# Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines At or Above 30 Liters/Cylinder

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-11736

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** May 29, 2002
- **Citation:** 67 FR 37548

## Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 94
[AMS-FRL-7207-3]
RIN 2060-AJ98
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines At or Above 30 Liters/Cylinder

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

In this action, we are proposing emission standards for new marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder and 2.5 to 30 liters per cylinder on U.S. vessels. Marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder are very large marine engines used primarily for propulsion power on ocean-going vessels such as container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships. The vessels that use these engines are flagged in the United States and in other countries. Nationwide, these engines contribute to ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment and to ambient particulate matter levels, particularly in commercial ports and along coastal areas.

We are proposing emission controls for these engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder on U.S. vessels. We are proposing a first tier that is equivalent to the internationally negotiated oxides of nitrogen standards and would be enforceable under U.S. law for new engines built in 2004 and later. We are also considering adoption of a subsequent second tier of standards, which would reflect additional reductions that can be achieved through engine-based controls, and would apply to new engines built after 2006 or later. In addition, we are proposing voluntary low-emission engine standards that reflect advanced oxides of nitrogen emission-control technologies. Meeting these standards would likely require the use of technologies such as selective catalyst reduction or fuel cells. If the second tier is promulgated, we would review the second tier standards prior to their effective date to take into consideration continued development of new technologies, such as selective catalyst reduction and water-based emission reduction techniques, and international activity such as action at the International Maritime Organization to set more stringent international standards. Consistent with these factors, EPA is also considering not adopting Tier 2 standards in this rulemaking, and instead establishing a schedule for a future rulemaking and addressing Tier 2 standards in that future rulemaking.

Emissions from all marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder, regardless of flag of registry, currently account for about 1.5 percent of national mobile source oxides of nitrogen emissions. This contribution can be significantly higher on a port-specific basis (5 to 25 percent of mobile source emissions in certain key ports by the year 2020). The standards discussed in this notice, which would apply only to new engines on U.S. flag vessels, are expected to reduce these national emissions by about 11 percent by 2030.

The contribution of these engines to national mobile source hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide inventories is small, less than 0.1 percent, and we are considering standards to ensure that these emissions do not increase on a engine-specific basis. The contribution of these engines to the national mobile source particulate matter inventory is about 2.6 percent. Reductions in particulate emissions could be obtained from setting a sulfur content standard for the fuels that are used by these engines, and we request comment on whether we should adopt such standards and, if so, the level of sulfur that should be allowed.

We are also proposing new requirements for engines at or above 2.5 liters per cylinder but less than 30 liters per cylinder. The Tier 2 standards finalized for these engines in our 1999 commercial marine diesel engine rule apply beginning in 2007. Until then, engine manufacturers are encouraged to voluntarily comply with the Tier 1 standards, which are equivalent to the internationally negotiated NO
X
standards. The international NO
X
standards are not yet enforceable. Given that they have not yet entered into force, we believe it is appropriate to begin to require engine manufacturers to certify these engines to the Tier 1 standards, starting in 2004. We are also proposing to eliminate the foreign trade exemption for all marine diesel engines, which was available for engines installed on vessels that spend less than 25 percent of total operating time with 320 kilometers of U.S. territory.

The proposed standards would apply to engines installed on vessels flagged in the United States. Recognizing that foreign-flag vessels constitute a significant portion of emissions from these engines, we are seeking comment on whether the proposed standards and existing Category 1 and Category 2 standards should also apply to marine engines on foreign vessels entering U.S. ports and to no longer exclude such foreign vessels from the emission standards. If we were to determine that the standards should apply to engines on foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports, then all emission standards for marine diesel engines would apply, including those we finalized for marine diesel engines less than 30 liters per cylinder in our 1999 rule.

DATES:

Comments:
Send written comments on this proposed rule by July 16, 2002. See Section IX.A of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
for more information about written comments.

Hearing:
We will hold a public hearing on June 13, 2002 in Long Beach, California. See Section IX.B of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
for more information about the public hearing.

ADDRESSES:

Comments:
You may send written comments in paper form or by e-mail. We must receive them by the date indicated under
DATES
above. Send paper copies of written comments (in duplicate, if possible) to the contact person listed below. You may also submit comments via e-mail to
“c3marine@epa.gov.”
In your correspondence, refer to Docket A-2001-11. See Section IX.A for more information on comment procedures.

