[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32084-32088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14372]



[[Page 32084]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0851; FRL-9992-21-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU27


Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition 
Internal Combustion Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking 
direct final action to promulgate amendments to the Standards of 
Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion 
Engines. This direct 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 direct final rule is effective on October 3, 2019, without 
further notice, unless the EPA receives significant adverse written 
comment by August 5, 2019 on the amendments, or if a public hearing is 
requested by July 10, 2019. If significant adverse comments are 
received on any or all of the amendments, the EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register clarifying which provisions will 
become effective and which provisions are being withdrawn due to 
adverse comment.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0851, 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-2018-0851 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0851.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0851, 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 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: king.melanie@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. 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 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 
Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC. 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.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0851. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This 
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
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 (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    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 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. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. 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, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then 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 Instructions 
above. 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. Information not marked as CBI will be

[[Page 32085]]

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 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI 
only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-
02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0851.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
II. Background and Final Rule
III. Impacts of the Final Rule
IV. 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

    The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior 
proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and do 
not anticipate significant adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed 
Rules'' section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate 
document that will serve as the proposed rule to amend the Standards of 
Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion 
Engines, if the EPA receives significant adverse comments on this 
direct final rule. EPA does not intend to institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so 
at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, 
see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If the EPA receives 
significant adverse comment on all or a distinct portion of this direct 
final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register 
informing the public that some or all of this direct final rule will 
not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent 
final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Background and Final Rule

    On July 11, 2006, the EPA promulgated Standards of Performance for 
Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines (71 FR 
39154). These standards, known as new source performance standards 
(NSPS), implement section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. 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 Internal 
Combustion Engines established limits on emissions of PM, nitrogen 
oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO) and non-methane 
hydrocarbons (NMHC). The emission standards are generally modeled after 
the EPA's standards for nonroad and marine diesel engines. The emission 
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 new 
stationary non-emergency and nonroad CI engines generally began with 
either the 2014 or 2015 model year. The standards 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). The 2011 
Amendments allowed owners and operators of stationary CI engines 
located in remote areas of Alaska to use engines certified to marine 
engine standards, rather than land-based nonroad engine standards. 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 (SCR) aftertreatment devices in 
light of issues associated with supply, storage, and use of the 
necessary chemical reductant (usually urea) in remote Alaska.\1\ 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 costs for acquisition, operation, and 
maintenance of SCR aftertreatment controls are greater than for engines 
located elsewhere in the United States due to the remote location and 
severe arctic climate of the villages. The aftertreatment controls had 
not been tested in remote arctic climates, and engine owners and 
operates were concerned that there could be operational problems with 
the SCR aftertreatment systems in the remote arctic climates that could 
prevent stationary CI engines from functioning properly, especially 
since the majority of small power plants in remote areas are unstaffed. 
Given these concerns and the higher costs for SCR aftertreatment 
systems in the remote areas, the EPA determined in the 2011 Amendments 
that it would not be appropriate to require new stationary CI engines 
in remote areas of Alaska to meet emission standards for 
NOX, CO, and NMHC that are based on the use of SCR 
aftertreatment devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 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

[[Page 32086]]

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 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 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 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 marine Tier 3 engines that 
would be lower-emitting and more efficient.
    As noted previously, the communities in remote areas of Alaska are 
not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System 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 
the communities to remain in working order since the engines are used 
for electricity and heating. Information provided by the AEA and engine 
dealers indicates that 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\ The travel time can range from 25 to 99 percent of the total 
labor invested in a job.\3\ 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.\4\ 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. Another concern related to the remote 
location is the difficulty and expense associated with proper disposal 
of the ash collected by the DPF and used filters in hazardous waste 
disposal facilities. The ash can contain metallic oxides which are 
hazardous to the environment or to public health.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Letter from Ben Hopkins, General Manager Kaktovik 
Enterprises LLC to Janet Reiser, Executive Director, Alaska Energy 
Authority, June 11, 2018. Available in the rulemaking docket.
    \3\ Letter from Bill Mossey, President, Pacific Power Group to 
Janet Reiser, Executive Director, AEA. August 10, 2018. Available in 
the rulemaking docket.
    \4\ Email from Marc Rost, Johnson Matthey to Melanie King, U.S. 
EPA. Estimated DPF Capital and Operating Costs. November 19, 2018.
    \5\ Technical Bulletin on Diesel Particulate Filter Ash 
Disposal. EPA National Clean Diesel Campaign. EPA-420-F-09-010. 
February 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 has 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 engines, the remote 
communities will have to purchase Tier 3 marine certified engines and 
equip the engines with DPFs that may come from third parties and are 
not 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 nonroad and stationary 
Tier 4 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 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 they sold a number of nonroad 
Tier 4 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 the 
information provided on the lack of experience with the use of DPFs on 
engines in remote areas of Alaska, the potential for operational 
issues, and the higher costs, the EPA has determined that such use of 
DPFs is not adequately demonstrated and is revising the provision in 40 
CFR 60.4216 for 2014 model year and later stationary CI engines in 
remote areas of Alaska. The EPA is amending the provision to specify 
that 2014 model year and later stationary CI engines in remote areas of 
Alaska must be certified to Tier 3 p.m. standards. The EPA has 
determined that the Tier 3 standards reflect the best system of 
emission reduction that has been adequately demonstrated. The Tier 3 
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.

III. 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 memorandum, which is 
available in the

[[Page 32087]]

docket for this action. In the original 2006 rulemaking, the EPA 
assumed that even in the absence of the NSPS, emissions from stationary 
engines would be reduced to the same emission levels as nonroad engines 
through Tier 3, since 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 
engines, and the engines currently required by the regulations (known 
as the baseline), which are Tier 3 engines (either nonroad or marine) 
with a DPF. If the baseline is assumed to be a Tier 3 nonroad engine 
with a DPF, then the foregone PM reductions based on the difference 
between a Tier 3 marine engine and a Tier 3 nonroad 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 Tier 3 marine 
with DPF, the difference between the Tier 3 marine emissions and the 
Tier 3 marine with DPF emissions is 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). 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 engines. 
Replacing an older engine with an engine meeting the Tier 3 marine 
emission standard results in a significant reduction in PM emissions 
compared to the Tier 0 engine emissions. For example, for a 238 
horsepower engine, PM emissions from a Tier 3 marine engine are reduced 
by 80 percent from a Tier 0 nonroad engine.

IV. 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.

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 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

[[Page 32088]]

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: June 27, 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 Tier 3 p.m. standards.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-14372 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


