----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/19/2010 04:29 PM

-----

|------------>

| From: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |"Matt Todd" <ToddM@api.org> 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| To: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Cc: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |"John Wagner" <Wagner@api.org> 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Date: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |10/19/2010 04:24 PM 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>

| Subject: |

|------------>

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

 |RICE NESHAP - API Petition to Reconsider 

|

 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------|

Melanie,
API respectfully submits the attached petition to reconsider the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 51,570 

(Aug. 20, 2010). A hard copy of the attached was mailed to the Office of the 

Administrator and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law 

Office.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Regards,

Matt

Matthew Todd

API

1220 L Street NW

Washington DC 20005

202.682.8319

www.api.org(See attached file: 2010-10-19 Final API Petition for 

Reconsideration - SI RICE.pdf)
October 19, 2010

Office of the Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Room 3000

Ariel Rios Federal Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

via email and hard copy

Ref.: Petition for Reconsideration of National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines, Final Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708)

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is a national trade association with nearly 400 

member companies that are involved with all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry. 

API respectfully submits a petition to reconsider the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 51,570 (Aug. 20, 2010).

Thank you for your consideration of this petition. Please let me know if you have any 

questions.

Sincerely,

Matthew Todd

API

toddm@api.org

(202) 682-8319

Enclosure

cc Ms. Melanie King

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01)

U.S. EPA

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Matthew Todd

Regulatory and Scientific Affairs

1220 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 

20005-4070 USA

Telephone: 202-682-8319

Fax: 202-682-8031

Email: ToddM@api.org

www.api.org
Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office

Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A)

U.S. EPA

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460
BEFORE THE U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

________________________________________________________________________

National Emission Standards for Hazardous )

Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal ) Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708

Combustion Engines; Final Rule )

75 Fed. Reg. 51,570 (Aug. 20, 2010) )

____________________________________

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pursuant to Clean Air Act (“CAA”) section 307(d)(7)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), and 

for the reasons set forth below, the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) petitions the 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to reconsider 

specific provisions of its National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 51,570 (Aug. 20, 

2010) (Final Rule).

The Final Rule contains a substantive monitoring provision that was not properly noticed 

in the proposed rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 9698 (March 5, 2009) (the “Proposed Rule”), thereby 

denying petitioner the opportunity to raise their objections during the comment period. 

Furthermore, the standards established in the Final Rule were based on a flawed analysis 

of the variability of emission data. Finally, EPA’s “beyond the floor” cost-benefit 

analysis for the four-stroke rich burn (“4SRB”) engine formaldehyde standards was 

flawed because the agency took into consideration nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) emission 

reductions in the analysis, yet the technology to reduce formaldehyde emissions does not 

necessarily reduce NOx emissions. EPA also overestimated the public health benefits in 

this “beyond the floor” analysis by not taking into consideration population differences in 

rural versus urban areas. Each of these issues is discussed more fully below.
1. In the Final Rule, EPA established continuous parametric monitoring system 

(“CPMS”) requirements for existing stationary spark-ignition (“SI”) 

reciprocating internal combustion engines (“RICE”) at area sources. 75 Fed. 

Reg. 51, 570, 51574. Although EPA briefly mentioned the need to 

continuously measure and record catalyst inlet temperature in the preamble to 

the proposed rule (74FR9704), nowhere in the Proposed Rule text did EPA 

indicate that the agency was considering CPMS requirements or standards 

specific to RICE. Rather, the first indication that CPMS standards might be 

included in the Final Rule for SI engines was in the preamble to the final 

compression ignition (“CI”) RICE rule, issued at 75 Fed. Reg. 9674 (March 3,

2010). A brief mention of potential CPMS requirements in a related but 

completely separate rulemaking does not constitute adequate notice and 

opportunity to comment as required by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 

7607(d)(3), which directs EPA to comply with the requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §551 et seq., including the notice and 

comment requirements in 5 U.S.C. § 553. Nor is the imposition of CPMS 

standards a “logical outgrowth” of the monitoring requirements contained in 

the proposal. In order for an agency’s change in course to be a logical 

outgrowth of the proposal, interested parties should have been able to 

anticipate the change and file comments on the issue during the notice and 

comment period. City of Waukesha v. EPA, 320 F.3d 228, 245 (D.C. Cir. 

