MEMORANDUM
Subject:
Meeting
with
Ingersoll
Rand,
Jan.
13,
2004
From:
Steven
Silverman,
Office
of
General
Council
To:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
Air
Docket
A­
2001­
28;
E­
DOCKET
OAR­
2003­
0012
Date:
April
15,
2004
____________________________________________________________________________

On
January
13,
2004,
Cleophas
Jackson,
Philip
Carlson
and
I
had
a
45
minute
conference
call
with
Alan
McConnell
and
Bill
Lane,
attorneys
for
Ingersoll
Rand.
The
topic
was
continued
discussion
about
potential
equipment
maker
flexibilities.

We
discussed
three
potential
flexibilities.
The
first
is
making
the
non­
ABT
portion
of
the
proposed
Blue
Sky
program,
whereby
credits
are
generated
by
early
introduction
of
aftertreatmentequipped
engines
(
see
68
FR
at
28483),
available
to
equipment
manufacturers.
The
non­
ABT
increment
could
be
used
by
equipment
manufacturers
across
power
categories,
not
just
in
the
creditgenerating
category.
Ingersoll
reacted
favorably
to
this
possibility.

We
next
discussed
potential
increases
in
the
proposed
percent­
of­
production
allowance.
We
indicated
that
we
did
not
see
any
need
to
expand
the
allowance
for
25
hp
and
less
and
greater
than
750
hp
engines.
Ingersoll
agreed.
We
also
said
we
saw
difficulties
justifying
an
expansion
greater
than
90
%
(
from
the
proposed
80
%)
based
on
lost
pollutant
reductions
and
potential
adverse
competitive
impacts
unjustified
by
lead
time
concerns.
Ingersoll
indicated
that
their
main
issue
remains
lead
time
for
equipment
manufacturers,
and
that
lead
time
provided
to
engine
manufacturers
does
not
necessarily
aid
equipment
manufacturers
because
equipment
cannot
be
redesigned
until
a
prototype
conforming
engine
is
in
the
hands
of
the
equipment
maker.
They
thus
argue
that
8
years
of
lead
time
to
engine
manufacturers
may
avail
them
nothing.
They
further
note
that
they
used
all
of
their
Tier
2
flexibilities
for
certain
engine
categories,
and
since
Tier
4
will
be
more
complicated,
they
need
correspondingly
more
flexibility
to
have
adequate
lead
time.
They
thus
continue
to
seek
the
increases
outlined
in
their
December
18
letter
to
EPA,
from
120
%
to
150%
depending
on
the
power
category.
We
responded
that
many
equipment
engineering
changes
can
be
designed
in
advance
of
engine
receipt,
and
also
noted
that
Ingersoll
has
considerable
market
leverage
with
its
engine
suppliers.

The
third
flexibility
under
discussion
is
a
potential
modification
to
the
hardship
relief
provision.
We
agreed
to
provide
draft
language
to
Ingersoll
at
a
later
date.
2
