Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0012-0940
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-04-15T04:00Z

MEMORANDUM
Subject:
Teleconference
with
Ingersoll
Rand,
March
4,
2004
From:
Steven
Silverman,
Attorney
Office
of
General
Council
To:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
Air
Docket
A­
2001­
28;
E­
DOCKET
OAR­
2003­
0012
Date:
April
15,
2004
____________________________________________________________________________

On
March
4,
2004,
EPA
representatives
(
Cleophas
Jackson,
Don
Kopinski,
myself)
had
a
teleconference
with
Alan
McConnell
and
William
Lane,
counsel
for
Ingersoll
Rand.
We
discussed
issues
outstanding
with
the
company:
per
cent
of
production
allowance,
early
clean
engine
credit,
2007
technical
review,
and
hardship
relief
provision.

We
indicated
that
we
were
considering
a
"
technical
hardship"
equipment
flexibility
provision
modeled
after
the
economic
hardship
provision
in
the
current
rules.
The
basic
idea
would
be
that
equipment
manufacturers
could
be
eligible
for
an
additional
70
%
per
cent
of
production
allowance
upon
a
showing
of
extreme
technical
hardship
not
resulting
from
the
fault
of
the
equipment
manufacturer.
EPA
would
make
this
determination
case­
by­
case
upon
an
objective
showing
of
extreme
hardship
based
upon
information
relating
to
equipment
design
process,
date
of
receipt
of
relevant
information
from
the
engine
manufacturer,
specific
engineering
problem
faced,
etc.
The
allowance,
if
granted,
would
have
to
be
used
in
the
initial
two
model
years.

Ingersoll
counsel
thought
this
type
of
provision
could
be
satisfactory.
They
agreed
that
it
was
intended
to
provide
further
lead
time
where
an
engine
manufacturer
can
demonstrate
that
extreme,
unavoidable
technical
problems
arise
and
cannot
be
accommodated
through
the
flexibilities
in
existing
rules.

Ingersoll
counsel
also
agreed
with
the
modification
to
the
clean
engine
early
credit
provision
(
equipment
makers
along
with
engine
manufacturers
could
be
eligible
for
the
credit,
and
equipment
makers
would
have
a
right
of
first
refusal
to
use
of
the
credit).
They
also
agreed
with
our
description
of
the
2007
technical
review.

Ingersoll
counsel
said
they
were
prepared
to
provide
written
support
for
the
nonroad
Tier
4
rule
is
the
final
rule
is
as
described
in
this
teleconference.
They
asked
to
see
draft
language,
especially
for
the
technical
hardship
potential
provision.