Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 10 G Street, N.E.

Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20002

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

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America ( INGAA), a trade association of the interstate natural gas pipeline industry, submits these commen ts on the U.S. EPA’s proposed rule, Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition and Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines; Proposed Rule (hereinafter refe rred as the Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule was published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2010, at 75 FR 32612 – 32634. INGAA’s comments address requirements for spark ignition en gines in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ.

INGAA members provide a vital energy service by ens uring the safe, economical transport of natural gas from producing areas to customers throu ghout the nation. INGAA member companies transport more than 85 percent of the nat ion’s natural gas, through over 200,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines. Efficient int erstate transmission requires natural gas compressor stations, which are located at intervals along the pipelines. Natural gas transmission compressor station and storage facilities use natur al gas-fired reciprocating internal combustion (IC) engines and combustion turbines to drive natur al gas compressors. INGAA member companies operate over 6,000 IC engines and 1,000 c ombustion turbines at these facilities. INGAA has concerns with several requirements and de finitions in the Proposed Rule, and this letter provides INGAA comments.

INGAA member companies have a history of working wi th the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) on standards that po tentially affect natural gas transmission equipment. For example, INGAA member companies pro vided comments and background material to support development of revisions to the IC engine NESHAP (40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ), the March 2008 spark ignition reciprocating engine NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ), and new combustion turbine NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKKK). In addition, representatives from INGAA member companies served on the Federal Advisory Committee,INGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 2

known as the Coordinating Committee, established fo r the Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) for the development of the combus tion MACT standards. INGAA members

served on the Combustion Turbine and Boiler Work Gr oups, and as Chair of the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine Work Group under ICCR. INGAA also worked with EPA on background information, identification of NOx contr ol performance, and a model rule associated with the April 2004 NOx SIP Call Phase II Rule, whi ch included NOx budgets associated with large IC engines used in gas transmission. Recentl y, INGAA provided data and reports to supplement the rulemaking docket for revisions to S ubpart ZZZZ. INGAA supported data gathering and field testing, and developed associat ed reports on lean burn engine emissions, formaldehyde test methods, and post-combustion cont rol costs.

Through this participation, INGAA and its members h ave provided data and input integral to the technical basis for important federal air quality r egulations. With the potential for continued growth in natural gas consumption as an integral pa rt of the U.S. strategy to address greenhouse gas emissions, the natural gas transmission industr y will continue to play an important role in ensuring a reliable supply of natural gas and assoc iated air quality benefits from natural gas use.

INGAA comments address three primary topical areas:

• New or revised definitions in the Proposed Rule rel ated to reconstruction and re-defining the engine manufacture date;

• Hour limits associated with emergency engines; and,

• Issues and requests for rule clarifications from le tters to EPA since Part 60, Subpart JJJJ was

finalized in March 2008 that should be addressed wh ile the rule is open.

INGAA comments on the proposed revisions to the spa rk ignition IC Engine NSPS follow.

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

The Proposed Rule adds a new definition for “date o f manufacture” which apparently is intended to address “significant” changes to an existing eng ine that warrant reclassification of the engine as “new” rather than as an existing, reconstructed engine. INGAA believes that EPA should abandon this approach because it adds unnecessary c omplexity with minimal benefit. At a minimum, the definition requires clarification.

The rationale for the substantive change is not cle ar. It appears EPA is concerned with cases where engines retain “existing, reconstructed” stat us for extended periods through recycling the “engine block”, i.e. refitting it with new componen ts. However, even in that scenario emission standards would apply to reconstructed engines and significant relative emission reductions would result. If significant changes occur to an e xisting engine (e.g., block is retained but other components are new), then the engine would likely m eet the definition of “reconstructed”. Thus, emission limits would apply and significant emissio n reductions would be realized relative to an uncontrolled engine. For example, NOx would decrea se by 70% or more from over 10 g/bhp-hr for an uncontrolled engine to less than 3 g/bhp-hr to meet the NSPS standard.INGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 3