Docket:
EPA's Air Docket makes materials related to this rulemaking available for review in Public Docket A-2001-11 at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room M-1500 (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460 between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by telephone at (202)260-7548, and by facsimile at (202)260-4400. We may charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2.

Hearing:
We will hold a public hearing at the Hyatt Regency, 200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach, California, 90802 (562) 491-1234. If you want to testify at the hearing, notify the contact person listed below at least ten days before the date of the hearing. See Section IX.B for more information on the public hearing procedures.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone (734)214-4334; Fax: (734)214-4816, E-mail:
borushko.margaret@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Affected Entities

This proposed action would affect companies and persons that manufacture, sell, or import into the

United States new marine compression-ignition engines for use on vessels flagged or registered in the United States; companies and persons that make vessels that will be flagged or registered in the United States and that use such engines; and the owners/operators of such U.S.-flag vessels. We are inviting comment on including foreign flagged vessels. Further requirements apply to companies and persons that rebuild or maintain these engines. Affected categories and entities include:

Category

NAICS code
a

Examples of potentially affected entities

Industry
333618
Manufacturers of new marine diesel engines.

Industry
336611
Manufacturers of marine vessels.

Industry
811310
Engine repair and maintenance.

Industry
483
Water transportation, freight and passenger.

Industry
324110
Petroleum refineries.

Industry

422710
422720

Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; Petroleum and Petroleum Products Wholesalers.

a
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether particular activities may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the proposed regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person listed in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
.

Additional Information About This Rulemaking

Emission standards for new marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder were considered by EPA in two previous rulemakings, in 1996 and in 1999. The notice of proposed rulemaking for the first rule (for the control of air pollution from new gasoline spark-ignition and diesel compression-ignition marine engines) can be found at 59 FR 55930 (November 1994); a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking can be found at 61 FR 4600 (February 7, 1996); and the final rule can be found at 61 FR 52088 (October 4, 1996). The notice of proposed rulemaking for the second rule (for the control of air pollution from new compression-ignition marine engines at or above 37 kW) can be found at 63 FR 68508 (December 11, 1998); the final rule can be found at 64 FR 73300 (December 29, 1999). These documents are available on our websites,
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marine.htm
and http://www.epa.gov/otaq.marinesi.htm This proposal relies in part on information that was obtained for those rulemakings, which can be found in Public Dockets A-92-28 and A-97-50. Those dockets are incorporated by reference into the docket for this proposal, A-2001-11.

Obtaining Electronic Copies of the Regulatory Documents

The preamble, regulatory language, Draft Regulatory Support Document, and other rule documents are also available electronically from the EPA Internet Web site. This service is free of charge, except for any cost incurred for internet connectivity. The electronic version of this proposed rule is made available on the date of publication on the primary web site listed below. The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality also publishes
Federal Register
notices and related documents on the secondary web site listed below.

1.
http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR
(either select desired date or use Search features).

2.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq
(look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic)

Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the document may be downloaded, format changes may occur.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

A. Overview

B. How Is This Document Organized?

C. What Requirements Are We Proposing or Considering?

D. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

E. Putting This Proposal Into Perspective

II. The Air Quality Need

A. Overview

B. What are the Public Health and Welfare Concerns Associated with Emissions from Category 3 Diesel Marine Engines Subject to the Proposed Standards?

C. Contribution from Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines

III. What Engines Are Covered?

A. What is a Marine Vessel?

B. What is a Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine?

C. What is a New Marine Diesel Engine?

D. What is a New Marine Vessel?

E. Would the Foreign Trade Exemption Be Retained?

IV. Standards and Technological Feasibility

A. What engine emission standards are under consideration?

B. When would the engine emission standards apply?

C. What information supports the technological feasibility of the engine emission standards?

D. Is EPA considering not adopting Tier 2 Standards in this rulemaking?

E. Is EPA considering any fuel standards?

V. Demonstrating Compliance

A. Overview of Certification

B. Other Certification and Compliance Issues

C. Test Procedures for Category 3 Marine Engines

D. Comparison to Annex VI Compliance Requirements

VI. Projected Impacts

A. What are the anticipated economic impacts of the proposed standards?

B. What are the anticipated economic impacts of the standards under consideration?

C. What are the anticipated emission reductions of the standards under consideration?

D. What is the estimated cost per ton of pollutant reduced for this proposal and alternatives we are considering?

E. What are the estimated health and environmental benefits for this proposal?

F. What would be the impacts of a low sulfur fuel requirement?

VII. Other Approaches We Considered

A. Standards Considered

B. Potential Impacts of the Regulatory Alternatives

C. Summary

D. Speed-based vs. Displacement-based Emission Standards

VIII. The Blue Cruise Program

A. What Is the Blue Cruise Program?

B. How Would the Program Work?

IX. Public Participation

A. How do I submit comments?

B. Will there be a public hearing?

X. Administrative requirements

A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis (Executive

Order 12866)

