1

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: March 21, 2011

TO: Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM: Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT: Summary of the March 8, 2011 Teleconference with API Regarding Issues 

Related to the SI NSPS

INTRODUCTION

A teleconference was held between EPA and the American Petroleum Institute (API) to 

discuss issues related to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for stationary spark 

ignition (SI) engines, 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ. EPA proposed minor amendments 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart JJJJ along with amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII on June 8, 2010 (75 

FR 32612). 

ATTENDEES

Michael Horowitz, EPA Matt Todd, API

Melanie King, EPA Jeff Adams, BP

Tanya Parise, EC/R Jeff Panek, IES

Tom Monahan, ExxonMobil

SUMMARY OF TELECONFERENCE

On March 10, 2010, API submitted a letter to EPA containing a list of issues related to 

the SI NSPS 1and on December 21, 2010, EPA provided a response to API on these issues.2 In 

addition, EPA provided a follow-up response to API on one additional issue on March 3, 2011.3 

API asked what the status was of EPA’s consideration of the Engine Manufacturers 

Association’s (EMA) recommendation on the proposed definition of “installed.” EMA’s specific 

recommendation was provided in EMA’s comments on the proposed amendments (see pages 20-

21 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295-0037). EPA indicated that it is still contemplating the 

 

1 Letter from Stephanie R. Meadows, Senior Policy Advisor, API, to Michael Horowitz, Office of General Counsel, 

U.S. EPA. March 10, 2010. 

2 Letter from Peter Tsirigotis, Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division, EPA to Matt Todd, API. Response 

to March 10, 2010 Letter. December 21, 2010.

3 Email from Melanie King, EPA to Matt Todd, API. API Comment 1.6 on June 2010 Engine NSPS Amendments. 

March 3, 2011.

E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989
2

recommendations received on the proposed definition, but noted that it does not see a reason why 

EMA’s suggestions would not be included in the final rule. API indicated that it concurs with 

EMA’s recommendation on the definition of “installed.”

API asked what other changes EPA is considering making to the SI NSPS. EPA 

indicated that it will address the typographical errors in the mathematical symbols and other 

minor mistakes. EPA said that it is not making any substantive changes to the SI NSPS at this 

time because any substantive changes to the rule would require notice and comment. 

API requested that EPA consider making changes to the flowrate issue that is described 

on pages 8 and 9 of EPA’s December 21, 2010 response letter. API indicated that a flowrate 

measurement is not necessary when complying with a concentration-based standard and 

subsequently asked EPA to revise Table 2 in the SI NSPS to clarify that such measurement is not 

needed. EPA noted API’s concern regarding flowrate measurements and indicated it would 

discuss this issue internally.

According to API, there is significant confusion surrounding the initial notification 

requirements, and asked if there was anything that EPA could do at this point, perhaps in the 

form of clarifying preamble language in the final rule. Supposedly, there are double, triple and 

even quadruple notifications being submitted for the same engine, API said. 

Regarding requirements related to load specifications, which are discussed in EPA’s 

response letter, API expressed that it would be helpful to include language in the preamble 

clarifying the requirements according to EPA’s responses in the letter. 

API asked if EPA would be willing to consider including concentration-based standards 

in the rule at this time for engines between 25 and 100 horsepower (HP). EPA indicated it would 

consider adding concentration-based alternative standards, but that is a substantial change that 

would require notice and comment, EPA said. 

API asked if EPA was considering adding any new definitions to the rule, for instance, a 

definition for “major repair.” EPA indicated that it did not believe so. 

Finally, API explained that the State of Wyoming is urging the use of natural gas units on 

drill rigs. According to API, however, natural gas engines above 300 HP suitable for drill rigs

are not being produced by manufacturers. Typically, drill rig engines are between 600 and 800 

HP or 1,000 HP and above. API asked that a provision be added to 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, 

allowing engines to elect to comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ instead of nonroad 

standards. EPA noted API’s concern, but indicated that such a request cannot be addressed

under this rule because these are mobile source engines. API expressed that it wanted EPA to be 

aware of this issue and that manufacturers are not going to be certifying engines for this service.