Reconstructed engines have marginally higher emissi on standards than a similar new engine, so perhaps EPA is concerned with this issue. However, redefining existing equipment as new is a significant departure from typical Part 60 rules. If marginal differences in emission limits for reconstructed versus new engines is the motivation for this proposed revision to Subpart JJJJ,

INGAA believes the benefit does not substantiate th is divergence from historical precedent. In the case where a reconstructed engine is “redefined ” as new, marginal additional reductions would be realized (e.g., NOx limits of 2.0 or 1.0 g /bhp-hr depending upon the subcategory and dates versus 3.0 g/bhp-hr for a reconstructed engin e). The incremental gains are relatively small compared to the reduction that occurs when an uncon trolled engine is reconstructed, and the aggregate incremental benefit would likely be margi nal.

It is not apparent that EPA has appropriately consi dered the benefit versus the added complexity and unique departure from Part 60 criteria for othe r source types. INGAA recommends that EPA

abandon the date of manufacture definition and asso ciated rule revisions in §60.4233(f) to reclassify existing engines as new units.

If EPA retains this approach in the final rule, at a minimum, revisions to the definition are warranted. The third part of the definition for “d ate of manufacture” apparently intends to capture “significant” actions that EPA believes sho uld redefine an engine as “new”. The definition includes several candidate criteria, inc luding inappropriate requirements that result

from crankshaft removal. The definition identifies “removal” of the crankshaft as cause to redefine the engine as new, and this should be dele ted or revised – i.e., if a maintenance activity requires crankshaft removal to facilitate maintenan ce, that action does not warrant redefining an engine as new if other criteria are not triggered. It appears that EPA believes altering the crankshaft is commensurate with constructing a new engine, and INGAA does not agree with

this assessment. Either the crankshaft reference i n the definition should be deleted, or it should

be revised to indicate that replacement (not “removal”) triggers engine reclassification.

In recent years, INGAA has actively pursued engagem ent with EPA on IC engine rulemakings, and has provided information and expended considera ble resources to inform the rulemaking process. In this case, INGAA was not aware of conc erns with manufacture dates and reconstruction issues that EPA was trying to addres s. INGAA comments above speculate on EPA motives regarding introduction of “date of manu facture” and associated rule requirements. If EPA is trying to address other perceived problem s, INGAA requests that EPA provide better insight into those concerns, and INGAA offers our a ssistance in developing reasonable solutions for Subpart JJJJ.

For completeness, the entire definition of “date of manufacture” is provided here. If EPA does not delete this definition in its entirety, INGAA r ecommends, at the minimum, the following deletion in part 3:

“ Date of manufacture means one of the following things:

(1) For freshly manufactured engines and modified e ngines, date of manufacture means the date the engine is originally produced.INGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 4

(2) For reconstructed engines, date of manufacture means the date the engine was originally produced, except as specified in paragraph (3) of t his definition.

(3) Reconstructed engines are assigned a new date o f 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 pro duced from a previously used engine block does not retain the date of manufacture of the engi ne in which the engine block was previously used if the engine serial number was rem oved (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 dat e of reconstruction or the date the new engine is produced.”

If EPA is unwilling to delete reference to the cran kshaft, the introductory sentence should be

revised to indicate:

“(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 capi tal cost...”

2. INGAA recommends that the historical definition of “reconstruction” from §60.15 and associated interpretive guidance reflected in previ ous applicability determinations be retained, and that the proposed definition specific for this source category be deleted. At a minimum, the proposed definition should be rev ised.

The Proposed Rule adds a new definition for “recons truction” specific to this source category that differs from the historical definition in §60. 15. The proposed definition also departs from the interpretive guidance available through EPA’s A pplicability Determination Index (ADI) and historical determinations add important context for assessing reconstruction.

Similar to Comment 1 above, INGAA is uncertain abou t the specific concern that EPA is trying

to address with this revision. INGAA recommends el iminating the new definition in §60.4248 and retaining the historical definition and ADI pre cedent. If not, then EPA should revise the proposed definition to ensure inclusion of hardware components in the reconstruction calculation that are necessary for engine operation.