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Intergovernmental Relations

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

F. Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045)

G. Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

H. Energy Effects (Executive Order 13211)

I. Introduction

A. Overview

Marine diesel engines can be significant contributors to local ozone, CO, and PM levels, particularly in commercial ports and along coastal areas. In recognition of their inventory impact, we recently set emission standards for new marine diesel engines above 37 kW but less than 30 liters per cylinder (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999). The standards contained in that rule cover emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO
X
), particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons (HC), and carbon monoxide (CO), and go into effect in 2004-2007, depending on engine size. Those standards are more stringent than the international standards contained in Annex VI to the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto (this convention is also known as MARPOL; the standards are referred to as the Annex VI NO
X
limits).
1

They also cover more pollutants, as the MARPOL limits are for NO
X
emissions only. As described in Section D, below, the Annex has not yet gone into force because the requisite number of countries have not ratified it. Prior to the effective date of the national standards, engine manufacturers are encouraged to voluntarily comply with the Annex VI NO
X
limits pending entry into force of Annex VI. We developed a voluntary certification program to enable engine manufacturers to certify to the Annex VI NO
X
limits prior to the Annex VI requirements entering into force. The national emission requirements apply only to engines on vessels flagged in the United States. Marine engines on foreign vessels were not covered by the rule.

1
Annex VI was adopted by a Conference of the Parties to MARPOL on September 26, 1997, but has not yet entered into force. Copies of the conference versions of the Annex and the NOx Technical Code can be found in Docket A-95-50, Document II.B.01. Copies of updated versions can be obtained from the International Maritime Organization (
www.imo.org.
)

We did not set standards for new marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder in our 1999 rule. Our analysis at the time indicated that the Annex VI NO
X
limits were appropriate given the operating characteristics and fuel used by these engines. Rather than duplicate the Annex VI emission control program in our federal regulations, we encouraged engine manufacturers to comply with the Annex VI limits using our voluntary certification program.

We also indicated that we would revisit the need to adopt emission limits for these engines under the Clean Air Act if the Annex does not go into effect internationally.

Although more than four years have gone by since Annex VI was adopted by the Parties to the Convention, it has not yet entered into force. There is growing concern in the United States that there are no enforceable standards for these large marine engines. Also, recently developed inventories suggest that the inventory contribution of these engines can be very high in individual port areas. We estimate that these engines account for about 1.5 percent of national mobile source NO
X
emissions. This contribution can be significantly higher on a port-specific basis. For example, we estimate that these engines contribute about 7 percent of mobile source NO
X
in the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) of Baton Rouge/New Orleans and Wilmington NC, about 5 percent of mobile source NO
X
in the Miami/ Fort Lauderdale and Corpus Christi MSAs, and about 4 percent in the Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton/Bellingham MSA. In addition, these ships can have a significant impact on inventories in areas without large commercial ports. For example, Santa Barbara estimates that engine on ocean-going marine vessels contribute about 37 percent of total NO
X
in their area. These emissions are from ships that transit the area, and “are comparable to (even slightly larger than) the amount of NO
X
produced onshore by cars and truck.
2

These emissions are expected to increase to 62 percent by 2015.

2
Memorandum to Docket A-2001-11 from Jean Marie Revelt, “
Santa Barbara County Air Qualilty News,
Issue 62, July-August 2001 and other materials provided to EPA by Santa Barbara County,'' March 14, 2002. Air Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-47.

We estimate the contribution of these engines to national PM levels is about 2.6 percent, but can also be higher on a port-specific area (see Table 2.6-1 in the draft Regulatory Support Document (RSD) for this rule and associated text). The estimated contribution of these engines to national HC and CO emissions is negligible. The inventory contribution of these engines to national NO
X
, PM, HC, and CO levels is expected to increase as emissions from other mobile sources decrease due to our recently finalized emission control programs for highway vehicles and heavy-duty trucks. Reductions in the inventories of these pollutants will lead to health benefits, as described in Section II.

