Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0879-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and New Source Performance Standards: Internal Combustion Engines; Electronic Reporting
Posted Date: 2023-06-26T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41361-41369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13445]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0879; FRL-8899-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV40

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and New Source Performance 
Standards: Internal Combustion Engines; Electronic Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE), the New 
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Stationary Compression Ignition 
(CI) Internal Combustion Engines, and the NSPS for Stationary Spark 
Ignition (SI) Internal Combustion Engines, to add electronic reporting 
provisions. The addition of electronic reporting provisions will 
provide for simplified reporting by sources and enhance availability of 
data on sources to the EPA and the public. In addition, a small number 
of clarifications and corrections to these rules are being proposed to 
correct inadvertent and other minor errors in the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), particularly related to tables. Finally, information 
is being

[[Page 41362]]

solicited on the provisions specifying that emergency engines can 
operate for up to 50 hours per year to mitigate local transmission and/
or distribution limitations to avert potential voltage collapse or line 
overloads that could lead to the interruption of power supply in a 
local area or region.

DATES: 
    Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2023. 
Comments on the information collection provisions submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA) are best assured of consideration by OMB if OMB receives a copy 
of your comments on or before July 26, 2023.
    Public hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing 
on or before July 3, 2023, we will hold a virtual public hearing. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering 
for a public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0879, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2022-0879 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0879.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0879, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Christopher Werner, Sector Policies and Programs 
Division (D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5133; and email address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Participation in virtual public hearing. To request a virtual 
public hearing, contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by 
email at [email protected]. If requested, the hearing will be 
held via virtual platform on July 11, 2023. The hearing will convene at 
9 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 3 p.m. ET. The EPA may 
close a session 15 minutes after the last pre-registered speaker has 
testified if there are no additional speakers. The EPA will announce 
further details at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-engines/.
    The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing no 
later than 1 business day after a hearing request is received. To 
register to speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online 
registration form available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-engines/ 
or contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-8699 or by email at 
[email protected]. The last day to pre-register to speak at the 
hearing will be July 10, 2023. Prior to the hearing, the EPA will post 
a general agenda that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate 
order at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-engines/ engines/.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the 
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
    Each commenter will have 4 minutes to provide oral testimony. The 
EPA encourages commenters to submit a copy of their oral testimony as 
written comments to the rulemaking docket.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations 
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written 
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment 
period will be considered with the same weight as oral testimony and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-engines/. While the 
EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please 
monitor our website or contact the public hearing team at (888) 372-
8699 or by email at [email protected] to determine if there are 
any updates. The EPA does not intend to publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or a special 
accommodation such as audio description, please pre-register for the 
hearing with the public hearing team and describe your needs by July 3, 
2023. The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance 
notice.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0879. All documents in the docket are 
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy.
    Written Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR- 2022-0879, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred 
method), or the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once 
submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The 
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not 
submit to the EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any 
information you consider to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be 
submitted as discussed in the Submitting CBI section of this document.
    Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by 
a written comment. The written comment is considered the official 
comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. 
The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents 
located outside of the primary submission (e.g., on the Web, cloud, or 
other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the full EPA 
public comment policy; information about CBI or multimedia submissions; 
and general guidance on making effective comments.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email

[[Page 41363]]

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any 
form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any 
digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, 
mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify 
electronically within the digital storage media the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version 
of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must 
submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures 
outlined in the Written Comments section of this document. If you 
submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the 
outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain 
CBI and note the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI will be 
included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket 
without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed 
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), 
or other online file sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google 
Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the 
OAQPS CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and as 
described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket 
ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that 
exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not 
have your own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to 
request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the 
postal service, please send it to the following address: OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0879. The 
mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any 
CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
III. What actions are we proposing?
    A. Summary of Actions Being Proposed
    B. Electronic Reporting
    C. Clarifications to Table 4 in Subpart IIII
    D. Correction of Inadvertent Errors in Subpart ZZZZ
    E. Clarifications to the Oil Change Requirement in Subpart ZZZZ
    F. Compliance Dates
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
V. Request for Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include industries using stationary engines, including 
both compression and spark ignition internal combustion engines, such 
as: Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution; Medical 
and surgical hospitals; Natural gas transmission; Crude petroleum and 
natural gas production; Natural gas liquids producers; and National 
security. North American Industry Classification System Codes of 
potentially regulated industries may include 2211, 622110, 48621, 
211111, 211112, and 92811. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, 
but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to 
be affected by the proposed action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the rules. If you have any questions 
regarding the applicability of any aspect of this action, please 
contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-engines/. Following publication in the Federal Register, the 
EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key 
technical documents at this same website.
    Memoranda showing the rule edits that would be necessary to 
incorporate the changes to 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, 40 CFR part 
60, subpart JJJJ, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, proposed in this 
action are available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-
0879). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA also will 
post a copy of this document to https://www.epa.gov/stationary-engines/.