Table 3 in Subpart JJJJ indicates that §60.15(b) – (c) definitions do not apply, and the Proposed Rule adds a new definition for “reconstruct” in §60 .4248:

“Reconstruct

means to replace or refurbish components of an exi sting engine to such an extent that the fixed capital cost of the new and r efurbished components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable new engin e. The fixed capital cost of the new and refurbished components includes the capital cost of each component plus the labor cost for the replacement or refurbishment. For purposes of r econstruction, an existing stationary engine is defined as including those components mou nted to or within the cylinder block, the engine housings, and engine mounted components, but excluding ancillary components such as external cooling for fuel supply.”INGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 5

If this definition is intended to improve clarity f or Subpart JJJJ, INGAA does not believe that objective is accomplished, at least for larger engi nes. If the source-specific definition is intended to address perceived problems with Subpart JJJJ, th e problems are not clearly identified by EPA in the preamble. In addition, this definition depa rts from NSPS precedent in §60.15, as well as clarifying guidance that EPA has issued through its ADI.

EPA has not clearly explained and supported the nee d for this divergence for engines compared to other Part 60 source categories. In addition, I NGAA strongly objects to a new definition that

excludes components that are necessary for the engine to ope rate. For example, the proposed definition would likely be interpreted to exclude e ngine cooling for larger units because the cooling system, which is analogous to a “radiator” on smaller stationary engines or mobile sources, is not “mounted to or within the cylinder block” on many stationary IC engines. It is not appropriate for components required for unit operat ion to be excluded from the reconstruction

determination.

It may be that EPA has smaller engines or mobile so urce parallels in mind for this definition. INGAA has repeatedly commented and cautioned agains t reliance on that paradigm because it is often not appropriate for units affected by stationary engine rules and can cause unnecessary confusion or other problems. INGAA believes that t he proposed definition will cause more problems and interpretive uncertainty than current definitions and ADI precedent. Without a clear indication of EPA’s objective for this revisi on, INGAA cannot offer constructive comments for revising the definition. In addition, INGAA is concerned that the proposed revisions may be intended to accommodate “small engine” issues, but will cause unnecessary complications for larger engines.

Since reconstruction is a case-by-case determinatio n, the historical record of EPA policy decisions and determinations provide insight and pr ecedent into how the reconstruction analysis should be completed. Two useful resources are the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (CCM) and the EPA Applicability Determination Index

.

EPA often relies upon the EPA Air Pollution CCM (EP A/452/B-02-001) to provide guidance to industry and regulatory authorities for the develop ment of accurate and consistent costs (capital costs, operating and maintenance expenses, and othe r costs) for air pollution control devices.

This manual establishes a standardized cost estimat ion methodology by which air pollution control costing analyses can be performed, and prov ides guidance on cost calculation methodology. This methodology is relevant for dete rmining reconstruction costs and similar principles are evident in previous EPA guidance. T hese issues and resources are discussed

further here.

Control Cost Manual principles have historically be en applied to reconstruction costs

The CCM provides background on determining direct a nd indirect installation costs that collectively comprise the Total Capital Investment (TCI). As discussed below, ADI determinations have indicated that costs that compr ise the TCI also serve as the cost basis for reconstruction in previous determinations. TCI inc ludes: the purchased equipment cost (PEC), which includes freight, tax, and instrumentation co sts as a percentage of the direct equipmentINGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 6

cost; direct installation costs (e.g., site prep, e lectrical, piping, etc); and indirect installation costs (e.g., engineering, field expenses, contractor fees , start-up, etc.). The latter two are based on a percentage of PEC, and the sum of these costs is th e “Total Capital Investment”.

