Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines, 61563-61568 [2019-24335]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61563-61568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24335]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0851; FRL-10001-93-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU27


Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition 
Internal Combustion Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
amendments to the Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression 
Ignition Internal Combustion Engines. This final action revises the 
emission standards for particulate matter (PM) for new stationary 
compression ignition (CI) engines located in remote areas of Alaska.

DATES: The final rule is effective on November 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0851. All documents in the docket are 
listed in on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information 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 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the 
EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action, 
contact Melanie King, 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) 541-2469; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    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?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background and Final Amendments
III. Public Comments and Responses
IV. Impacts of the Final Rule
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
             Category               NAICS \1\ code   regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industries using stationary CI                2211  Electric power
 internal combustion engines.                        generation,
                                                     transmission, or
                                                     distribution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the 
final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your 
facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in 
the rule. 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 final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a

[[Page 61564]]

copy of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-engines/new-source-performance-standards-stationary-compression-ignition-internal-0. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will 
post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this 
same website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by January 13, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements 
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. That section of the CAA 
also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the 
person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that 
it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for 
public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the 
period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial 
review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of 
the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit 
a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background and Final Amendments

    On July 11, 2006, the EPA promulgated Standards of Performance for 
Stationary CI Internal Combustion Engines (71 FR 39154). These 
standards, known as new source performance standards (NSPS), implement 
section 111(b) of the CAA. The standards apply to new stationary 
sources of emissions, i.e., sources whose construction, reconstruction, 
or modification begins after a standard for those sources is proposed. 
The NSPS for Stationary CI Engines established limits on emissions of 
PM, nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and non-
methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). The emission standards for these 
stationary CI engines are generally modeled after the EPA's standards 
for nonroad CI engines (including standards for land-based nonroad CI 
engines and marine CI engines), which are types of mobile engines 
regulated under 40 CFR parts 89, 94, 1039, 1042, and 1068. In general, 
the NSPS for Stationary CI Engines, like the nonroad engine standards, 
are phased in over several years and have Tiers with increasing levels 
of stringency, with Tier 4 as the most stringent level. The engine 
model year in which the Tiers take effect varies for different size 
ranges of engines. The Tier 4 final standards for both new stationary 
non-emergency CI engines and nonroad CI engines generally began with 
either the 2014 or 2015 model year. The NSPS for Stationary CI Engines 
are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII.
    In 2011, the EPA finalized revisions to the NSPS for Stationary CI 
Engines (the ``2011 Amendments'') that amended the standards for 
engines located in remote areas of Alaska (76 FR 37954, June 28, 2011). 
As discussed in the 2011 rulemaking, the remote communities in Alaska 
rely almost exclusively on diesel engines for electricity and heat, and 
these engines need to be in working condition, particularly in the 
winter. These communities are scattered over long distances in remote 
areas and are not connected to population centers by road and/or power 
grid. Most of these communities are located in the most severe arctic 
environments in the United States. The 2011 Amendments allowed owners 
and operators of stationary CI engines located in remote areas of 
Alaska to use engines certified to marine CI engine standards, rather 
than land-based nonroad engine standards. The remote communities prefer 
to use marine CI engines because their design facilitates the use of 
heat recovery systems to provide heat to community facilities. The 2011 
Amendments also removed the requirements to meet Tier 4 emission 
standards for NOX, CO, and NMHC that would necessitate the 
use of selective catalytic reduction aftertreatment devices in light of 
issues associated with supply, storage, and use of the necessary 
chemical reductant (usually urea) in remote Alaska.\1\ For PM, the 2011 
Amendments specified that stationary CI engines located in remote areas 
of Alaska would not have to meet emission standards that would 
necessitate the use of aftertreatment devices until the 2014 model 
year. The aftertreatment technology that was expected to be used to 
meet the PM standards is a diesel particulate filter (DPF). The EPA 
expected that providing additional time to gain experience with use of 
DPFs would alleviate some of the concerns associated with feasibility 
and costs of installing and operating DPFs in remote villages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Remote areas of Alaska are defined in the Stationary CI 
Engine NSPS as those that either are not accessible by the Federal 
Aid Highway System (FAHS), or meet all of the following criteria: 
(1) The only connection to the FAHS is through the Alaska Marine 
Highway System, or the stationary CI engine operation is within an 
isolated grid in Alaska that is not connected to the statewide 
electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Grid; (2) at 
least 10 percent of the power generated by the stationary CI engine 
on an annual basis is used for residential purposes; and (3) the 
generating capacity of the source is less than 12 megawatts, or the 
stationary CI engine is used exclusively for backup power for 
renewable energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter to the EPA Administrator dated December 20, 2017, 
Governor Bill Walker of Alaska requested that the EPA rescind the PM 
emission standards based on aftertreatment for 2014 model year and 
later stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska. The letter 
stated that it is difficult to operate and maintain PM aftertreatment 
controls on stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska because of 
cost, complexity, and unreliability. According to the letter, utilities 
in remote areas have been installing used, remanufactured, and rebuilt 
pre-2014 model year engines in the remote areas to avoid the 
requirement to use PM aftertreatment, instead of installing new engines 
that meet the Tier 3 marine CI engine standards. The EPA's expectation 
that experience with use of DPFs would alleviate feasibility and cost 
concerns was not realized and the requirement that 2014 model year and 
later engines use DPFs had, in fact, resulted in use of older engines. 
The letter indicated that new engines certified to the Tier 3 marine CI 
engine standards are notably cleaner than the non-certified engines 
currently in use in remote areas of Alaska, due to advances in diesel 
engine electronic fuel injection and electronic governors.
    After receiving the letter from Governor Walker, the EPA contacted 
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Alaska 
Energy Authority (AEA) to obtain more information about the issues 
described in the letter. In particular, the EPA asked for information 
regarding the state's concerns about the cost, complexity, and 
reliability of DPFs, as