II. Background

    Stationary engines are used in a variety of applications from 
generating electricity to powering pumps and compressors in power and 
manufacturing plants. They are also used in the event of an emergency 
such as fire or flood. The key pollutants the EPA regulates from these 
sources include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), volatile organic compounds 
(VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), 
particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 
hydrocarbons (HC).
    A compression ignition (CI) engine, or diesel engine, is a type of 
engine in which the fuel injected into the combustion chamber is 
ignited by a heat resulting from the compression of gases inside the 
cylinder. A spark ignition (SI) engine is a type of engine in which the 
fuel-air mixture in the combustion

[[Page 41364]]

chamber is ignited by a spark from a spark plug.
    The NESHAP for RICE is in 40 CFR 63, subpart ZZZZ, which was first 
promulgated in 2004. The NSPS for Stationary CI Internal Combustion 
Engines is in 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, which was first promulgated 
in 2006. The NSPS for Stationary SI Internal Combustion Engines is in 
40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ, which was first promulgated in 2008. All 
have been amended several times since promulgation.

III. What actions are we proposing?

A. Summary of Actions Being Proposed

    In this action, we are proposing the following pursuant to Clean 
Air Act (CAA) sections 111 and 112: addition of requirements for 
electronic reporting to 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart JJJJ, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ; clarifications to table 
4 in subpart IIII due to incorrect display in the CFR; the correction 
of inadvertent errors in subpart ZZZZ, specifically in 40 CFR 
63.6625(j) and its need to reference additional line items in table 2d; 
and clarifications to the oil change requirements for engines subject 
to them as referenced in subpart ZZZZ, tables 2c and 2d.

B. Electronic Reporting

    The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of stationary 
engines subject to NSPS subparts IIII or JJJJ, or NESHAP subpart ZZZZ, 
submit electronic copies of certain initial notifications of 
compliance, performance test reports, Notification of Compliance Status 
(NOCS), and annual and semiannual compliance reports through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data 
submission process is provided in the memorandum Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
available in the docket for this action. The proposed rule requires 
that the initial notification of compliance be submitted through CEDRI. 
The proposed rule requires that performance test results collected 
using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting 
Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \1\ at the time of the test be 
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT or an 
electronic file consistent with the xml schema on the ERT website, and 
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format 
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. The proposed rule 
requires that NOCS for NESHAP subpart ZZZZ be submitted as a PDF upload 
in CEDRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For annual and semiannual compliance reports, the proposed rule 
requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet 
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the 
proposed template(s) for these reports is included in the docket for 
this action.\2\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the content, 
layout, and overall design of the template(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 
60.4214d3_annual_report_bulk_upload_template_ICRDraft.xlsx, 
60.4245e3_annual_report_bulk_upload_template_ICRDraft.xlsx, and 
Sec.  63.6650_h_and_i Compliance Report Template_ICRDraft.xlsm, 
available at Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0879.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in 
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These 
circumstances are: (1) Outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude 
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required 
reports and (2) force majeure events, which are defined as events that 
will be or have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the 
affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the 
affected facility that prevent an owner or operator from complying with 
the requirement to submit a report electronically. Examples of force 
majeure events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or 
equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. 
The EPA is providing these potential extensions to protect owners and 
operators from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully 
submit a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their 
control. In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of 
needing additional time to report is within the discretion of the 
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible.
    The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and 
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the 
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with 
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated State, local, 
Tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and 
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated 
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting 
eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and 
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing 
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the 
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover, 
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \3\ to implement 
Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's agency-wide 
policy \4\ developed in response to the White House's Digital 
Government Strategy.\5\ For more information on the benefits of 
electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting 
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, 
referenced in this section III. B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August 
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \4\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \5\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the electronic reporting effort, reporting requirements 
in subpart ZZZZ were clarified and adjusted to be consistent for all 
engine types as well as to provide specificity in units of measure and 
to provide consistency between the NSPS and the NESHAP. For example, 
engine site rating in HP, date construction commenced, type of engine, 
and latitude and longitude of the engine location were not previously 
required to be reported by the NESHAP, but had been required by the 
NSPS, so are now being proposed to be added to subpart ZZZZ for 
consistency. With these changes, the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.6650 
now includes all of the applicable data elements required by 40 CFR 
63.10(e)(3), and the general provisions applicability table is revised 
to reflect that 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) is no longer applicable.

