[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