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 comments on the U.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. INGAA’s 

comments address requirements for spark ignition engines in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ. 

INGAA members provide a vital energy service by ensuring the safe, economical transport of 

natural gas from producing areas to customers throughout the nation. INGAA member 

companies transport more than 85 percent of the nation’s natural gas, through over 200,000 miles 

of interstate natural gas pipelines. Efficient interstate transmission requires natural gas 

compressor stations, which are located at intervals along the pipelines. Natural gas transmission 

compressor station and storage facilities use natural gas-fired reciprocating internal combustion 

(IC) engines and combustion turbines to drive natural gas compressors. INGAA member 

companies operate over 6,000 IC engines and 1,000 combustion turbines at these facilities. 

INGAA has concerns with several requirements and definitions in the Proposed Rule, and this 

letter provides INGAA comments. 

INGAA member companies have a history of working with the U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) on standards that potentially affect natural gas transmission 

equipment. For example, INGAA member companies provided 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 for the Industrial Combustion Coordinated 

Rulemaking (ICCR) for the development of the combustion MACT standards. INGAA members 

served on the Combustion Turbine and Boiler Work Groups, and as Chair of the Reciprocating 

Internal Combustion Engine Work Group under ICCR. INGAA also worked with EPA on 

background information, identification of NOx control performance, and a model rule associated 

with the April 2004 NOx SIP Call Phase II Rule, which included NOx budgets associated with 

large IC engines used in gas transmission. Recently, INGAA provided data and reports to 

supplement the rulemaking docket for revisions to Subpart ZZZZ. INGAA supported data 

gathering and field testing, and developed associated reports on lean burn engine emissions, 

formaldehyde test methods, and post-combustion control costs. 

Through this participation, INGAA and its members have provided data and input integral to the 

technical basis for important federal air quality regulations. With the potential for continued 

growth in natural gas consumption as an integral part of the U.S. strategy to address greenhouse 

gas emissions, the natural gas transmission industry will continue to play an important role in 

ensuring a reliable supply of natural gas and associated air quality benefits from natural gas use. 

INGAA comments address three primary topical areas:

• 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. 

INGAA comments on the proposed revisions to the spark 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 of manufacture” which apparently is intended 

to address “significant” changes to an existing engine 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 complexity with minimal benefit. At a 

minimum, the definition requires clarification. 

The rationale for the substantive change is not clear. It appears EPA is concerned with cases 

where engines retain “existing, reconstructed” status for extended periods through recycling the 

“engine block”, i.e. refitting it with new components. 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 existing engine (e.g., block is retained but other 

components are new), then the engine would likely meet the definition of “reconstructed”. Thus, 

emission limits would apply and significant emission reductions would be realized relative to an 

uncontrolled engine. For example, NOx would decrease 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 emission 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 this 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 engine). The incremental gains are relatively small 

compared to the reduction that occurs when an uncontrolled engine is reconstructed, and the 

aggregate incremental benefit would likely be marginal. 

It is not apparent that EPA has appropriately considered the benefit versus the added complexity 

and unique departure from Part 60 criteria for other source types. INGAA recommends that EPA 

abandon the date of manufacture definition and associated 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 “date of manufacture” apparently intends to 

capture “significant” actions that EPA believes should redefine an engine as “new”. The 

definition includes several candidate criteria, including 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 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. 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 in 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 engagement with EPA on IC engine rulemakings, 

and has provided information and expended considerable resources to inform the rulemaking 

process. In this case, INGAA was not aware of concerns with manufacture dates and 

reconstruction issues that EPA was trying to address. INGAA comments above speculate on 

EPA motives regarding introduction of “date of manufacture” and associated rule requirements. 

If EPA is trying to address other perceived problems, INGAA requests that EPA provide better 

insight into those concerns, and INGAA offers our assistance 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 recommends, 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 engines, 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 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.” 

If EPA is unwilling to delete reference to the crankshaft, 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 capital cost...” 

2. INGAA 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 for this source category be deleted. 

At a minimum, the proposed definition should be revised.

The Proposed Rule adds a new definition for “reconstruction” 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 Applicability Determination Index (ADI) and 

historical determinations add important context for assessing reconstruction. 

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

to address with this revision. INGAA recommends eliminating the new definition in §60.4248 

and retaining the historical definition and ADI precedent. 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 existing engine to such an 

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

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

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

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

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

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

as external cooling 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 for Subpart JJJJ, INGAA does not believe that 

objective is accomplished, at least for larger engines. If the source-specific definition is intended

to address perceived problems with Subpart JJJJ, the problems are not clearly identified by EPA 

in the preamble. In addition, this definition departs 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 need for this divergence for engines compared 

to other Part 60 source categories. In addition, INGAA strongly objects to a new definition that 

excludes components that are necessary for the engine to operate. For example, the proposed 

definition would likely be interpreted to exclude engine 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 operation to be excluded from the reconstruction 

determination. 

It may be that EPA has smaller engines or mobile source parallels in mind for this definition. 

INGAA has repeatedly commented and cautioned against 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 the 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 revision, 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 determination, the historical record of EPA policy 

decisions and determinations provide insight and precedent 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 (EPA/452/B-02-001) to provide guidance to 

industry and regulatory authorities for the development of accurate and consistent costs (capital 

costs, operating and maintenance expenses, and other costs) for air pollution control devices. 