C. Clarifications to Table 4 in Subpart IIII

    As it currently appears in the CFR, ``Table 4 to Subpart IIII of 
Part 60--Emission Standards for Stationary Fire Pump Engines'' has 
proven confusing to the public because it shows blank cells

[[Page 41365]]

for the CO standard for certain engine model years. This is not the 
correct interpretation of the table, as the same CO standard applies 
for all model years. The table was not intended to be displayed in this 
manner and simply reflects a mismatch between what was submitted by the 
EPA and what was able to be shown in the CFR. Therefore, the clarified 
table is set out as table 1 in this paragraph. The EPA invites comment 
on whether any other aspect of this table is confusing or incorrect; 
however, we are not soliciting comment on the standards themselves.

 Table 1--Clarified Version of ``Table 4 to Subpart IIII of Part 60--Emission Standards for Stationary Fire Pump
                                                    Engines''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Maximum engine power                   Model year(s)             NMHC + NOX         CO           PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KW<8 (HP<11)........................  2010 and earlier...............      10.5 (7.8)    8.0 (6.0)    1.0 (0.75)
KW<8 (HP<11)........................  2011 +.........................       7.5 (5.6)    8.0 (6.0)   0.40 (0.30)
8<=KW<19 (11<=HP<25)................  2010 and earlier...............       9.5 (7.1)    6.6 (4.9)   0.80 (0.60)
8<=KW<19 (11<=HP<25)................  2011 +.........................       7.5 (5.6)    6.6 (4.9)   0.40 (0.30)
19<=KW<37 (25<=HP<50)...............  2010 and earlier...............       9.5 (7.1)    5.5 (4.1)   0.80 (0.60)
19<=KW<37 (25<=HP<50)...............  2011 +.........................       7.5 (5.6)    5.5 (4.1)   0.30 (0.22)
37<=KW<56 (50<=HP<75)...............  2010 and earlier...............      10.5 (7.8)    5.0 (3.7)   0.80 (0.60)
37<=KW<56 (50<=HP<75)...............  2011 +\1\......................       4.7 (3.5)    5.0 (3.7)   0.40 (0.30)
56<=KW<75 (75<=HP<100)..............  2010 and earlier...............      10.5 (7.8)    5.0 (3.7)   0.80 (0.60)
56<=KW<75 (75<=HP<100)..............  2011 + \1\.....................       4.7 (3.5)    5.0 (3.7)   0.40 (0.30)
75<=KW<130 (100<=HP<175)............  2009 and earlier...............      10.5 (7.8)    5.0 (3.7)   0.80 (0.60)
75<=KW<130 (100<=HP<175)............  2010 + \2\.....................       4.0 (3.0)    5.0 (3.7)   0.30 (0.22)
130<=KW<225 (175<=HP<300)...........  2008 and earlier...............      10.5 (7.8)    3.5 (2.6)   0.54 (0.40)
130<=KW<225 (175<=HP<300)...........  2009 + \3\.....................       4.0 (3.0)    3.5 (2.6)   0.20 (0.15)
225<=KW<450 (300<=HP<600)...........  2008 and earlier...............      10.5 (7.8)    3.5 (2.6)   0.54 (0.40)
225<=KW<450 (300<=HP<600)...........  2009 + \3\.....................       4.0 (3.0)    3.5 (2.6)   0.20 (0.15)
450<=KW<=560 (600<=HP<=750).........  2008 and earlier...............      10.5 (7.8)    3.5 (2.6)   0.54 (0.40)
450<=KW<=560 (600<=HP<=750).........  2009 +.........................       4.0 (3.0)    3.5 (2.6)   0.20 (0.15)
KW>560 (HP>750).....................  2007 and earlier...............      10.5 (7.8)    3.5 (2.6)   0.54 (0.40)
KW>560 (HP>750).....................  2008 +.........................       6.4 (4.8)    3.5 (2.6)   0.20 (0.15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For model years 2011-2013, manufacturers, owners and operators of fire pump stationary CI ICE in this engine
  power category with a rated speed of greater than 2,650 revolutions per minute (rpm) may comply with the
  emission limitations for 2010 model year engines.
\2\ For model years 2010-2012, manufacturers, owners and operators of fire pump stationary CI ICE in this engine
  power category with a rated speed of greater than 2,650 rpm may comply with the emission limitations for 2009
  model year engines.
\3\ In model years 2009-2011, manufacturers of fire pump stationary CI ICE in this engine power category with a
  rated speed of greater than 2,650 rpm may comply with the emission limitations for 2008 model year engines.