[[Page 61565]]

expressed in Governor Walker's letter. The EPA also asked for 
information on the number of stationary CI engines that are installed 
in remote areas of Alaska each year and whether any stationary CI 
engines with DPFs were currently operating in the remote areas. The AEA 
indicated that owners and operators of engines in rural communities 
have been delaying replacement of older engines because of the cost and 
concerns about having to install new engines with DPFs. As stated in 
Governor Walker's letter, the communities are using rebuilt older 
engines rather than installing new Tier 3 marine CI engines that would 
be lower-emitting and more efficient.
    As noted previously, the communities in remote areas of Alaska are 
not accessible by the FAHS and/or not connected to the statewide 
electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Grid. They are 
isolated, and most are located in the most severe arctic environments 
in the United States. It is critical for the engines in these 
communities to remain in working order because they are used for 
electricity and heating. Information provided by the AEA and engine 
dealers indicates that the costs for engine and control device 
maintenance and repair are much higher than for engines located 
elsewhere in the United States due to the remote location and severe 
arctic climate. Technicians must travel to the remote areas for service 
and repairs, and travel costs for technicians and shipping costs for 
parts are much higher than in other areas. Information provided by the 
AEA indicated that travel costs can include chartering aircraft and can 
be approximately $3,000-$4,000 per trip, in addition to daily labor 
costs.\2\ According to the information provided by AEA, a typical DPF 
service interval is 2,000 hours of operation, so approximately two 
service trips per year will be needed.\3\ The travel time can range 
from 25 to 99 percent of the total labor invested in a job.\4\ In 
addition to increased maintenance costs, a control device vendor 
indicated that costs for DPF installation on an engine in remote areas 
of Alaska can be more than double the costs for an engine in Texas.\5\ 
The remote communities also have a shortage of operators who are 
trained for the DPF equipment. Typically, the filter element must be 
periodically removed, and the accumulated ash must be cleaned from the 
filter and captured. The AEA indicates that few communities have the 
technical capacity to perform the necessary cleaning procedures for 
DPFs. Technicians would have to travel to the communities to perform 
DPF maintenance, resulting in additional DPF maintenance costs from 
more frequent travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Letter from Ben Hopkins, General Manager Kaktovik 
Enterprises LLC to Janet Reiser, Executive Director, AEA, June 11, 
2018. Available in the rulemaking docket.
    \3\ Email from David Lockard, AEA to Robert Klepp et al. FW: 
Estimated DPF Capital and Operating Costs. October 26, 2018. 
Available in the rulemaking docket.
    \4\ Letter from Bill Mossey, President, Pacific Power Group to 
Janet Reiser, Executive Director, AEA. August 10, 2018. Available in 
the rulemaking docket.
    \5\ Email from Marc Rost, Johnson Matthey to Melanie King, U.S. 
EPA. Estimated DPF Capital and Operating Costs. November 19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the AEA, experience with the use of DPFs in remote 
areas of Alaska is very limited. The AEA was aware of only one remote 
community that had installed DPFs on two engines in a power plant. The 
DPFs were installed in April 2018, so there has not been experience 