2003). Here, based on the proposed rule, interested parties could not possibly 

have anticipated that EPA would impose CPMS requirements in the Final 

Rule.

Since no information on the CPMS standard was made public before the final 

rule, the stringency of the standard could not be discussed. Under the 

standard, “any 15-minute period for which the monitoring system is out-ofcontrol and data are not available for required calculations constitutes a 

deviation from the monitoring requirements.” Providing no allowance for 

measurement system downtime combined with the remote and scattered 
nature of O&G area sources mandates the measurement device be connected 

to a telemetry system that alerts an operator any time that the temperature is 

out-of-control. This provision is not available in the battery operated systems 

that EPA claims is available for $200 per measurement point. See August 10, 

2010 Response to Comments, at 245. Additionally, the CPMS monitoring

costs are not required for area sources per the provisions of CAA §112(d)(5) 

that provide for the application of generally available control technology 

(GACT) or management practices. EPA also did not consider the cost benefit 

issues associated with dispersed rural sites as discussed in item #4 below. 

2. Under Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 

2004), EPA is permitted to consider variability when setting the MACT floor. 

As the D.C. Circuit stated, a standard that “reasonably estimates the 

performance of the top performers,” considering that even those facilities 

experience spikes in emissions, is permissible because “each facility must 

meet the...standard every day and under all operating conditions.” Id. at 

1242. In the SI RICE Final Rule, however, EPA’s use of the Upper Prediction 

Limit to account for variability in the emission data was flawed. Furthermore, 

EPA did not provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment pursuant to 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553 regarding the method the 

agency would use to account for variability. In the Proposed Rule, EPA 

acknowledged that the agency had limited data for some types of engines and 

encouraged commenters to submit additional data. See 74 Fed. Reg. at 9714; 

75 Fed. Reg. at 51,578. API submitted extensive comments, both before the 

comment deadline and, at the request of EPA, after the comment period had 

closed, on accounting for variability in setting the MACT floor. See

Technical Report: 4SRB Natural Gas-Fired Engine Emissions Data for MACT 

Floor, Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0402.1. In the Final Rule, 

however, EPA used a method for determining the MACT floor that did not 

adequately take variability into account. Because the population of sources is 

very large compared to most other MACT source categories, an accurate 

variability assessment is critical to defining a rational emission limit. 
3. The cost-benefit analysis for the “beyond the floor” standards is arbitrary and 

capricious, unsupported by evidence, and unwarranted by the facts. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 706(2). EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of beyond the floor controls for 4SRB 

engines was deficient in several areas. NOx co-benefits were included as a 

primary contributor to the benefits of the Final Rule, but emission reductions 

of NOx are only speculative. The Final Rule establishes limits for

formaldehyde emissions and assumes that non-selective catalytic reduction 

(“NSCR”) will be used to achieve the formaldehyde emission limits. 

However, the use of NSCR to reduce formaldehyde is not required and does 

not ensure NOx emission reductions, particularly at the level assumed by EPA. 

4. Furthermore, because of the difference in population density, reductions in 

formaldehyde in rural locations have significantly less health impacts than in 

urban locations. EPA did not consider this difference. Along with the 

Interstate Natural Gas Association (“INGA”), API submitted extensive 

supplemental information regarding the beyond the floor analysis, discussing 

in detail the costs of imposing controls on several types of RICE, including 

4SRB engines. See Technical Report: RICE NESHAP Control Costs 

Background for “Above the Floor Analysis,” Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0708-0279.1. If the cost-benefit analysis were done correctly, the costs 

of the emission reductions that would be achieved by the final SI RICE 

beyond the floor standards might outweigh the benefits.
In conclusion, API requests that EPA reconsider the Final Rule, withdraw it, and 

subsequently promulgate revisions in a manner consistent with the arguments set forth in 

this Petition.

Dated: October 19, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

Matthew Todd

API

1220 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 682-8319