D. Correction of Inadvertent Errors in Subpart ZZZZ

    As it currently appears in the CFR, table 2d in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart ZZZZ correctly indicates multiple SI engine types for which oil 
change requirements apply. Specifically, table 2d's items numbers 5, 6, 
7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 all indicate SI engine types for which these 
requirements apply. When this table was last revised,\6\ corresponding 
changes to Sec.  63.6625(j) were inadvertently not made. Therefore, the 
current version of Sec.  63.6625(j), which specifies that an oil 
analysis program can be used in order to extend the oil change 
requirements, refers to an incorrect set of table 2d's item numbers. 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to amend Sec.  63.6625(j) to include 
the correct list of table 2d's item numbers, specifically 5, 6, 7, 8, 
10, 11, and 13, that indicate SI engine types for which oil change 
requirements apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 78 FR 6709 (January 30, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Clarifications to the Oil Change Requirement in Subpart ZZZZ

    As indicated in tables 2c and 2d of 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, 
several types of CI and SI engines are subject to oil change 
requirements. The number of hours of operation stated in the 
requirement vary by engine type; however in each instance, the 
requirement is phrased as: ``Change oil and filter every X,XXX hours of 
operation or annually, whichever comes first.''
    The EPA receives frequent inquiries from regulated entities 
regarding these provisions, most often revolving around the meaning of 
the term ``annually.'' For example, regulated entities sometimes 
inquire whether ``annually'' means ``every calendar year.'' In such a 
case, the inquiry amounts to essentially whether an oil change could 
hypothetically be conducted on January 1, 2019, and the next oil change 
could then be conducted on December 31, 2020, since 2020 is the 
calendar year that falls immediately after 2019 (this assumes of course 
that X,XXX hours of operation has not occurred). In such a scenario, 
however, these 2 hypothetical oil changes will have actually occurred 
almost exactly 2 years apart, minus a day.
    This is never what the EPA intended with the terminology of 
``annually'' in tables 2c and 2d of subpart ZZZZ. It is important for 
oil changes to occur as close as possible to 12 months apart to 
minimize emissions, absent use of the oil analysis programs afforded by 
40 CFR 63.6625(i) and (j). The same language of ``annually'' also 
appears in these tables related to items such as spark plug, air 
cleaner, and hose and belt inspections, and similar concerns about 
emissions and engine reliability apply. Therefore, the EPA is proposing 
to replace each instance of the term ``annually'' in tables 2c and 2d 
with the term ``every 12 months.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additionally, the same language of ``annually'' also in 
appears in a separate location in subpart ZZZZ, namely in the 
subsection on management practices applicable to existing stationary 
non-emergency CI RICE with a site rating of more than 300 HP located 
on an offshore vessel that is an area source of HAP and is a nonroad 
vehicle that is an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) source as defined 
in 40 CFR 55.2. Similar concerns apply to the engines affected by 
this subsection (40 CFR 63.6603), so we are likewise proposing to 
replace each instance of the term ``annually'' with the term ``every 
12 months'' here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, it is worthwhile to note that the EPA also 
occasionally receives questions as to whether regulated entities that 
adopt the oil analysis program in 40 CFR 63.6625(i) or (j) must change 
the oil filter on a more frequent

[[Page 41366]]

basis than the oil even when the oil analysis program indicates 
condemning limits have not yet been reached. We wish to clarify that 
regulated entities that adopt the oil analysis program must change the 
oil filter for these generators when changing the oil and are not 
required to change the filter prior to changing the oil. The intention 
of the EPA's regulations is that the oil filter should always be 
changed whenever the engine oil is changed, and we are proposing 
changes to the regulatory text to this effect. Also please note that 
nothing in the EPA's regulations prevents the owner and operator from 
changing the oil and/or oil filter sooner than condemning limits have 
been reached, if desired.