with the long-term operation of the engines and DPFs. The AEA noted 
that, rather than having the emission controls integrated with the 
certified engine, as is typical for Tier 4 CI engines, the remote 
communities will have to purchase Tier 3 marine CI engines and equip 
them with DPFs that may come from third parties. The DPFs would not be 
integrated into the engine's computer system, which may increase the 
likelihood of problems occuring that could cause the engine to shut 
down. As stated previously, the engines are generally used for heating 
in the villages, so unexpected engine shutdowns could cause life safety 
issues. Providers of engines and emission controls in Alaska noted that 
they have experienced operational issues with Tier 4 nonroad and 
stationary CI engines with DPFs in other areas of Alaska, even when the 
controls were integrated with the engine by the original equipment 
manufacturer. For example, one provider noted that he serviced two Tier 
4 stationary CI engines that required numerous service calls and the 
addition of a parasitic load bank to maintain exhaust temperatures high 
enough for DPF regeneration, which increased fuel consumption and 
operating costs.\6\ Another provider stated that it sold a number of 
Tier 4 nonroad CI engines equipped with DPFs that met extensive factory 
tests for reliability and durability, but experienced numerous problems 
with regeneration of the DPF once they were in-use by operators.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Summary of April 17, 2018, meeting between the EPA and the 
AEA to discuss Governor Walker's request for regulatory relief. 
Available in the rulemaking docket.
    \7\ Letter from Bill Mossey, President, Pacific Power Group to 
Janet Reiser, Executive Director, AEA. August 10, 2018. Available in 
the rulemaking docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering all of the information provided, including 
information provided on the lack of experience with and higher costs 
associated with the use of DPFs on engines in remote areas of Alaska, 
the potential for operational issues, and emission reductions expected 
if the disincentive to replacing old engines is eliminated, the EPA has 
determined that the use of DPFs is not adequately demonstrated in 
remote areas of Alaska. On July 5, 2019, the EPA issued a direct final 
rule (84 FR 32084) and a parallel proposed rule (84 FR 32114) to revise 
the provision in 40 CFR 60.4216 for 2014 model year and later 
stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska. After considering the 
public comments received, the EPA is finalizing the amendment that was 
proposed. The EPA is amending the provision in 40 CFR 60.4216 to 
specify that 2014 model year and later stationary CI engines in remote 
areas of Alaska must be certified to Tier 3 PM standards. The EPA has 
determined that the Tier 3 PM standards reflect the best system of 
emission reduction (BSER) that has been adequately demonstrated. The 
Tier 3 PM standards will limit emissions of PM to levels significantly 
below those of the older uncertified engines currently in use in many 
of the remote communities.
    This final action revising the NSPS for Stationary CI Engines also 
satisfies EPA's obligation under the recently enacted Alaska Remote 
Generator Reliability and Protection Act, Public Law 116-62 (October 4, 
2019), to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 60.4216(c) that stationary 
CI engines in remote areas of Alaska meet the Tier 4 PM standard and 
replace it with a requirement that those engines meet the Tier 3 PM 
standard.

