-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/30/2010 09:25PM -----

To: Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Melanie 

King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <japplekamp@gpaglobal.org>, "Hastie, Roderick" 

<rhastie@hunton.com>, "Stone, Scott J." <sstone@hunton.com>, "Currier, Patrick T." 

<pcurrier@hunton.com> 

From: "Wehrum, William L." <wwehrum@hunton.com> 

Sent by: "Boyd, Tira" <tboyd@hunton.com> 

Date: 10/29/2010 04:21PM 

Subject: Request for Administrative Reconsideration of the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

(See attached file: GPA RICE Petition for Reconsideration.pdf)

Please find attached a copy of the Request for Administrative Reconsideration of the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines submitted by the 

Gas Processors Association. 

Tira J. Boyd 

Professional Assistant 

tboyd@hunton.com 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

1900K Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20006 

Phone: (202) 955-1961 

Fax: (202) 778-2201 

www.hunton.com 

 

This communication is confidential and is intended to be privileged pursuant to applicable law. If the reader of this 

message is 

not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby 

notified 

that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 

message in 

error, please notify Hunton & Williams LLP immediately by telephone (877-374-4937) and by electronic mail to: 

help_desk@hunton.com and then delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. 
October 29, 2010

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Re: Request for Administrative Reconsideration of the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

Dear Administrator Jackson:

The Gas Processors Association (“GPA”) hereby requests that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (“EPA” or the “Agency”) reconsider certain aspects of the recently-signed 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 51570 (August 20, 2010) (“RICE MACT”). 

Pursuant to § 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), where it is

impracticable to raise an objection during the period of public comment or if the grounds for 

such an objection arise after the public comment period (but within the time specified for judicial 

review), and if such objections are of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, EPA is 

authorized to reconsider a rule.

GPA is a non-profit trade organization made up of approximately 120 corporate 

members, all of whom are engaged in the processing of natural gas into merchantable pipeline 

gas, or in the manufacture, transportation, or further processing of liquid products from natural

gas. GPA’s membership accounts for approximately 92 percent of all natural gas liquids 

produced by the midstream energy sector in the United States. Our members also produce, 

gather, transmit, and market natural gas and natural gas liquids, and include a number of 

Canadian and international companies that produce natural gas liquids on a global scale.

As described more fully below, GPA is requesting reconsideration of seven key elements 

of the final rule. These objections arose after the close of the public comment period and are of 

central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Thus, reconsideration is authorized and appropriate.

GPA’s seven objections are as follows:
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010

Page 2

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145

Phone (918) 493-3872 • Fax (918) 493-3875

www.GPAglobal.org 

1. The final rule fails to distinguish between rural and urban areas in imposing Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) standards for spark-ignition reciprocating 

internal combustion engines (“SI RICE”).

2. The final rule imposes monitoring requirements for major and area source SI RICE that 

are impracticable and unreasonably costly.

3. The final rule relied on a different set of emissions data in establishing the “MACT floor”

for 4SLB SI RICE than what appeared in the proposed rule.

4. The final rule relied on a small, non-representative, and inadequate subset of the affected 

engine population in establishing the MACT floor for existing SI RICE.

5. The final rule improperly relies on the “co-benefits” of non-HAP emissions reductions in 

setting above-the-floor standards.

6. The final rule did not adequately account for variability when setting the MACT floor.

7. The final rule failed to adequately account for shutdowns and malfunctions.

Each of these objections is discussed in detail below.

1. The final rule fails to distinguish between rural and urban areas in imposing MACT 

standards for SI RICE.

The final rule sets standards for existing SI RICE located at area sources. EPA asserts 

that the final rule is authorized by CAA § 112(k)(3)(i), which requires EPA to list not less than 

30 HAP that, as a result of emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat to public 

health in the largest number of urban areas. 75 Fed. Reg. at 51577-78. The final rule further

states that CAA §§ 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(ii) require EPA to list area source categories that 

represent not less than 90 percent of the area source emissions of each of the listed HAPs, and 

that CAA § 112(c) requires EPA to issue standards for listed categories under CAA § 112(d). Id.

at 51578.

GPA objects to the final rule as it applies to SI RICE located in non-urban areas. EPA 

has demonstrated in prior area source standards adopted to satisfy the requirements of CAA 

§ 112(k) that the applicability of such standards may appropriately be tailored such that the 

standards apply only to the urban areas targeted by § 112(k). See 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart HH. 

It is unreasonable for EPA to adopt a rule of nationwide applicability in this case, where it is not 

needed to satisfy the Agency’s minimum statutory obligations and where the Agency has not 

demonstrated on the record that rural engines present adverse impacts on health or the 

environment.