F. Compliance Dates

    Our experience with other industries that are required to convert 
reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware and software, become 
familiar with the process of submitting performance test results 
electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic 
submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and 
convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting 
parameters shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, but more 
typically 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete 
these changes. Due to the diverse nature of the stationary engine 
sector, the EPA is proposing to allow 180 days from the date of the 
final rule, or 1 year from date that the report template is made 
available on CEDRI, whichever is later, for compliance with the 
proposed electronic reporting requirements.
    For all other proposed requirements, because they are non-
substantive edits simply to clarify existing requirements, the EPA is 
proposing to make them effective immediately upon promulgation of the 
final rule.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    As mentioned previously, categories and entities potentially 
regulated by this action include industries using stationary RICE, 
including both compression and spark ignition internal combustion 
engines, such as: Electric power generation, transmission, or 
distribution; Medical and surgical hospitals; Natural gas transmission; 
Crude petroleum and natural gas production; Natural gas liquids 
producers; and National security (North American Industry 
Classification System Codes 2211, 622110, 48621, 211111, 211112, and 
92811). This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by 
the proposed action for the source category listed.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    No air quality impacts are expected to result from this rulemaking.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The EPA estimated costs for this proposed action are based on the 
results of the analysis for information collection activities, as 
presented in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section and accompanying 
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents in the docket.
    When assessed over the first 3 years of compliance (2024 to 2026), 
the incremental costs for both NSPS (subpart IIII and subpart JJJJ) are 
estimated to be negative, i.e., reflect a cost savings, for all 3 
years. For the NESHAP (subpart ZZZZ), the incremental cost is estimated 
to have costs in 2024 followed by cost savings in 2025 and 2026. When 
viewed on an overall basis (i.e., all subparts considered), 
undiscounted costs for the proposed rule, in 2021$, are $18.0 million 
in 2024, ($38.0 million) in 2025, and ($38.2 million) in 2026, with 
parentheses indicating negative values, i.e., cost savings. Although 
the EPA also anticipates that the proposed rule will continue to result 
in cost savings in years beyond 2026 for all subparts, we have not 
estimated the magnitude or duration of these cost savings. This is in 
line with electronic reporting reducing burden on regulated entities 
and the EPA by eliminating paper-based processes and providing data 
quickly and accurately.
    More details on cost impact analyses for the proposed rule can be 
found in the ``What are the economic impacts?'' section of this 
preamble as well as in Section 2 of the memorandum, Economic Impact and 
Small Business Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 
and New Source Performance Standards: Internal Combustion Engines; 
Electronic Reporting Amendments, which is also available in the docket 
for this action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted economic impact analyses for the proposed rule, 
as detailed in the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business 
Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and New Source 
Performance Standards: Internal Combustion Engines; Electronic 
Reporting Amendments, which is available in the docket for this action.
    Costs were estimated for the first 3 years following this action. 
Correspondingly, a 3-year period from 2024 to 2026 was selected as the 
best measure of the economic impacts of this action. This allowed for a 
reasonable and consistent timeframe over which to examine impacts of 
this action from a present value (PV) perspective. The PV in 2021 
dollars is a cost saving of approximately $51.8 million using a 3 
percent discount rate, and a cost saving of approximately $44.5 million 
using a 7 percent discount rate.\8\ The equivalent annualized value 
(EAV), in 2021 dollars, is a cost saving of approximately $18.3 million 
using a discount rate of 3 percent, and a cost saving of approximately 
$16.9 million using a discount rate of 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Present value and equivalent annualized value calculations 
can be found in RICE proposal--economic analysis.xls, a spreadsheet 
that includes the basis for the economic impacts that was generated 
by the EPA for this analysis report. This spreadsheet can be found 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments to subparts IIII and JJJJ have estimated cost 
savings for respondents in each year. We conducted an analysis 
assessing the impacts of the costs associated with the amendments to 
subpart ZZZZ. As shown in the supporting statement to subpart ZZZZ, the 
amendments to ZZZZ have estimated costs of $32 per respondent for the 
first year and cost savings thereafter. As described the economic 
impact analysis, for the first year such costs are less than 0.1 
percent of the average affected entity's payroll, and we conclude that 
it is reasonable to assume that such costs represent less than 0.1 
percent of sales for the average affected entity.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The memorandum titled Economic Impact and Small Business 
Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants: Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and New 
Source Performance Standards: Internal Combustion Engines; 
Electronic Reporting Amendment is available in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the results of the analysis, these economic impacts are 
relatively low for affected industries and entities impacted by this 
proposed rule, and there will not be substantial impacts on the markets 
for affected products. The costs of the proposed rule are not expected 
to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they 
are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.