III. Public Comments and Responses

    This section presents a summary of the public comments received on 
the proposed amendments and the responses developed. The EPA received 
two public comments on the proposed rule. The comments can be obtained 
online from the Federal Docket Management System at https://www.regulations.gov/.
    Comment: One commenter stated that there was no need to relax air 
quality standards and no need for diesel generation anywhere in Alaska.

[[Page 61566]]

According to the commenter, there are opportunities for generation 
using hydropower in combination with transmission, and the commenter 
has a low-head hydroelectric generation design. The commenter indicated 
that a demonstration site has been operating in Ontario since 1988.
    Response: The commenter did not provide any support for the 
assertion that replacing diesel generation with hydropower generation 
in remote areas of Alaska would be feasible on either a technical or 
economic basis and could provide continuous power for the remote areas. 
The commenter did not provide information to demonstrate that the 
communities in remote areas of Alaska are near potential sources of 
hydropower or that transmission to such communities from any potential 
sources of hydropower would be feasible. The commenter conceded that 
some transmission would be required, but did not provide any 
information regarding the cost or feasibility of installing the 
transmission infrastructure from a theoretical source of hydropower to 
a community in remote Alaska. In addition, as noted in the 2011 
Amendments, heat recovery systems are used with diesel engines in 
remote Alaskan communities to provide heat to community facilities and 
schools. The commenter did not provide information to show how that 
heat would be generated if the diesel engines are replaced by 
hydropower generation. Further, the commenter does not explain how the 
potential for hydroelectric power in remote Alaska is relevant to the 
EPA's determination that Tier 3 CI engines are the BSER that has been 
adequately demonstrated. In doing the analysis of the BSER for new 
stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska, we considered 
adequately demonstrated controls that can be applied to the source, not 
complete replacement of the source with a different means of generating 
power and heat.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should not repeal the 
DPF requirements for remote areas of Alaska. The commenter recommended 
that the EPA provide the remote areas of Alaska with an extension to 
allow further time for those areas to gain experience with DPFs and 
provide training to people in the communities. The commenter indicated 
that the EPA should formally designate the remote areas on a map or in 
a list so that communities know what requirements are necessary. The 
commenter recommended that the EPA use the grant process specified in 
section 105 of the CAA to provide Alaska with funding for pilot 
programs to help communities gain experience in installing and 
operating DPFs and to allow them to install DPFs if the costs are too 
high.
    The commenter disagreed that Tier 4 CI engines will require greater 
costs due to service and repair trips to remote locations. According to 
the commenter, any engine, including a Tier 4 CI engine, will require 
the same costs for trips for maintenance, service, and repairs. 
Regarding concerns over proper disposal of DPF ash and used filters, 
the commenter said that the engines without DPFs will emit the 
hazardous metallics into the atmosphere, and the EPA should compare the 
health consequences of these emissions with the benefits of capturing 
and properly disposing of the ash and the filter. The commenter stated 
that the EPA should promote innovation and environmental and health 
protection for remote areas of Alaska, which are typically home to 