In addition, manufacturers of diesel engines, including marine diesel engines, have gained greater experience with the emission control technologies that can be applied to these engines. Our analysis indicates that greater emission reductions can be achieved by optimizing currently available control technologies that are being used to achieve the Annex VI NO
X
limits.

This Notice discusses two tiers of NO
X
emission controls for these engines. The first tier is equivalent to the internationally negotiated NO
X
standards and would be enforceable under U.S. law for new engines built in 2004 and later. The second tier of NO
X
standards, if implemented, would reflect additional reductions that can be achieved through engine-based emission controls, and would apply to new engines built after 2006 or later. We are also considering standards for HC and CO emissions to ensure that these emissions do not increase on an engine-specific basis. Particulate matter emissions from these engines are primarily due to the characteristics of the fuel they use (residual fuel), and we are requesting comment on whether we should consider a sulfur content limit for that fuel. We would review the Tier 2 standards prior to their effective date to take into consideration continued development of new technologies, such as selective catalyst reduction and water-based emission reduction techniques, and international activity such as action at International Maritime Organization (IMO) to set more stringent international standards.

Consistent with our 1999 commercial marine diesel engine standards, this proposal also contains voluntary low emission standards for marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder. As emissions from most mobile source categories continue to decline, emissions from marine vessels and associated port equipment are becoming an increasingly significant source for local, regional, and global emissions. Because of the slow turnover of vessels and associated equipment, there is an opportunity and need for the ports, shipping companies, engine manufacturers, and fuel suppliers to work on a collaborative effort to expedite and further reduce emissions beyond the Annex VI NO
X
limits and U.S. national standards. Two components of this proposal can help encourage these actions. The first is voluntary low emission standards set at

80 percent below the Annex VI NO
X
limits. These standards can be used in state-based initiatives and are expected to require the use of advanced technologies such as fuel cells or selective catalyst reduction. The second is the voluntary Blue Cruise program, in which participant vessel owners can receive special recognition from EPA for installing and using technologies that reduce waste and air emissions.

We are also proposing new requirements for engines at or above 2.5 liters per cylinder but less than 30 liters per cylinder. The Tier 2 standards we finalized for these engines in our 1999 commercial marine diesel rule are effective in 2007. Until then, and pending entry into force of Annex VI, we encouraged engine manufacturers to voluntarily comply with Tier 1 standards, which are equivalent to the internationally negotiated NO
X
standards. Because Annex VI has not gone into force, they remain unenforceable. Due to the continued uncertainty regarding entry into force of Annex VI, we believe it is appropriate to begin to require engine manufacturers to certify these engines to the Tier 1 standards, starting in 2004. We are also proposing to eliminate the foreign trade exemption for all marine diesel engines, which was available for engines installed on vessels that spend less than 25 percent of total operating time with 320 kilometers of U.S. territory. To date, this exemption has not been requested by engine manufacturers.

The standards discussed in this Notice, which would apply to engines installed on vessels flagged in the United States, are intended to help reduce ozone inventories and avoid a range of associated adverse health effects. The costs of the proposed Tier 1 standards are negligible and reflect certification and compliance costs only. We do not anticipate that there will be any engineering or design costs associated with the Tier 1 standards as manufacturers are already certifying engines to Annex VI requirements through our voluntary certification program. The estimated cost to industry of complying with the Tier 2 standards being considered is about $115,000 per engine, with an additional estimated cost of about $5,000 annually to maintain equipment. This represents a 7 percent increase in the total engine cost and about 0.1 percent increase in the total vessel cost. We estimate the aggregate costs (annualized over 20 years) of the Tier 2 standards under consideration to be about $1.6 million annually. The economic impacts and environmental benefits of the proposal and Tier 2 standards under consideration are described in Section VI, below.

The impact of the standards on air quality in specific areas will depend in part on the characteristics of the fleet of vessels that operate in that area, particularly on the proportion of foreign-flag ships to U.S.-flag ships. Recognizing that foreign-flag vessels constitute a significant portion of emissions from these engines and that the internationally negotiated NO
X
standards for these engines are not yet enforceable, we are seeking comment on whether the standards should also apply to marine engines on foreign vessels entering U.S. ports and to no longer exclude such foreign vessels from the emission standards under 40 CFR 94.1(b)(3). While EPA's current standards for marine vessels do not apply to foreign flag vessels, EPA is inviting comments on whether it should change this approach. If we were to apply our emission standards to foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports as part of this rulemaking effort, then the standards would apply to any marine engine that is manufactured after the standards become effective and that is installed on such a foreign vessel and would be a condition of port entry. The standards would also apply to any marine engine installed on such a foreign vessel that is manufactured (or that otherwise become new) after the standards become effective. While we are seeking comment on applying the standards to foreign vessels that use U.S. ports, we may require such standards for foreign vessels in 2003.