[[Page 41367]]

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA is not making changes to the emission limits and estimates 
that the proposed requirements for electronic reporting are not 
economically significant. Because these proposed amendments are not 
considered economically significant, as defined by Executive Order 
12866, and because no emission reductions were projected, we are not 
estimating any benefits from reducing emissions.

V. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general 
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in any 
comments on the reporting template found in the docket for this action.
    The EPA also seeks comments on the provisions specifying that 
emergency engines can operate for up to 50 hours per year to mitigate 
local transmission and/or distribution limitations to avert potential 
voltage collapse or line overloads that could lead to the interruption 
of power supply in a local area or region. These provisions appear in 
the NESHAP \10\ and both NSPS \11\ and are often referred to as the 
``50-hour provisions.'' As background, both the NESHAP and NSPS have 
separate requirements for emergency engines and, in many cases, subject 
them to less stringent requirements compared to non-emergency engines. 
In addition, the rules also limit the allowable hours of operation for 
emergency engines in non-emergency situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 63.6640(f)(4)(ii).
    \11\ 40 CFR 60.4211(f)(3)(i), 40 CFR 60.4243(d)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013, the EPA finalized a rule that made changes to the 
stationary engine NESHAP and NSPS regarding limitations on the hours of 
operation of emergency engines (78 FR 6674; January 30, 2013). Prior to 
the 2013 amendments, emergency engines were restricted to 100 hours of 
operation per year for maintenance and testing, of which 15 could be 
used for emergency demand response (i.e., to help stabilize the 
electric grid during rare ``near-blackout'' situations). These 
provisions were often referred to as the ``emergency demand response'' 
or ``100-hour'' provisions. The 2013 rule continued to restrict 
emergency engines to a collective 100 hours of operation per year for 
maintenance, testing, or emergency demand response but removed the 15-
hour limit for emergency demand response. The 2013 rule specified that 
emergency engines can operate for up to 50 hours per year \12\ in non-
emergency situations (counted as part of the 100 hours discussed 
above), and that the 50 hours can be used to supply power as part of a 
financial arrangement with another entity (often referred to as the 
local system reliability or ``50-hour'' provisions) if the following 
conditions are met: the engine is dispatched by the local balancing 
authority or local transmission and distribution system operator; the 
dispatch is intended to mitigate local transmission and/or distribution 
limitations to avert potential voltage collapse or line overloads that 
could lead to the interruption of power supply in a local area or 
region; the dispatch follows reliability, emergency operation, or 
similar protocols that follow specific North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation (NERC), regional, State, public utility 
commission or local standards or guidelines; the power is provided only 
to the facility itself, or to support the local transmission and 
distribution system; and the owner or operator identifies and records 
the entity that dispatches the engine and the specific NERC, regional, 
State, public utility commission or local standards or guidelines that 
are being followed for dispatching the engine (the local balancing 
authority or local transmission and distribution system operator may 
keep these records on behalf of the engine owner or operator).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Note: For the NESHAP, the 50-hour provision only applies to 
engines at area sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitions for review of the final 2013 rule were filed. The EPA 
granted reconsideration of 50-hour provisions and the litigation over 
those provisions was severed from other challenges and put in abeyance. 
In 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the court) vacated and remanded the 100-hour provisions related to 
emergency demand response in Delaware Dep't of Nat. Res. & Env't 
Control v. EPA.\13\ The court found that the EPA inadequately responded 
to comments, relied on inadequate evidence to justify the 100-hour 
provision, failed to consider limiting the provision to areas not 
served by organized capacity markets, and failed to obtain the views of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or NERC on the 
reliability considerations upon which the EPA's exemption was 
based.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 785 F.3d 1.
    \14\ 785 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The EPA recently removed 
the vacated 100-hour provisions from the CFR via a ministerial 
action. 87 FR 48603 (August 10, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the adverse court decision on the 100-hour provisions, the 
EPA asked for and was granted a voluntary remand in the case 
challenging the 50-hour provisions. Conservation Law Foundation v. EPA, 
No. 13-1233, Doc. No. 1574665 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 23, 2015) (CLF). Our 
motion for voluntary remand \15\ noted that although ``EPA intended the 
50-hour provision to address a different need than the 100-hour 
provision--that of local electric reliability and distribution rather 
than grid reliability at the bulk power system level [and] EPA 
therefore required different conditions in order for the provision to 
be triggered,'' petitioners challenged the 50-hour rule for very 
similar reasons, namely that the EPA did not sufficiently respond to 
comments regarding the 50-hour provision's effects on the energy market 
and failed to consider alternatives for limiting the provision to areas 
most in need of the provision (i.e., rural areas), rather than applying 
nationwide. Id. Doc. No. 1560303 (June 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These court filings are also available at the EPA's website 
at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-engines/technical-documents-neshap-reciprocating-internal-combustion-engines-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners in CLF filed their briefs before the case was remanded, 
and the briefs included the following record-based arguments: the EPA's 
decision to apply the 50-hour provision on a national basis was 
arbitrary, capricious, and inadequately explained; the EPA's assertion 
that the 50-hour provision was needed for non-rural, more densely 
populated areas has no support in the record and is inconsistent with 
the EPA's stated justification for the provision; the EPA erred in 
refusing to apply the 50-hour provision solely in areas where it is 
needed and failed to consider suggestions for narrowly tailoring the 
provisions to such areas; and the EPA's analysis of the cost 
effectiveness of pollution controls was in error. Id. Doc. No. 1543351 
(March 19, 2015). Delaware made additional arguments concerning the 
EPA's authority both to revise the NSPS provisions and to promulgate 
the 50-hour provision under CAA section 112 (with respect to NESHAP). 
Id. Doc. No. 1543305 (March 19, 2015). The EPA indicated in recent 
status reports to the court that we intend to undertake a proceeding in 
the near future to revoke, revise, or justify the provision as 
appropriate.
    We have been engaged in evaluating the need for this provision, 
including by assessing how often, and under what circumstances, the 50-
hour provision is used by stakeholders.\16\ We also have