lower income individuals and minorities according to the commenter.
    Response: Regarding the comment that the EPA should provide an 
extension to provide more time for remote communities to gain 
experience with the use of DPF, the EPA already provided an extension 
for that purpose in the 2011 rulemaking, and as explained above, the 
EPA's expectation that experience with the use of DPFs would alleviate 
feasibility and cost concerns was not realized. Instead, the 
requirement that model year 2014 and later engines use DPFs has, in 
fact, resulted in the use of older engines. Further, in light of the 
information the EPA received from Governor Walker, the Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation and the AEA, as explained 
above, the EPA has determined that Tier 3 CI engines are the BSER and 
does not believe it is appropriate to retain a requirement that would 
necessitate the use of a DPF even if additional time is provided to 
meet that requirement. If more experience is gained with the use of 
DPFs in remote areas of Alaska, the EPA will consider that information 
when it next reviews the standards under section 111(b)(1)(B) of the 
CAA.
    Regarding the comment that the EPA should formally designate the 
areas that are remote on a map or list them somewhere so that 
communities know what requirements are necessary, the criteria for 
qualifying as a remote area of Alaska in the regulation is not always 
based solely on geographical location. In some cases, the criteria 
include other factors such as the generating capacity of the source, so 
a map would not be sufficient for determining applicability. 
Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the owner or operator of 
stationary CI engines subject to the regulation to determine 
applicability for specific engines.
    In response to the comment that the EPA should use a grant process 
to help communities gain experience with implementing the Tier 4 
standards, although the EPA supports the idea of communities becoming 
proficient in operating and maintaining DPFs, the potential 
availability of grants does not change our determination that the use 
of DPFs is not currently BSER in remote areas of Alaska.
    Information on the higher costs in remote areas of Alaska for 
engine and control device maintenance and repair provided by engine and 
catalyst dealers is included in the docket for this rulemaking and 
summarized earlier in this preamble. The commenter asserted that this 
information was false and that the cost of traveling to the engine 
location for service and repairs will be the same for any engine. It is 
true that the cost of engine technician travel per trip would be the 
same regardless of the type of engine. However, there would likely be 
increased frequency of travel associated with engines equipped with 
DPFs to allow engine technicians to perform the maintenance required 
for the DPFs, since the communities reportedly do not have the 
capability of performing the maintenance on their own. Therefore, the 
overall maintenance costs could be higher than for an engine not 
equipped with a DPF.
    Regarding the comment concerning the health consequences of air 
emissions and the benefits of capturing and properly disposing of the 
ash collected by the DPF, the EPA has considered the health impacts 
associated with this final action. As stated previously in this 
preamble, utilities in the remote areas have been installing used, 
remanufactured, and rebuilt pre-model year 2014 engines, instead of 
installing new engines that meet the Tier 3 CI engine standards. 
According to the AEA, if these amendments are not finalized, higher 
emitting engines will likely continue to operate in the remote 
communities. Replacing the higher emitting engines with engines meeting 
the Tier 3 CI engine standards and that use ultra low sulfur diesel 
fuel will result in health and environmental protections for the remote 
communities.