Determinations from the ADI provide guidance for re construction costs

The ADI includes previous EPA determinations for NS PS, NESHAPs, and other standards. Two

relevant reconstruction determinations are discusse d here, and 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 p rincipals are generally relevant for reconstruction and should also be applied to IC eng ines. From the ADI, Control Number 0200048 from September 1999 addresses reconstructio n costs for an oil-fired boiler as follows:

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

A1. In a May 11, 1998 determination pertaining to r econstruction costs, EPA stated that the engineering, purchase and installation costs, and c ontractor 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 referen ced in the previous determination:

“Q: A project is proposed to refurbish recovery boi lers 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: Engineering, purchase and installation costs, an d contractor fees should be included in the affected facility reconstruction costs to the exten t that they are associated with reconstruction of affected process equipment...”

These determinations provide an interpretation of r econstruction costs that have been applied for a number of years and include the costs that compri se 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 necess ary for the equipment to operate.

However, the Proposed Rule appears to depart from t his established precedent – and the need for this change is not explained or supported in the ru le or preamble. The proposed definition may provide some insight for smaller engines where hard ware components are packaged on the engine (i.e., for transportability and analogous to checking “under the hood” of a vehicle). However, for many stationary source applications, t here is limited concern for “spatial” issues and no need for that packaging approach. Thus, eng ines at stationary sources may include spatial separation of key hardware necessary for th e engine to operate. Examples include the engine coolant system, where the cooling process in cludes equipment in the yard rather than engine mounted, and operational software that may b e located in proximity to the engine but not “onboard” the engine or “mounted to or within the c ylinder block”. The proposed definition appears to ignore standard and commonplace system c onfigurations for larger stationary enginesINGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 7

that will be affected by the rule. The rule and su pport documentation do not indicate that EPA has considered these issues that may be more import ant for larger engines – or rationalized the need for this new definition. In addition, the pro posed definition appears to diverge from ADI and Control Cost Manual principles that have been a pplied for reconstruction. Once again, the need and implications for these changes are not cle arly discussed in the preamble or support

documentation.

INGAA strongly recommends deleting the new definiti on of “reconstruct” that is specific to this source category and retaining the conventional defi nition in §60.15. If EPA believes that clarifying definitions are necessary, then the issu es being addressed and objectives of the

revisions need to be identified. Without that insi ght, INGAA cannot offer constructive comment on revisions to the proposed reconstruction definit ion. If EPA is attempting to reconcile problems identified by the agency or other parties, INGAA requests that the objectives be identified. Then, INGAA can offer additional commen t on revisions that do not compromise the criteria and convention for addressing reconstructi on costs from stationary engines common in many applications.

3. INGAA supports clarifications to the definition of “emergency engine”, but recommends revising the proposed time limit on dema nd response operation.

The Proposed Rule revises the definition of emergen cy engines to provide additional detail and clarify grid support under a demand response progra m. INGAA supports changes, but recommends additional revisions and flexibility.

In the definition of emergency engine, a closing se ntence has been added to clarify and revise limitations on supporting the electric grid. The n ew sentence does not accord with the immediately preceding sentence, which excludes grid support. To avoid confusion, the preceding sentence should be deleted, as follows:

“Emergency stationary internal combustion engine means any stationary internal combustion engine whose operation is limited to emergency situ ations and required testing and maintenance. Examples include stationary ICE used t o 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 t he facility runs on its own power production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump wate r in the case of fire or flood, etc. Stationary SI ICE used for peak shaving are not con sidered emergency stationary ICE. Stationary SI ICE used to supply power to an electr ic grid or that supply nonemergency power as part of a financial arrangement with anoth er entity are not considered to be emergency engines, except as permitted under § 60.4 243(d).”