B. How Is This Document Organized?

This document contains ten parts. After this introductory section, Section II describes the air quality need for this rulemaking and projected benefits. That section contains a description of the human health and welfare effects of exposure to ozone, PM, and CO and reports our inventory estimates for this source for current and future years. In Section III, we describe the set of engines that would be required to comply with the proposed standards and our reasoning behind this scope of application. Sections IV and VII contain the proposed emission standards and alternatives under consideration, effective dates, and testing requirements. We also discuss the technological feasibility of the standards discussed in this Notice, and alternative approaches. Section V describes various compliance provisions. Section VI summarizes the projected impacts of the standards and discusses their benefits. Section VIII describes a voluntary incentive program in which participant vessel owners can receive special recognition from EPA for installing and using technologies that reduce waste and air emissions. Finally, Sections IX and X contain information about public participation, how we satisfied our administrative requirements, and the statutory provisions and legal authority for this proposal. Additional information on many of these topics can be found in the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this proposal.

C. What Requirements Are We Proposing or Considering?

The NO
X
emission standards for marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder (Category 3 marine diesel engines) would consist of two tiers. Tier 1 would apply to new engines built in 2004 and later and would be equivalent to the Annex VI NO
X
limits adopted by the Parties to MARPOL in 1997. We are also considering Tier 2 NO
X
standards that would apply to new engines built after 2006 or later and consist of a NO
X
limit 30 percent below the Tier 1/Annex VI limit. The year that EPA considers most appropriate at this time is 2007. For both tiers of standards, we would define NO
X
standards as a function of maximum engine speed, consistent with Annex VI, but are requesting comment on the merits of defining Tier 2 NO
X
standards instead as a function of engine displacement. Both tiers of standards can be met through engine-based emission-control technologies. The Annex VI NO
X
limits are based on certification on distillate fuel, which has a lower nitrogen content than the residual fuel that these engines are most likely to use in operation. We are proposing numerical emission limits based on residual fuel, but allow for certification testing using distillate or residual fuel. In either case, we are proposing that the test results be adjusted to account for the nitrogen content of the fuel, and then be compared to the proposed emission limits. The fuel quality adjustment is described in Section IV.A.2, below.

In addition to the Tier 2 NO
X
limits, we are considering hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission limits at 0.4 g/kW-hr and 3.0 g/kW-hr, respectively. These standards would ensure that these emissions do not increase on an engine-specific basis. We are also considering adoption of a schedule to review any Tier 2 standards prior to their effective date to take into consideration continued development of new technologies, such as selective catalyst reduction and water-based emission reduction techniques, and international activity such as action at IMO to adopt more stringent standards

internationally. We request comment on the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide standards.

We are not planning to adopt a Tier 2 standard for particulate emissions from these engines. Most of the particulate emissions are a result of the high sulfur and ash content of the fuel used by these engines, and there is no acceptable measurement procedure for fuels with these characteristics. We are requesting comment, however, on whether we should consider a fuel sulfur content limit for the fuels used by these engines. One option, for example, would be to set a sulfur content cap equivalent to the limit for fuel used in SO
X
Emission Control Areas provided in Regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI. Pursuant to that regulation, the sulfur content of fuel used by vessels operating in those areas cannot exceed 15,000 ppm. The United States could also pursue this option through procedures contained in Regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI. That regulation provides for the designation of SO
X
emission control areas. We estimate that reducing the sulfur content of residual fuel to 15,000 ppm may decrease the PM inventory of these engines 18 percent and the SO
X
inventory by 44 percent (See Section VI.F, below). In connection with this option, we are seeking comment as to which areas of the United States should be considered for designation as SO
X
emission control areas under MARPOL Annex VI, and whether and how we should seek the cooperation of Canada, Mexico, and the Carribean in designating these areas. Both of these options are discussed in Section VI.E, below.

