc. possibly not 

yet known, it could cause 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 lessee 

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 distinctions 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. These engines 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 option. 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% O2) 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 corrected.

In Table 1 of Subpart JJJJ, emission limits are identified for various engine types and sizes. There 

are several examples where the symbols for “greater than” and “less than” appear to be incorrect 

and are not consistent with the size categories defined in Subpart JJJJ text (e.g., §60.4230). For 

example, to represent engine sizes from 500 hp to 1350 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 size 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 written 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 for units complying with concentration limits.

In the rulemaking for the March 2008 final rule, the 2006 proposed rule only included mass-based 

limits (in g/bhp-hr), but the March 2008 final rule includes concentration-based emission limits 

(i.e., ppmv limits). 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”

Flowrate measurement is unnecessary for complying with concentration limits. Thus, these 

requirements for 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 mass-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 unnecessary 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 for 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 HC 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.

The 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 intended 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 engines imported / installed 

within the prior year from the dates identified in §60.4236(a) through (d) – i.e., within a time 
September 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 standards 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 applicable 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 schedule for the initial 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 preparation, 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 days. 

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-toyear 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 availability, 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 

scheduled 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 burn-in period consistent with the RICE NESHAP for new, 

modified, reconstructed, or rebuilt engines.

The NESHAP includes 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 allowance, 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 void 
September 8, 2010 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0295

Page 19 of 21

emission guarantees, substantially increase control 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. There 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 period 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 acknowledged in that rulemaking. As EPA noted in the response 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 prevent 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 included 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 emission 

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 continuous 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 “maximum 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 definition 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 and 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. Subpart 
September 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 certification documentation should be clarified.

§60.4245(a)(3) requires operators to retain documentation for certified engines. This appears 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 be 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 modified 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 modified 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 include 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 is 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 unique 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-emergency units 

followed by emergency units.

Topic 4: Proposed Revisions that API Supports 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 (operated 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 operating 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 redlined 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., additions 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 System. 

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 FR 32616) that supports 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 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. 

EPA solicited comment (75 FR 32616) on the need for stationary engines in marine offshore

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 maintenance 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.