This manual establishes a standardized cost estimation methodology by which air pollution 

control costing analyses can be performed, and provides guidance on cost calculation 

methodology. This methodology is relevant for determining reconstruction costs and similar 

principles are evident in previous EPA guidance. These issues and resources are discussed 

further here. 

Control Cost Manual principles have historically been applied to reconstruction costs

The CCM provides background on determining direct and indirect installation costs that 

collectively comprise the Total Capital Investment (TCI). As discussed below, ADI 

determinations have indicated that costs that comprise the TCI also serve as the cost basis for 

reconstruction in previous determinations. TCI includes: the purchased equipment cost (PEC), 

which includes freight, tax, and instrumentation costs as a percentage of the direct equipment 
INGAA 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, electrical, 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 the “Total Capital Investment”. 

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, 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 principals are generally relevant for 

reconstruction 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: 

“Q: A project is proposed to refurbish recovery boilers and smelt dissolving tanks at a pulp 

mill. Which cost components are to be considered in determining whether reconstruction has 

taken place pursuant to 40 CFR 60.15? 

A: 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 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. 

However, the Proposed Rule appears to depart from this established precedent – and the need for 

this change is not explained or supported in the rule or preamble. The proposed definition may 

provide some insight for smaller engines where hardware 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, there is limited concern for “spatial” issues 

and no need for that packaging approach. Thus, engines at stationary sources may include 

spatial separation of key hardware necessary for the engine to operate. Examples include the 

engine coolant system, where the cooling process includes equipment in the yard rather than 

engine mounted, and operational software that may be located in proximity to the engine but not 

“onboard” the engine or “mounted to or within the cylinder block”. The proposed definition 

appears to ignore standard and commonplace system configurations for larger stationary engines 
INGAA 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 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. In addition, the proposed definition appears to diverge from ADI 

and Control Cost Manual principles that have been applied for reconstruction. Once again, the 

need and implications for these changes are not clearly discussed in the preamble or support 

documentation. 

INGAA strongly recommends deleting the new definition of “reconstruct” that is specific to this 

source category and retaining the conventional definition in §60.15. If EPA believes that 

clarifying definitions are necessary, then the issues being addressed and objectives of the 

revisions need to be identified. Without that insight, INGAA cannot offer constructive comment 

on revisions to the proposed reconstruction definition. 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 comment on revisions that do not compromise the 

criteria and convention for addressing reconstruction 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 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. INGAA supports changes, but 

recommends additional revisions and flexibility. 

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 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 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, §60.4243(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 reliability. 
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 15 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 as determined by a power authority. In 

addition, the final sentence in §60.4243(d)(4) limits 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 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 nonemergency 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, INGAA understands that revisions to Subpart JJJJ are consistent with recent 

amendments to the RICE NESHAP, Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ. INGAA appreciates EPA efforts to 

provide consistent criteria in these two related rules. Thus, the final rule text in §60.4243(d) 

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

4. EPA should use this rulemaking to address the interpretation 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 implementation, unclear rule requirements, and 

inconsistencies between Subpart JJJJ and requirements 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 facilitate compliance. A number of questions arose 

during the workshops, and a “list of issues” was documented based on discussion at the 
INGAA 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 discussed with EPA, and INGAA understands that 

API provided a letter in January 2010 that documented 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 addressed 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 amendments are summarized here as items (a) 

through (l). The original letters communicating these 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 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. It is not clear whether 

HC is assumed 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 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 HC 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 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. 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 clarified, especially regarding 

documentation of required engine information when that information is not available 

due to purchasing and siting practices standard for affected 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. 
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 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. 

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 multiple agencies, because an ordered engine could 

possibly be sited in one of several states. In this instance, with engine location, serial number, 

etc. possible 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. INGAA expects that this futile 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 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 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. 

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 

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 200 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 rules 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 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 stand alone 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). 

(e) Table 1 size categories include errors in the mathematical symbols for “less than” and 

“greater than,” and these errors 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 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, there 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 with concentration limits. 

In the rulemaking for the March 2008 final rule, the 2006 proposed rule only included massbased 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-
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 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 unnecessary 

tests that impose unwarranted costs. 

(g) 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 

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. 

(h) 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) 

(i) 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 
INGAA 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 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 JJJJ should clearly define the rule criteria related to engine rating and load, and phrase 

the definitions of “maximum engine horsepower”, “engine rating”, and “peak load” in terms that 

can be easily understood by manufacturers, operators, and implementing agencies. 

(j) 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. 

(k) Testing requirements should provide enough flexibility both to accommodate annual 

testing on a fixed anniversary date and, more broadly, to recognize fully the legitimate 

logistical factors that can affect a testing schedule. 

If Subpart JJJJ tests are required, engines >500 hp must test every 8760 operating hours but no 

less frequent than once every three years. For engines that run constantly, this requires a test 

once a year. Historically, testing requirements often include a scheduling interval – e.g., within 

30 days of the “due date”. Subpart JJJJ does not appear to provide such an allowance, and this 

adds complexity to test scheduling – especially for continuous use engines. 

For engines that operate nearly continually, the annual date will move progressively forward on 

the calendar from year-to-year to ensure that the test is completed within one year. For 

scheduling purposes, maintaining a common anniversary date provides efficiency and facilitates 

scheduling. 

In addition, testing schedules must account 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. 
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 requirements for modified or reconstructed 

lean burn natural gas engines from 500 to less than 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. 

INGAA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking. If you have any questions 

about these comments or the natural gas transmission 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 Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (king.melanie@epa.gov)