National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and New Source Performance Standards: Internal Combustion Engines; Electronic Reporting, 41361-41369 [2023-13445]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
neighboring SO2 sources, support EPA’s
proposed finding that Eastman
Chemical will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in Kentucky, North Carolina,
and Virginia; and modeling for DRR
sources within 50 km of Tennessee’s
border both within the State and located
in other states demonstrate that
Tennessee’s largest point sources of SO2
are not expected to interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state. Based on these
factors described above, in addition to
the analysis provided by Tennessee in
its SIP submission and supplemented
on November 30, 2021, with revised
modeling for Eastman Chemical, and
EPA’s prong 1 analysis of the factors
described in section III.C and III.D of
this notice, EPA proposes to find that
emission sources within Tennessee will
not interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
IV. Proposed Action
Based on the above analysis, EPA is
proposing to approve Tennessee’s July
31, 2019, SIP submission. This
determination is based on EPA’s
independent evaluation, including as
supplemented by the revised modeling
for Eastman Chemical, as demonstrating
that emissions from Tennessee will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies
to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
TDEC did not evaluate EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and
did not consider EJ in this proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41361
action. Due to the nature of the action
proposed here, this proposed action is
expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required
as part of this proposed action, and
there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O.
12898 of achieving EJ for people of
color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023–13470 Filed 6–23–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
41362
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
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–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
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: werner.christopher@epa.gov.
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
SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. 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
SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov. 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/stationaryengines/.
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
SPPDpublichearing@epa.gov to
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 preregister 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
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 oaqpscbi@epa.gov, 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 oaqpscbi@epa.gov
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41363
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
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41364
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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?
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
1 https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
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.
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).
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
2 See 60.4214d3_annual_report_bulk_upload_
template_ICRDraft.xlsx, 60.4245e3_annual_report_
bulk_upload_template_ICRDraft.xlsx, and
§ 63.6650_h_and_i Compliance Report Template_
ICRDraft.xlsm, available at Docket ID. No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2022–0879.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 agencywide 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.
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
3 EPA’s Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective
Reviews, August 2011. Available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA2011-0156-0154.
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-201309-30.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/digitalgovernment.html.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41365
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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’’
Model
year(s)
Maximum engine power
KW<8 (HP<11) ..............................................................................................
KW<8 (HP<11) ..............................................................................................
8≤KW<19 (11≤HP<25) ..................................................................................
8≤KW<19 (11≤HP<25) ..................................................................................
19≤KW<37 (25≤HP<50) ................................................................................
19≤KW<37 (25≤HP<50) ................................................................................
37≤KW<56 (50≤HP<75) ................................................................................
37≤KW<56 (50≤HP<75) ................................................................................
56≤KW<75 (75≤HP<100) ..............................................................................
56≤KW<75 (75≤HP<100) ..............................................................................
75≤KW<130 (100≤HP<175) ..........................................................................
75≤KW<130 (100≤HP<175) ..........................................................................
130≤KW<225 (175≤HP<300) ........................................................................
130≤KW<225 (175≤HP<300) ........................................................................
225≤KW<450 (300≤HP<600) ........................................................................
225≤KW<450 (300≤HP<600) ........................................................................
450≤KW≤560 (600≤HP≤750) ........................................................................
450≤KW≤560 (600≤HP≤750) ........................................................................
KW>560 (HP>750) ........................................................................................
KW>560 (HP>750) ........................................................................................
2010
2011
2010
2011
2010
2011
2010
2011
2010
2011
2009
2010
2008
2009
2008
2009
2008
2009
2007
2008
NMHC + NOX
CO
10.5
7.5
9.5
7.5
9.5
7.5
10.5
4.7
10.5
4.7
10.5
4.0
10.5
4.0
10.5
4.0
10.5
4.0
10.5
6.4
8.0
8.0
6.6
6.6
5.5
5.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
and earlier .....
+ ....................
and earlier ....
+ ....................
and earlier .....
+ ....................
and earlier .....
+1 ..................
and earlier ....
+ 1 .................
and earlier .....
+ 2 .................
and earlier ....
+ 3 .................
and earlier ....
+ 3 .................
and earlier ....
+ ....................
and earlier .....
+ ....................
(7.8)
(5.6)
(7.1)
(5.6)
(7.1)
(5.6)
(7.8)
(3.5)
(7.8)
(3.5)
(7.8)
(3.0)
(7.8)
(3.0)
(7.8)
(3.0)
(7.8)
(3.0)
(7.8)
(4.8)
PM
(6.0)
(6.0)
(4.9)
(4.9)
(4.1)
(4.1)
(3.7)
(3.7)
(3.7)
(3.7)
(3.7)
(3.7)
(2.6)
(2.6)
(2.6)
(2.6)
(2.6)
(2.6)
(2.6)
(2.6)
1.0
0.40
0.80
0.40
0.80
0.30
0.80
0.40
0.80
0.40
0.80
0.30
0.54
0.20
0.54
0.20
0.54
0.20
0.54
0.20
(0.75)
(0.30)
(0.60)
(0.30)
(0.60)
(0.22)
(0.60)
(0.30)
(0.60)
(0.30)
(0.60)
(0.22)
(0.40)
(0.15)
(0.40)
(0.15)
(0.40)
(0.15)
(0.40)
(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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 § 63.6625(j)
were inadvertently not made. Therefore,
the current version of § 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 § 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.
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
6 78
FR 6709 (January 30, 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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
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 nonemergency 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.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
41366
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 nonemergency situations.
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 ‘‘nearblackout’’ 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
10 40
CFR 63.6640(f)(4)(ii).
CFR 60.4211(f)(3)(i), 40 CFR
60.4243(d)(3)(i).
11 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
41367
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).
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
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 50hour 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 100hour 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).
Petitioners in CLF filed their briefs
before the case was remanded, and the
briefs included the following recordbased 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 50hour 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
12 Note: For the NESHAP, the 50-hour provision
only applies to engines at area sources.
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).
15 These court filings are also available at the
EPA’s website at: https://www.epa.gov/stationaryengines/technical-documents-neshap-reciprocatinginternal-combustion-engines-0.
16 This undertaking has involved review by the
EPA of reports submitted electronically to the EPA,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
Continued
26JNP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
41368
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
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).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/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)
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 OIRA_submission@
omb.eop.gov, 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 ICRrelated 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.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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 lowincome 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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:50 Jun 23, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41369
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60 and 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0730; FRL–9327–03–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AU71
New Source Performance Standards
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry and
Group I & II Polymers and Resins
Industry; Extension of Comment
Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
public comment period.
AGENCY:
On April 25, 2023, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed a rule titled ‘‘New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry and Group I &
II Polymers and Resins Industry.’’ The
EPA is extending the comment period
on this proposed rule that currently
closes on June 26, 2023, by 11 days. The
comment period will now remain open
until July 7, 2023, to allow additional
time for stakeholders to review and
comment on the proposal.
DATES: The public comment period for
the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register (FR) on April 25, 2023
(88 FR 25080), originally ending June
26, 2023, is being extended by 11 days.
Written comments must now be
received on or before July 7, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2022–0730, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2022–0730 in the subject line of the
message.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–
0730.
• Mail: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–
0730, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20460.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
]]>Agencies
[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