In addition, GPA objects to the final rule as it applies to SI RICE associated with oil and 

gas production wells, including engines on gathering lines that convey gas to processing 

facilities. Section 112(n)(4)(B) expressly states that EPA does not have authority under CAA 
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010

Page 3

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145

Phone (918) 493-3872 • Fax (918) 493-3875

www.GPAglobal.org 

§ 112(c) to list oil and gas production wells and associated equipment as an area source category 

unless such operations are located in certain metropolitan areas and the Administrator has 

determined that HAPs from such operations present more than a negligible risk of adverse effects 

to public health. CAA § 112(n)(4)(B). In stating “EPA believes that sections 112(c) and 112(k) 

of the CAA do not prohibit issuing area source rules of national applicability,” the final rule 

overlooks the plain statutory language of CAA § 112(n)(4)(B) that exempts oil and gas 

production wells and associated equipment from § 112(c) authority except in specific 

circumstances. Although the final rule notes that the term “associated equipment” was defined 

for the purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ in the first RICE MACT rule not to include 

stationary RICE, and that the Agency said it took other steps in the final rule to reduce the 

burden on owners and operators of engines subject to the final rule, this does not change the fact 

that EPA lacks statutory authority to regulate such engines in the first instance. 75 Fed. Reg. at 

51578.

The regulation of SI RICE located at area sources is of central relevance to the rule, given 

that GPA members operate thousands of affected engines, most of which are located in rural 

areas of the country. EPA’s decision to establish a rule of nationwide applicability will cause the 

rule to apply to a significantly greater number of engines owned or operated by GPA members 

than if the rule were limited to engines in urban areas.

2. The final rule imposes monitoring requirements for major and area source SI RICE 

that are impracticable and unreasonably costly.

The final rule requires continuous parameter monitoring systems (“CPMS”) to be 

installed on area source engines and imposes extensive and detailed specifications for the 

installation and operation of the CPMS. See Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ and § 63.6625(b). These 

requirements were not included in the proposed rule, so GPA members did not have the 

opportunity to submit comments on them during the public comment period.

These requirements are of great concern to GPA because many affected engines owned 

or operated by GPA members are located at remote locations, such that they are not staffed on a 

continuous basis and are operated from a distance. Implementation of the CPMS requirements 

will be extremely difficult and costly because compliance with these provisions will require 

more frequent staffing of these remote sites and could require installation and operation of 

complex and costly remote instrumentation systems.

The CPMS requirements are of central relevance to the rule because of the inordinate 

compliance costs that will be imposed on the thousands of remote engines operated by GPA 

members. We also note that the final rule imposes CMPS requirements on affected engines 

located at major sources. We have the same concerns for these engines as we do for area source 

engines with respect to the significant implementation difficulties and costs. Therefore, we 

request that the Agency also reconsider the CPMS requirements for affected engines at major 

sources.
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010

Page 4

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145

Phone (918) 493-3872 • Fax (918) 493-3875

www.GPAglobal.org 

3. The final rule relied on a different set of emissions data in establishing the MACT 

floor for 4SLB SI RICE than the data presented in the proposed rule.

The final rule establishes a MACT floor for 4-stroke lean burn (“4SLB”) stationary SI 

RICE using emissions information from an engine database that was not included in the 

proposed rule or otherwise made available for public comment. The final rule states that 

additional emissions data for stationary 4SLB SI RICE were “inadvertently omitted from the 

MACT floor analysis for the proposed rule, but have been incorporated into the analysis for the 

final rule, along with additional emissions data received post-proposal.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 51579. 

The final rule then states: “Stakeholders who believe that further review of this information is in 

order or necessary can petition for reconsideration of this final rule.” Id.

GPA objects to the inclusion of these data after the close of the public comment period 

because further review is necessary to determine whether these data are accurate and 

representative for 4SLB SI RICE. This issue is of central relevance to the rule because GPA 

members own or operate thousands of affected 4SLB engines. Thus, an error in determining the 

MACT floor for 4SLB engines would have a substantial impact on the compliance obligations 

and cost of compliance of GPA’s members.

4. The final rule relied on a small, non-representative, and inadequate subset of the 

affected engine population in establishing the MACT floor for existing SI RICE.

The MACT floor for 4SLB SI RICE presented in the final rule was based on emissions 

testing data from the “best performing 12%” of engines. Id. The final rule announced that EPA 

ranked all of the sources for which it had data based on their emissions and “identified the lowest 

emitting 12 percent of the sources based on the lowest test for each engine.” Id. In so doing, 

EPA noted it did not use the Population Database. Id.

EPA’s failure to use information contained in the Population Database violates the 

Agency’s obligation to consider all available “emissions information” when determining the 

existing source MACT floor for source categories with more than 30 sources. See CAA 

§ 112(d)(3)(A). In particular, the Population Database should have been used by the Agency to 

determine whether the available emissions testing data are representative of the performance of 

the category as a whole or, as GPA believes, are representative of the performance of the better 

performers in the source category. The latter determination would have provided a reasonable 

basis for averaging all of the available emissions testing data rather than taking an average of the 

top 12% of the sources for which testing data are available. The Agency’s failure to take this 

approach has caused the final rule to be unreasonably skewed because the “best of the best” 

performers were used to set the floor, rather than simply the best performers.