In addition, §60.4243(d)(4) includes limitations on operating hours for different scenarios, and the proposed revisions specify operating hours for grid support. INGAA believes that the time limit for grid support is unnecessarily restrictive , and may affect the viability of demand response programs crucial to ensuring energy reliab ility.INGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 8

§60.4243(d) includes a clear 50 hour limitation for operation during non-emergencies , which INGAA understands. INGAA recommends striking the 1 5 hour limitation for demand response programs because, according the to criteria below, operation is only allowed if warranted by a legitimate emergency regarding power availability a s determined by a power authority. In addition, the final sentence in §60.4243(d)(4) limi ts operation to emergencies when power is provided to other entities pursuant to a financial arrangement, but does not establish a time limit during an emergency. INGAA recommends the followin g 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 nonemergency situations, but those 50 hours are counte d 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 f acility to supply power to an electric grid or otherwise supply power as part of a financial arran gement with another entity; except that owners and operators may operate the emergency engi ne for a maximum of 15 hours per year as part of a demand response program if the regiona l transmission organization or equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator has d etermined there are emergency conditions that could lead to a potential electrical blackout, such as unusually low frequency, equipment overload, capacity or energy deficiency, or unaccep table 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 terminat ed 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 op eration 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, INGAA understands that revisions to Su bpart JJJJ are consistent with recent amendments to the RICE NESHAP, Part 63, Subpart ZZZ Z. INGAA appreciates EPA efforts to provide consistent criteria in these two related ru les. Thus, the final rule text in §60.4243(d)

should also be addressed in the RICE NESHAP when EP A next has the opportunity.

4. EPA should use this rulemaking to address the inter pretation and implementation issues INGAA and others have provided EPA over the two and a half years since Part 60, Subpart JJJJ was promulgated.

EPA promulgated Subpart JJJJ in March 2008. Since then, INGAA and other have identified questions and issues associated with rule implement ation, unclear rule requirements, and inconsistencies between Subpart JJJJ and requiremen ts under the RICE NESHAP (Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ). INGAA is aware of two occasions where these issues and concerns were communicated to EPA. Following a meeting with EPA in March 2008 , INGAA submitted a letter in late March 2008 that requested clarification of several issues . In addition, INGAA and API supported and participated in “rule implementation” workshops in the summer of 2008 that were designed to help operators understand rule requirements and facilita te compliance. A number of questions arose during the workshops, and a “list of issues” was do cumented based on discussion at theINGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 9

workshops. Several of these issues were later disc ussed with EPA, and INGAA understands that API provided a letter in January 2010 that document ed the issues and requested clarification.

INGAA understands that some of these issues may be more appropriately addressed in guidance memos. Nevertheless, a number of items should be a ddressed in rule text rather than guidance, and EPA should take advantage of this rulemaking to do so. Previously communicated issues that INGAA recommends addressing in the Subpart JJJJ ame ndments are summarized here as items (a) through (l). The original letters communicating th ese issues to EPA should be reviewed for

additional details.

(a) 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 l imits 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 n atural gas-fired units. It is not clear whether HC is assumed to be zero for natural gas-fired emer gency engines.

This should be clarified in the rule because compli ance 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 ru le for emergency engines. If not, additional issues arise – for example: these limits were added to the March 2008 rule but not clearly supported or explained; the species that comprise H C are not defined; and, species that should be

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

(b) Timing for initial compliance tests should be consi stent 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 requ ire performance tests are allowed up to a year to complete the initial test. If the engine is subjec t to RICE NESHAP testing requirements in Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ, 180 days is allowed for the initi al test. The 60 day test requirement is burdensome due to the timing for scheduling, test p lan preparation, test notification, etc. In addition, this schedule introduces NESHAP and NSPS inconsistencies. INGAA recommends
consistency in requirements where feasible. The NSPS initial test requirements for uncertified engines should be revised to 180 days.

(c) Initial Notification requirements should be clarifi ed, especially regarding documentation of required engine information when t hat information is not available due to purchasing and siting practices standard for affected engines.

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

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 10

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 m ust include the address of the affected source. §60.7(a)(1) requires submittal as follows, “A notif ication 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-pro duced facilities which are purchased in completed form.” The unique definition for commenci ng construction in §60.4230 introduces problems meeting the Initial Notification requireme nts.

The 30 day criterion is problematic for engine orde rs 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 com pleted form.” If so, it appears that notification is not required. Since General Provis ion 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 wit hin 30 days of the engine order.

