----- 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 Emiss ion 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 invo lved 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, Fina l 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 S cientific Affairs
1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

- 4070 USA Telephone: 202

- 682

- 8 319 Fax: 202

- 682

- 8031 Email: ToddM@api.org www.api.orgAssociate 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 20460BEFORE THE U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

_______________________________________________________________ _________ National Emission Standards for Hazardous ) Air Pollutants for Reciprocating I nternal ) 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 (Marc h 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 (“NO x” ) emission reductions in the analysis, yet the technol ogy to reduce formaldehyde emissions does not necessarily reduce NO x 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. Eac h 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 agenc y 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 dire cts 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 requiremen ts 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. Cit

y of Waukesha v. EPA , 320 F.3 d 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 m ade 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

- of

control and data are not available for required calculations constitutes a
deviati on from the monitoring requirements.” Providing no allowance for measurement system downtime combined with the remote and scatterednature of O&G area sources mandates the measurement device be connected to a telemetry system that alerts an operator any t ime 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 disp ersed 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 “re asonably 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 Natur al 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 sour ces 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, unsupporte d 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 defici ent in several areas. NO x co

- benefits w ere included as a primary contributor to the benefits of the Final Rule , but emission reductions
of NOx are only speculative. The Final R ule establishes limits for formaldehyde emissions and assumes that non

- selective catalytic reduction (“NSCR”) will be used to achieve the formaldehyde emission limits. However, the us e of NSCR to reduce formaldehyde is not required and does

not ensure NO x emission reductions , particularly at the level assumed by EPA

.

4. Furthermore, b ecause of the difference in population density, reductions in formaldehyde in rural locations have sign ificantly less health impact s 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

- OAR

2008

- 0708

- 0279.1. If the cost

- benefit analysis we re 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 promu lgate 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