We are also proposing voluntary low emission NO
X
standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines. These standards, which represent an 80 percent reduction from the Annex VI NO
X
limits, are intended to encourage the introduction and more widespread use of low-emission technologies. Manufacturers could be motivated to exceed emission requirements either to gain early experience with certain technologies or as a response to market demand or local government programs. Ship owners could take advantage of these and other emission reduction technologies to receive special recognition from EPA for installing and using technologies that reduce waste and air emissions under our proposed voluntary Blue Cruise program.

To implement these standards for marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder in an effective way, we are proposing several compliance requirements. In general, the proposed compliance program reflects our traditional manufacturer-based approach. This is in contrast to the international approach reflected in Annex VI, which holds the vessel owner responsible for compliance once the engine is delivered onboard. Many of the proposed compliance provisions, including certification application, engine labeling, and warranty requirements, are similar or identical to the compliance provisions that we finalized in our 1999 rulemaking. In addition, we are including a post-installation verification provision which would require an emission test after an engine is installed on a vessel. We are also proposing a field measurement provision that would apply to engines with adjustable parameters or add-on emission control devices. Manufacturers of these engines would be required to equip the engine with a field measurement device. The owner of a vessel with such an engine would have to perform a field measurement when the vessel approaches within 175 nautical miles (200 statutory miles) of the U.S. coastline from the open sea or when it adjusts an engine parameter within that distance. The results of this field measurement will demonstrate that the engine is in compliance with the relevant standards when it is operated in an area that affects U.S. air quality. EPA will work with the U.S. Coast Guard to develop procedures to verify onboard performance of these field measurement provisions, as Coast Guard has the general authority to carry out such procedures on vessels.

We are also proposing new requirements for engines at or above 2.5 liters per cylinder but less than 30 liters per cylinder. The Tier 2 standards we finalized for these engines in our 1999 commercial marine diesel rule are effective in 2007. Until then, and pending entry into force of Annex VI, we encouraged engine manufacturers to voluntarily comply with Tier 1 standards, which are equivalent to the internationally negotiated NO
X
standards. Because Annex VI has not gone into force, they remain unenforceable. While the U.S. is beginning the ratification process for Annex VI, due to the continued uncertainty regarding its entry into force of Annex VI, we believe it is appropriate to begin to require engine manufacturers to certify these engines to the Tier 1 standards, starting in 2004. We are also proposing to eliminate the foreign trade exemption for all marine diesel engines, which was available for engines installed on vessels that spend less than 25 percent of total operating time with 320 kilometers of U.S. territory. To date, this exemption has not been requested by engine manufacturers.

The standards discussed above would apply to engines installed on vessels flagged in the United States. Recognizing that foreign-flag vessels constitute a significant portion of emissions from these engines and that the internationally negotiated NO
X
standards for these engines are not yet enforceable, we are seeking comment on whether the standards should also apply to marine engines on foreign vessels entering U.S. ports and to no longer exclude such foreign vessels from the emission standards under 40 CFR 94.1(b)(3). If we were to apply our emission standards to foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports, then the standards would apply to any marine engine that is manufactured after the standards become effective and that is installed on such a foreign vessel. The standards would also apply to any marine engine installed on such a foreign vessel that is manufactured (or that otherwise become new) after the standards become effective. As discussed below, if the standards were to apply to foreign flag vessels, EPA would consider any significant differences between this proposed rule and Annex VI.

D. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

We developed this emission control program to fulfill our obligations under Section 213 of the Clean Air Act. That section, described in more detail in Section E, below, requires us to set standards for new nonroad engines. In addition, there are important public health and welfare reasons supporting the standards proposed in this document. As described in Section II.B, Category 3 marine diesel engines contribute to air pollution which causes public health and welfare problems. Emissions from these engines contribute to ground level ozone and ambient PM and CO levels, especially in and near commercial ports and waterways.
3

Exposure to ground level ozone, PM, and CO can cause serious respiratory problems. These emissions also contribute to other environmental problems, including acid deposition, eutrophication, and nitrification.

3
Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by complex chemical reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NO
X
in the presence of heat and sunlight. Hydrocarbons (HC) are a large subset of VOC, and to reduce mobile-source VOC levels we set maximum emissions limits for hydrocarbon and particulate matter emissions.