In addition, if EPA does not address this issue, it can cause raise an issue where operators feel obligated to provide a “general submittal” to multi ple agencies, because an ordered engine could possibly be sited in one of several states. In thi s instance, with engine location, serial number, etc. possible not yet known, it could cause the unn ecessary burden for operators to send notifications to multiple states or EPA regional of fices where a newly ordered engine may eventually be located. INGAA expects that this fut ile exercise was not intended by EPA, but it is a burden imposed unless the rule is revised.

(d) Subpart JJJJ should include a burn-in period consis tent with the RICE NESHAP for new, modified, reconstructed, or rebuilt engines.

The NESHAP includes a 200 hour “engine burn-in peri od” 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 t o damage or premature failure. By not including this provision in Subpart JJJJ, EPA is fo rcing operators to run equipment in a mode that may void emission guarantees, substantially in crease control costs, increase waste streams from damaged catalysts, and cause unnecessary emiss ions. It is imperative that this “burn-in period” be added to the NSPS.

Since many NESHAP affected units will also be subje ct to the NSPS, the NESHAP allowance is superseded for those units by NSPS requirements, th us precluding the ability of operators to avoid catalyst damage – which EPA acknowledged in t hat rulemaking. As EPA noted in the responding 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 2 00 hours prior to installing the catalyst in

the final rule and that this will not be considered a violation.”INGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 11

With this previous acknowledgement, INGAA does not understand why the conflict between the NSPS and NESHAP remains, especially since both rule s were developed by the same group within OAQPS and this comment has been submitted to EPA on more than one occasion.

Clearly, the burn-in period was included in the NES HAP to preclude catalyst damage. The same issues apply for units that comply with the NSPS us ing 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” scena rio that is only relevant under the NSPS:

“For new, reconstructed, modified, and rebuilt stat ionary RICE, deviations from the emission or operating limitations that occur during the firs t 200 hours of operation from engine startup (engine burn-in period) are not violations.”

This requirement is included in the NESHAP as a sta nd alone subsection in the section on demonstrating continuous compliance and could be ad ded to the analogous NSPS section that addresses operator compliance requirements – e.g., as §60.4243(j).

(e) Table 1 size categories include errors in the mathe matical symbols for “less than” and “greater than,” and these errors should be correcte d.

In Table 1 of Subpart JJJJ, emission limits are ide ntified for various engine types and sizes. There are several examples where the symbols for “g reater than” and “less than” appear to be

incorrect and are not consistent with the size cate gories defined in Subpart JJJJ text (e.g., §60.4230). For example, to represent engine sizes from 500 hp to less than 1350 hp, the line

“500 > hp < 1350” in Table 1 should be revised to “500 < hp <1350”. INGAA has commented on this error on several occasions. In Table 1, th ere are five examples of this error when expressing the range “X < hp < Y” where the first “ <” or “< ” sign in the expression is reversed

and should be corrected. Without these corrections , a literal reading of Subpart JJJJ Table 1

results in duplicative and contradictory requirements for some engine subcategories.

(f) Subpart JJJJ, Table 2 should be revised to clarify that engine exhaust flowrate measurement is not required for units complying wit h concentration limits.

In the rulemaking for the March 2008 final rule, th e 2006 proposed rule only included massbased limits (in g/bhp-hr), but the March 2008 fina l 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. Howev er, 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 i nternal combustion engine exhaust”

Flowrate measurement is unnecessary for complying w ith concentration limits. Thus, these requirements for exhaust flow measurement should be limited to units complying with mass-INGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 12

based limits. INGAA recommends revising Subpart JJ JJ, 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 co mbustion engine exhaust”

Failure to address this minor revision will result in implementing agencies requiring unnecessary tests that impose unwarranted costs.

(g) The emission standards and time constraints associa ted with import or initial installation of engines manufactured prior to Subpa rt JJJJ applicability dates should

be clarified.

The title to §60.4236 causes confusion, i.e., use o f 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 initia l 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 mea ning is limited to engines imported / installed

within the prior

year from the dates identified in §60.4236(a) thro ugh (d) – i.e., within a time period where the standard already applies. Thus, t he 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.