This issue is of central relevance to the rule because the standards are much more 

stringent than can be justified by the available data. Thus, the standard will impose 

disproportionate compliance requirements and costs on GPA member companies.
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010

Page 5

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145

Phone (918) 493-3872 • Fax (918) 493-3875

www.GPAglobal.org 

5. The final rule improperly relies on the “co-benefits” of non-HAP emissions 

reductions in setting above-the-floor standards.

The final rule establishes “above the floor” standards for 4SRB SI RICE with a greater 

than 500 horsepower rating. EPA asserted that aftertreatment controls for existing nonemergency 4SRB engines greater than 500 horsepower are readily available and feasible 

regardless of location. In particular, the Agency concludes that non-selective catalytic reduction 

is applicable to and generally available for 4SRB engines. EC/R Memorandum on MACT Floor 

and MACT Determination for Existing Stationary Non-Emergency SI RICE <100 HP and 

Existing Stationary Emergency SI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for Existing 

Stationary SI RICE Located at Area Sources (August 10, 2010), at 15. EPA states that the costs 

and economic impacts of implementing these HAP-reducing technologies are reasonable, even 

though it notes that for a 750 horsepower engine the per ton cost of HAP removal is about 

$68,000. Id. EPA justifies these high costs by stating that these controls will have the co-benefit 

of reducing VOC, CO, and NOx emissions. Id.

GPA objects to this “above the floor” standard. To begin, the cost effectiveness of 

applying NSCR – $68,000 per ton according to EPA’s own estimate – is unreasonably high and 

provides no support for a decision to go “above the floor.” In addition, the CAA unambiguously 

directs EPA to consider only cost and “non-air quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements” in deciding whether to set a standard above the floor. Thus, consideration 

of collateral non-HAP emissions reductions is beyond EPA’s more limited authority to consider 

“non-air” health and environmental impacts.

This issue is of central relevance to the rule because the standards are more stringent than 

can be justified under the law. Thus, the standard will impose disproportionate compliance 

requirements and costs on GPA member companies.

6. The final rule did not adequately account for variability when setting the MACT 

floor.

The final rule did not adequately consider emissions variability in establishing the MACT 

floor for SI RICE. The final rule stated that EPA assessed variability using a statistical approach 

analogous to one it developed for a wholly separate and unrelated MACT standard. 75 Fed. Reg. 

at 51579. EPA described this as an “upper prediction limit” that was used in the proposed 

NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. Id.

GPA objects to this statistical approach because there is nothing in the record 

demonstrating that this statistical method produces an estimate of emissions variability that 

reflects the actual variability of the better performing engines in the source category. In 

particular, short term emissions performance tests typically are not designed to assess the full 

range of emissions that might be experienced by the given engine. Such tests typically are 

conducted under “normal” operating conditions, which would not be expected to include all 

loading conditions and operating rates. Thus, statistical analysis of performance testing results 
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010

Page 6

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145

Phone (918) 493-3872 • Fax (918) 493-3875

www.GPAglobal.org 

will not reveal the actual range of emissions variability that must be factored into MACT 

standards. See Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

This issue is of central relevance to the rule because failure to properly account for 

variability causes the standards to more stringent than they otherwise would be. Thus, the 

standard will impose disproportionate compliance requirements and costs on GPA member 

companies.

7. The final rule failed to adequately account for shutdowns and malfunctions.

The final rule failed to adequately account for emissions during shutdowns and 

malfunctions. Instead, the rule imposes the standard for normal operations on emissions during 

malfunction and shutdown events EPA concluded that malfunctions should not be viewed as a 

distinct operating mode and, therefore, “any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be 

factored into the development of CAA section 112(d)standards, which, once promulgated, apply

at all times.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 51577. EPA provides no explanation in either the proposed or 

final rule for its conclusion that a separate standard is not needed for shutdown.

GPA objects to this approach, on the grounds that it is often impossible for an engine to 

achieve a standard based on tests conducted during “normal” operations under the abnormal

operating conditions caused by a malfunction or during shutdown. While the D.C. Circuit 

recently vacated the SSM provisions contained in the Part 63 General Provisions, that decision 

does not prohibit EPA from setting separate emissions limits or work practice standards for 

periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551, F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). In fact GPA contends that EPA must set separate standards for malfunction and 

shutdown under the RICE MACT because the available information shows that a standard based 

on normal operating conditions is not adequate to accommodate the more variable emissions that 

occur during shutdown and malfunction.

This issue is of central relevance to the rule because countless affected engines owned or 

operated by GPA members would be held to a standard that likely cannot be achieved in 

practice.

* * * * * * *
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

October 29, 2010

Page 7

Gas Processors Association • 6526 E. 60th St. • Tulsa, OK 74145

Phone (918) 493-3872 • Fax (918) 493-3875

www.GPAglobal.org 

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. If you have any questions, do not 

hesitate to contact me at 918-493-3872.

Sincerely,

Jeff Applekamp

Director, Government Affairs

Gas Processors Association

cc: P. Tsirigotis

R. Wayland

M. King