This action is a departure from the emission control strategy we finalized in 1999 (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999) in that we are considering no longer

relying solely on MARPOL Annex VI for controlling emissions from Category 3 marine diesel engines. While the Annex VI NO
X
limits apply to engines installed on vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2000, those standards are not enforceable until the Annex enters into force. As specified in Article 6 of the Annex, it will enter into force twelve months after the date on which not less than fifteen member states, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 50 percent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping, have ratified the agreement. To date, more than four years after it was adopted, the Annex has been ratified by only 6 countries representing 15.8 percent of the world's merchant shipping.
4

In addition, the Annex VI NO
X
limits no longer reflect the greatest degree of emission control that can be achieved using newer technology, given appropriate lead time. Since we finalized our commercial marine diesel engine standards in 1999 (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999), engine manufacturers continue to make progress in applying land-based emission control technologies to marine diesel engines. Improvements in fuel systems and engine cooling can reduce Category 3 engine emissions even more than the Annex VI NO
X
limits would require. Some engine manufacturers are also experimenting with water emulsification and injection and aftertreatment, including selective catalyst reduction, for even greater reductions. These emission control technologies are described in greater detail in Section IV.

4
The countries that have ratified Annex VI are Sweden, Norway, Bahamas, Singapore, Marshall Islands, and Malawi. Information about Annex VI ratification can be found at
www.imo.org
(look under Conventions, Status of Conventions—Complete List).

E. Putting This Proposal Into Perspective

This proposal should be considered in the broader context of EPA's nonroad emission-control programs, international activities, including MARPOL Annex VI, our previous marine emission control program, European Union (EU) initiatives, and activities at the state level. These programs and actions are discussed below.

1. EPA's Nonroad Emission-Control Programs

Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1) directs us to study emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles to determine, among other things, whether these emissions “cause, or significantly contribute to, air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Section 213(a)(2) further requires us to determine whether emissions of CO, VOC
s
, and NO
X
from all nonroad engines significantly contribute to ozone or CO emissions in more than one nonattainment area. If we determine that emissions from all nonroad engines are significant contributors, section 213(a)(3) then requires us to establish emission standards for classes or categories of new nonroad engines and vehicles that in our judgment cause or contribute to such pollution. We may also set emission standards under section 213(a)(4) regulating any other emissions from nonroad engines that we find contribute significantly to air pollution.

We completed the Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study, required by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1), in November 1991.
5

On June 17, 1994, we made an affirmative determination under section 213(a)(2) that nonroad emissions are significant contributors to ozone or CO in more than one nonattainment area. We also determined that these engines make a significant contribution to PM and smoke emissions that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In the same document, we set a first phase of emission standards (now referred to as Tier 1 standards) for land-based nonroad diesel engines rated at or above 37 kW. In 1998, we set more stringent Tier 2 and Tier 3 emission levels for new land-based nonroad diesel engines at or above 37 kW and adopted Tier 1 standards for nonroad diesel engines, including marine diesel engines, less than 37 kW. Our other emission-control programs for nonroad engines are listed in Table I.E-1. This proposal takes another step toward the comprehensive nonroad engine emission-control strategy envisioned in the Act by proposing enforceable emission limits for marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder.

5
This study, the Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study (NEVES) is available in docket A-92-28.

Table I.E-1.—EPA's Nonroad Emission-Control Programs

Engine category
Final rulemaking
Date

Land-based diesel engines ≥ 37 kW—Tier 1
56 FR 31306
June 17, 1994

Spark-ignition engines ≤19 kW—Phase 1
60 FR 34581
July 3, 1995.

Spark-ignition marine
61 FR 52088
October 4, 1996.

Locomotives
63 FR 18978
April 16, 1998.

Land-based diesel engines
63 FR 56968
October 23, 1998.

—Tier 1 and Tier 2 for engines < 37 kW (these standards also apply to marine diesel engines < 37 kW)

—Tier 2 and Tier 3 for engines ≥ 37 kW

Commercial marine diesel engines above 37 kW (Standards apply to engines less than 30 liters per cylinder only)
64 FR 73300
December 29, 1999.

Spark-ignition engines ≤19 kW (Non-handheld)—Phase 2
64 FR 15208
March 30, 1999.

Spark-ignition engines ≤19 kW (Handheld)—Phase 2
65 FR 24268
April 25, 2000.

Nonroad large spark-ignition engines, recreational vehicles, and recreational marine diesel engines
66 FR 51098 (proposal)
October 5, 2001.