(h) Concentration-based limits should be included for e ngines between 25 and 100 hp.

In the March 2008 final rule, EPA added concentrati on-based emission limits to Subpart JJJJ for owners and operators of non-emergency engines 100 h p and larger. However, concentration limits were not added for engines 25 < hp < 100. Th ese engines require testing in some cases, and concentration-based limits were added to provid e 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) li mits 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 §60.4 233(f)(4)

(i) Manufacturer rating and operating load requirements should be clarified.

Subpart JJJJ does not clearly define “maximum engin e 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 und er Subpart JJJJ, with multiple citations leading to a definition from §90.3, “Maximum engine power m eans the maximum value of gross power at rated speed.” However, the Subpart JJJJ definit ion for engines >25 hp is unclear due toINGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 13

multiple layers of citations that delve deeply into mobile source rules without a clear and concise endpoint.

Based on discussions with operators and engine manu facturers, one conclusion is that maximum engine rating is the “nameplate rating” provided by the manufacturer without consideration of site conditions such as elevation. However, “namep late rating” does not have a clear definition. Subpart JJJJ should clearly define the rule criteri a related to engine rating and load, and phrase the definitions of “maximum engine horsepower”, “en gine rating”, and “peak load” in terms that can be easily understood by manufacturers, operator s, and implementing agencies.

(j) Requirements for certification documentation should be clarified.

§60.4245(a)(3) requires operators to retain documen tation for certified engines. This appears to apply whether the engine is operated as certified o r operated as non-certified. The information must meet the requirements of Parts 90 and 1048, an d operator requirements associated with these mobile source rules are unclear. Subpart JJJ J should be amended to clearly identify operator documentation requirements and whether rec ords (or perhaps streamlined records) must be retained if a certified engine is operated as no n-certified.

(k) Testing requirements should provide enough flexibil ity both to accommodate annual testing on a fixed anniversary date and, more broad ly, to recognize fully the legitimate logistical factors that can affect a testing schedu le.

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 eng ines that run constantly, this requires a test once a year. Historically, testing requirements of ten include a scheduling interval – e.g., within 30 days of the “due date”. Subpart JJJJ does not a ppear to provide such an allowance, and this adds complexity to test scheduling – especially for continuous use engines.

For engines that operate nearly continually, the an nual date will move progressively forward on the calendar from year-to-year to ensure that the t est is completed within one year. For scheduling purposes, maintaining a common anniversa ry date provides efficiency and facilitates scheduling.

In addition, testing schedules must account for iss ues such as the ability to achieve “peak load”, engine maintenance downtime, test contractor availa bility, etc. It is reasonable for annual test schedules (i.e., for engines that are expected to o perate close to 8760 hours annually) to be related to an anniversary date that is constant ove r time. For example, tests for these engines could be scheduled within 30 days of the annual ann iversary. With a large number of engines eventually affected by Subpart JJJJ, this schedulin g 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.INGAA Comments

IC Engine NSPS Proposed Amendments, Docket No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2010-0295 September 8, 2010 Page 14

(l) §60.4233(f)(4) should be revised to address require ments for modified or reconstructed lean burn natural gas engines from 500 to less than 1350 hp.

Subpart JJJJ includes an applicable manufacture dat e 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) t hat 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 im plementation dates and emission limits for this engine category. If not, there is confusion regard ing emission limits and applicability for engines in this subcategory manufactured from July 1 to Dec ember 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 t o 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 c ontinuity, 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., th e requirements in the four sections are ordered from larger to smaller non-emergency units followed by emergency units.

INGAA appreciates the opportunity to comment on thi s rulemaking. If you have any questions about these comments or the natural gas transmissio n industry, please feel free to contact me at 202-216-5935 or lbeal@ingaa.org.

Sincerely,

Lisa Beal Director, Environment and Construction Policy

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

cc (by email): Melanie King, Energy Strategies Grou p, Sector Policies and Programs Division

(D243-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27 711 (king.melanie@epa.gov)