### From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula VanLare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/10/2013 02:25 PM

Subject: RE: RICE Interagency Comments

Here they are – my apologies.

From: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:53 PM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Subject: Re: RICE Interagency Comments

I think you might have sent the wrong file, these are comments on the proposal.

"Higgins, Cortney" ---01/10/2013 01:49:22 PM---Hi Melanie, Attached are comments on the RICE rule.

I'll be sending over the RIA comments in an hou

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula VanLare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/10/2013 01:49 PM

Subject: RICE Interagency Comments

Hi Melanie,

Attached are comments on the RICE rule. I’ll be sending over the RIA comments in an hour or so (it’s taking longer

than I anticipated to look through the redlines).

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Cortney

[attachment "RICE NESHAP Reconsideration Proposal 2060-AQ58 5-21-12

pm_InteragencycommentsunderEO13563.docx" deleted by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US] (See attached file:

2060-AQ58_InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563_January92013.docx)

### Summary of Interagency Working Comm ents on draft rule under EO 13563 review

Page 1 of 3 Below is a summary of interagency comments received during EO 13563 review of the draft rule

“Reconsideration of Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating

Internal Combustion Engines.” They are subject to further policy review.

COMMENT 1

– Emergency Situations Definition

The commenter continues to have concern that in EPA should not put a limit on operating hours for

emergency stationary RICE in situations in which deviations of voltage or frequency of 5 percent or

greater below standard values occur. The commenter believes that when the power quality gets too

bad an emer gency situation exists that could require the temporary use of emergency power to prevent

damaging valuable electric and electronic equipment affected until the situation with the primary

source of power is resolved.

Recommendation : EPA should consider conditions of power quality degradation described in Sections

60.4211(f)(2)(iii), 60.4243(d)(2)(iii), and 63.6640(f)(2)(iii) as emergency situatio ns and should consider

any stationary RICE operation associated with such events to be “emergency” operation.

COMMENT 2

‐ Emergency Engine Rolling Average

Similar to what was suggested in the NRECA comments on the proposed rule, we support the provision

that would allow the 100 hour limit for emergency RICE to be demonstrated on a 3

‐ year rolling average

basis. This would allow for some additional operation during situations when significant power quality

deviations are occurring.

COMMENT 3

– Repor ting Requirement for Emergency Engines

There were only four commenters identified by EPA that suggested reporting for emergency RICE

engines. Three suggested only that EPA require information about the engines (registration type

information), which did not include, reporting of the specific hours of operation for the events, perhaps

recognizing that the utilities would not possess such information an d that it would be burdensome for

the RICE operators. Only one commenter, the Connecticut DEP, in a single sentence without analysis,

recommended that EPA require RICE engine operators to report the hours of operation and emission for

the individual engines. Given the brevity of the comment, it is no t clear that Connecticut DEP thought

through the practicality of such a requirement on RICE engine operators. [This commenter hopes that

we’ve identified properly all the relevant comment excerpts.]

With regard to the NRECA response on this issue, NRECA is simply stating that the utilities

, not the RICE

engine operators

, ca n report on the individual RICE engines that are in the network and when the

engines were asked to turn on (see entire excerpt below). However, the NRECA stated that it does not

know the actual time that the engines are utilized during these emergency periods. Thus, the only

regulated stakeholders tha t were consulted on this issue did not confirm that RICE engine operators

could reasonably report these data. Asking the utilities to report on the engine inventory, as requested

by several commenters, is a potentially reasonable requirement.

Given the lack of notice to the regulated community on the new r eporting requirements, EPA should

consider promulgating only reporting requirements that are reasonably necessary. A single one

sentence comment does not seem to warrant such a burdensome requirement on tens of thousands or

### Summary of Interagency Working Comm ents on draft rule under EO 13563 review

Page 2 of 3 more small entities, that include entities such as water treatment plants, hospitals, and a large variety of

manufacturing facilities that don’t have substantial resources or expertise to address EPA regulations.

Furthermore, perhaps a reporting requirement aimed at the nonemergency demand response program

makes more sense, since that program is motivated by financial co nsiderations alone, unlike the

emergency program.

Excerpt of Reporting Requirements Recommended by Commenters.

NESCAUM Page 42:

Recommendations

ISOs should have the authority to collect information on the source of demand response

Resources from aggregators and other market participants. To improve transparency, ISOs should

provide a bre akdown of the resources in their demand response programs by zone similar to NYISO’s

approach. In addition to being necessary to accurately

determine their impact, it would be important for the system operator to know what

comprises system resources in order to ensure a reliable system.

Exelon Comments Page 11:

C. Owners an d Operators of Emergency Stationary RICE Should Notify EPA

or State or Local Permitting Authorities if they Participate in Emergency

Demand Response Programs

The Rule should ensure that all owners or operators of stationary RICE that use

the exemption for energy emergency programs under this Rule notify EPA or their state or loc al

permitting authority by the later of the effective date of the Rule or within 30 days of signing up

with a demand response program that would use the exemption. To ensure transparency of these

programs and to enable EPA and other stakeholders to assess the air quality and other

environmental impa cts in the context of the operation of these units, the notification should

provide the following minimum information, which would be publicly available: the

owner/operator; the demand response program; the ISO and balancing authority; location; engine

size, make, and model; installation date; fuel type; estimated emission rates; and emission

controls, if any.

Coalition of En vironmental Groups Comments Page 36:

In order to collect the basic data EPA needs to better understand the public health impact of RICE

engines, the Coalition strongly urges EPA to require all stationary engines, whether new, modified or

existing, emergency or non

‐ emer gency, or rurally or non

‐ rurally sited, to be registered in order to

provide the agency with much needed information. Typical registration information, in addition to

names, addresses and model numbers, includes emissions data, fuel types used, and construction dates.

Re

‐ registration should also be required when there is a change in the owner or operator of an en gine.

### Summary of Interagency Working Comm ents on draft rule under EO 13563 review

Page 3 of 3 Connecticut DEP Comments Page 3

It is critical for EPA to adopt a reporting requirement within RICE NESHAP, or through a separate rule

requiring owners and operators to provide EPA with notification off participation in emergency demand

response programs, including hours of operation and emissions.

NRECA Ema il Excerpt:

‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/04/2013 09:21PM

‐‐‐‐‐

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph

Goffman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Cronmiller, Rae E." <rae.cronmiller@nreca.coop >

Date: 10/31/2012 03:44PM

Cc: "Cromwell, Ted T." <ted.cromwell@nreca.coop >

Subject: FW:

Greetings. NRECA has conferred with our membership regarding the issues raised in connection with

the RICE June 7, 2012 proposal. This e

‐ mail and attachment represents our summary recommendations

and answers to several questions posed by EPA over the several months.

Regarding the following questions. Would your members be will ing to file electronically with EPA on

annual basis, hours and time durations of RICE dispatch for emergency demand response to begin in

several years? Yes. We have to note that the utility knows when and why their dispatch of emergency

RICE was ordered. However the utility has no wa y of knowing if the owner ran the unit for more or

less than the time requested, although the total annual operated hours of each RICE would be

recorded at the RICE site by a non resettable hours meter as required by the existing regulations. We

also note that if the ow ner “takes the unit offline” without being dispatched by the utility, we would

not know those hours of operation, but again, they would be recorded by the no resettable hours

meter. {Bold added by commenter}