IV. Impacts of the Final Rule

    A detailed discussion of the impacts of these amendments can be 
found in the Impacts of the Amendments to the NSPS for Stationary 
Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines

[[Page 61567]]

memorandum, which is available in the docket for this action. That 
memorandum was written for the proposed rule and direct final rule, and 
the estimates of the impacts did not change for the final rule.
    In the original 2006 rulemaking, the EPA assumed that, even in the 
absence of the NSPS, emissions from stationary CI engines would be 
reduced to the same emission levels as nonroad CI engines through Tier 
3, because engine manufacturers frequently use the same engine in both 
nonroad and stationary applications. Emission reductions and costs were 
only estimated for the difference between compliance with the Tier 3 
standard and compliance with the Tier 4 standard in the original 
rulemaking.\8\ Using a similar assumption, the foregone PM reductions 
and costs from these amendments are calculated based on the difference 
in emissions between the engines that are expected to be used once 
these amendments are finalized, which are Tier 3 marine CI engines 
because of heat recovery abilities of marine engines, and the engines 
currently required by the regulations (known as the baseline), which 
are Tier 3 nonroad CI engines (either land-nonroad or marine) with a 
DPF. If the baseline is assumed to be a Tier 3 land-based nonroad CI 
engine with a DPF, then the foregone PM reductions, based on the 
difference between a Tier 3 marine CI engine and a Tier 3 land-based 
nonroad CI engine with a DPF, are 5.3 tons per year in the first year 
after the amendments. In the fifth year after the amendments, the 
foregone PM reductions would be 27 tons of PM per year, assuming the 
number of new engines installed each year remains constant. If the 
baseline is assumed to be a Tier 3 marine CI engine with a DPF, 
foregone PM reductions are 6.6 tons of PM per year in the first year 
and 33 tons of PM in the fifth year. The cost savings in the fifth year 
after the amendments are estimated to be approximately $8.0 million 
(2017 dollars). The cost savings are the same for either baseline (Tier 
3 land-based nonroad or Tier 3 marine). We also show the cost savings 
using a present value (PV) in adherence to Executive Order 13771. The 
PV of the cost savings is estimated in 2016 dollars as $322.9 million 
at a discount rate of 3 percent and $111.2 million at a discount rate 
of 7 percent. Finally, the annualized cost savings over time can be 
shown as an equivalent annualized value (EAV), a value calculated 
consistent with the PV. The EAV of the cost savings is estimated in 
2016 dollars as $9.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $7.8 
million at a discount rate of 7 percent. All of these PV and EAV 
estimates are discounted to 2016 and assume an indefinite time period 
after promulgation for their calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Emission Reduction Associated with NSPS for Stationary CI 
ICE. Memorandum from Tanya Parise, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc. to 
Jaime Pag[aacute]n, EPA Energy Strategies Group. May 19, 2006. 
Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029-0288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note that the AEA has indicated that owners and operators of 
engines in remote communities have been delaying replacement of older 
engines because of the cost and concerns about having to install new 
engines with DPFs. Thus, the costs and additional PM emission 
reductions from engines installed in 2014 and later have not been 
occurring as expected when the rule was originally issued in 2006. 
According to the AEA, if these amendments are not finalized, the remote 
communities will likely continue delaying replacement of older engines 
and will not receive the benefits of the reduced PM emissions that will 
occur if the older engines are replaced by new Tier 3 CI engines. 
Replacing an older engine with an engine meeting the Tier 3 CI engine 
emission standard results in a significant reduction in PM emissions 
compared to the older engine's emissions. For example, for a 238 
horsepower (HP) engine, PM emissions from a Tier 3 marine CI engine are 
reduced by 80 percent from a Tier 0 \9\ engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Tier 0 signifies an engine built between 1988 and the first 
model year in which the Tier 1 standards took effect, which is 1996 
for a 238 HP engine. See Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for 
Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b, EPA-420-R-18-
009, July 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. 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. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be 
found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits 
associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0590. This action does not impose an information 
collection burden because the EPA is not making any changes to the 
information collection requirements.

D. 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. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no 
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. This action reduces the impact of the 
rule on owners and operators of stationary CI engines located in remote 
areas of Alaska. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will 
relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

E. 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. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

F. 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.

G. 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 Native Alaskan tribes and villages 
could be impacted by this amendment, this rule would reduce the 
compliance costs for

[[Page 61568]]

owners and operators of stationary CI engines in remote areas of 
Alaska. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    While some Native Alaskan tribes and villages could be impacted by 
this amendment, the EPA believes that this action does not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or 
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994). The amendments will not have a significant effect 
on emissions and will likely remove barriers to the installation of 
new, lower emission engines in remote communities.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 30, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 60 is 
amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart IIII--Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression 
Ignition Internal Combustion Engines

0
2. Section 60.4216 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  60.4216   What requirements must I meet for engines used in 
Alaska?

* * * * *
    (c) Manufacturers, owners, and operators of stationary CI ICE that 
are located in remote areas of Alaska may choose to meet the applicable 
emission standards for emergency engines in Sec. Sec.  60.4202 and 
60.4205, and not those for non-emergency engines in Sec. Sec.  60.4201 
and 60.4204, except that for 2014 model year and later non-emergency CI 
ICE, the owner or operator of any such engine must have that engine 
certified as meeting at least the Tier 3 PM standards in 40 CFR 89.112 
or 40 CFR 1042.101.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-24335 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P