[[Page 41368]]

been considering whether there are potential revisions that would 
narrow the provision to ensure that it is limited to remote rural areas 
(if those are the only areas where it is needed) and to reduce 
uncertainty concerning the meaning of ``local balancing authority'' and 
``local transmission and distribution system operator,'' as well as how 
it can be determined that ``[t]he dispatch is intended to mitigate 
local transmission. . .''. Based on reported information, in the last 
few years, there appears to have been very little need for engines to 
operate for the purpose specified in the 50-hour provision. 
Stakeholders have suggested that there may have been usage of the 
provision that was not reported. However, the EPA has limited 
information to indicate that is the case. On the contrary, operation 
for the purpose specified in the 50-hour provision appears to be 
infrequent. In light of this limited information on current use and the 
court's vacatur of the 100-hour provision, it may be appropriate to 
eliminate the 50-hour provision, rather than seeking to revise it to 
tailor the provision more carefully to be consistent with its original 
rationale and the court's decision on the 100-hour provision. 
Therefore, in this proposal, we are also soliciting comment and 
information on the 50-hour provision as we consider whether to propose 
removing these provisions from the CFR or whether we should propose 
changes to the provision to be consistent with its original rationale 
and the court's decision on the 100-hour provision. In particular, we 
seek comment on what, if any, revisions could be made that would 
adequately respond to the issues raised in the record to date (e.g., 
with respect to narrowing the scope of the exemption) in a future 
rulemaking. In addition, we solicit comment on whether, if the EPA 
determines on remand, in light of the vacatur of the 100-hour provision 
and issues raised in the pending litigation, that the current 50-hour 
provision was improperly promulgated, the removal (or modification) of 
the 50-hour provisions from the NSPS should be effective for sources 
currently subject to the NSPS; or whether the EPA should treat the 
removal or modification of the 50-hour provision as a modification of 
the standard that only applies prospectively to sources that are new, 
modified, or reconstructed after the EPA proposes to remove the 50-hour 
provisions, within the meaning of CAA section 111(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This undertaking has involved review by the EPA of reports 
submitted electronically to the EPA, because use of the 50-hour 
provision has always been subject to an electronic reporting 
requirement. An annual report under either subpart IIII, JJJJ, or 
ZZZZ must be submitted electronically by any entity making use of 
the 50-hour provision using the subpart-specific reporting form to 
CEDRI. The public can access records of previously submitted reports 
using WebFIRE (https://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/reports/esearch.cfm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) documents 
that the EPA prepared have been assigned EPA ICR numbers 2196.08, 
2227.07, and 1975.12 for subparts IIII, JJJJ, and ZZZZ, respectively. 
You can find copies of the ICRs in the docket for this rulemaking, and 
they are briefly summarized here.
    The proposed amendments mainly add electronic reporting provisions 
to the rules. In general, the changes do not result in regulated 
entities needing to submit anything additional electronically that is 
not currently submitted via paper copies, and this is therefore 
expected to lessen the recordkeeping and reporting burden. The 
information is collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts IIII and JJJJ and 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of stationary 
reciprocating internal combustion engines at either a major or area 
source of HAP emissions (ZZZZ); existing and new manufacturers, owners, 
and operators of stationary compression ignition (CI) internal 
combustion engines (IIII); existing and new manufacturers, owners, and 
operators of stationary compression ignition (CI) internal combustion 
engines (JJJJ).
    Respondents' obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 915,781 (ZZZZ); 207,360 (IIII); 
19,835 (JJJJ).
    Frequency of response: Varies by rule and by type of response.
    Total estimated burden: (61,799) (ZZZZ); (95,928) (IIII); (1,144) 
(JJJJ) hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Note: 
parentheses indicate a reduction in burden, i.e., a reduced number of 
hours as a result of the proposed addition of electronic reporting to 
the rules.
    Total estimated cost: ($7,581,151) (ZZZZ); ($11,688,145) (IIII); 
($140,379) (JJJJ) (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or 
operation & maintenance costs. Note: parentheses indicate a reduction 
in cost as a result of the proposed addition of electronic reporting to 
the rules.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at 
the beginning of this rulemaking. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via 
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no 
later than July 26, 2023. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small 
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions and small non-profits 
across a range of sectors, including but not limited to: Electric power 
generation, transmission, or distribution; Medical and surgical 
hospitals; Natural gas transmission; Crude petroleum and natural gas 
production; Natural gas liquids producers; and National security. Due 
to a lack of sufficient data about the population of affected engines 
and facilities, the Agency is unable to identify the specific entities 
affected by this action, and therefore unable to determine the number 
of affected entities that are small entities. Although we cannot 
identify a list of specific entities, we expect that this proposed 
action will affect small entities.
    The proposed amendments to subparts IIII and JJJJ have estimated 
cost savings for respondents in each year.

[[Page 41369]]

We conducted analysis assessing the impacts of the costs associated 
with the proposed amendments to subpart ZZZZ. As shown in the 
supporting statement to subpart ZZZZ, this subpart has estimated costs 
of $32 per respondent in 1 year, and cost savings in following years. 
We estimate that this compliance cost of $32 per respondent is below a 
0.1 percent impact relative to payroll or sales for nearly all affected 
small entities, and that there is a large margin before the impacts 
would approach a 1 percent impact for a substantial number of small 
entities. Details of this analysis are presented in the memorandum 
titled Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Proposed 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reciprocating 
Internal Combustion Engines and New Source Performance Standards: 
Internal Combustion Engines; Electronic Reporting Amendments, which is 
available in the docket for this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action will 
reduce reporting costs for all sources, although we did estimate some 
initial costs (well under $100 million in the aggregate) for some 
sources.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. While some Tribes could be impacted by this 
amendment, this rulemaking would reduce the compliance costs for owners 
and operators of stationary engines. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations (people of color) and low-income 
populations.
    The EPA believes that this type of action does not concern human 
health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated 
with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on 
people of color, low-income populations and/or Indigenous peoples. This 
is because this action involves the addition of electronic reporting 
and therefore is not expected to change emissions.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-13445 Filed 6-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P