Marine evap. (includes highway motorcycles)
Expected 2002

2. MARPOL Annex VI

In response to growing international concern about air pollution and in recognition of the highly international nature of maritime transportation, the IMO developed a program to reduce NO
X
and SO
X
emissions from marine vessels.
6

7

The development of Annex

VI took place between 1992 and 1997. The Annex VI engine emission limits cover only NO
X
emissions; there are no restrictions on PM, HC, or CO emissions. They are based on engine speed and apply to engines above 130 kW. These standards are set out in Table I.E-2. Originally, these standards were expected to reduce NO
X
emissions by 30 percent when fully phased in. EPA inventory analysis, based on newly estimated emission factors for these engines, indicates that the expected reduction is on the order of about 20 percent. The EPA inventory analysis is described in more detail in the Draft Regulatory Support Document for this proposal.

6
The Annex covers a several air emissions from marine vessels: ozone depleting substances, NO
X
, SO
X
, VOCs from tanker operations, incineration, fuel oil quality. There are also requirements for reception facilities and platforms and drilling rigs.

7
To obtain copies of this document, see Footnote 1, above.

With regard to implementation, the Annex VI NO
X
limits apply to each diesel engine with a power output of more than 130 kW installed on a ship constructed on or after January 1, 2000, or that undergoes a major conversion on or after January 1, 2000. The Annex does not distinguish between marine diesel engines installed on recreational or commercial vessels; all marine diesel engines above 130 kW would be subject to the standards regardless of their use. The test procedures to be used to demonstrate compliance are set out in the Annex VI NO
X
Technical Code.
8

They are based on ISO 8178 and are performed using distillate fuel. Engines can be pre-certified or certified after they are installed onboard. After demonstrating compliance, pre-certified engines would receive an Engine International Air Pollution Prevention (EIAPP) certificate. This document, to be issued by the Administration of the flag country, is needed by the ship owner as part of the process of demonstrating compliance with all of the provisions of Annex VI and obtaining an International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) certificate for the vessel once the Annex goes into force. The Annex also contains engine compliance provisions based on a survey approach. These survey requirements would apply after the Annex goes into force. An engine is surveyed after it is installed, every five years after installation, and at least once between 5-year surveys. Engines are not required to be tested as part of a survey, however. The surveys can be done by a parameter check, which can be as simple as reviewing the Record Book of Engine Parameters that must be maintained for each engine and verifying that current engine settings are within allowable limits.

8
To obtain copies of this document, see Footnote 1, above.

After several years of negotiation, the Parties to MARPOL adopted a final version of Annex VI at a Diplomatic Conference on September 26, 1997. However, as noted in Section I.C, above, the Annex has not yet gone into force. Pending entry into force, ship owners and vessel manufacturers have begun installing compliant engines on relevant ships beginning with the date specified in Regulation 13: January 1, 2000. In addition, ship owners must bring existing engines into compliance if the engines undergo a major conversion on or after that date.
9

As defined in Regulation 13 of Annex VI, a major conversion is when the engine is replaced by a new engine, it is substantially modified, or its maximum continuous rating is increased by more than 10 percent. To facilitate implementation while the Annex is not yet in force and to allow engine manufacturers to certify their engines before the Annex goes into force, we set up a process for manufacturers to obtain a Statement of Voluntary Compliance.
10

An EPA-issued Statement of Voluntary Compliance should be exchangeable for an EIAPP certificate once the Annex goes into effect in the United States.

9
As defined in Regulation 13 of Annex VI, a major conversion means the engine is replaced by a new engine, it is substantially modified, or its maximum continuous rating is increased by more than 10 percent.

10
For more information about our voluntary certification program, see “guidance for Certifying to MARPOL Annex VI,” VPCD-99-02. This letter is available on our website:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/imolettr.pdf
and in Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-B-01.

The U.S. government is preparing the appropriate documents for the President to submit Annex VI to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. Besides setting standards for NO
X
emissions, Annex VI regulates ozone-depleting emissions, sulfur oxides emissions and shipboard incineration, and contains other environmentally protective measures. In transmitting Annex VI to the Senate, the Administration will work with Congress on new legislation to implement the Annex. At the same time, the United States government supports a revision of the Annex VI standards for NO
X
emissions, taking into account the emission reduction potential of new control technologies. By ratifying the Annex, the United States will continue its leadership in promoting environmentally responsible international emission standards at the IMO and recognize the role the IMO plays in protecting the world's marine environment from pollution. As described in Section I.E.4, below, we have already requested MEPC to begin consideration of more stringent NO
X
emission limits for marine diesel engines. In addition, once the Annex goes into force, amendment of NO
X
standards will be made easier through the tacit amendment process that would then apply.

3. EPA's Commercial Marine Diesel Engine Rules

Although we included marine diesel engines in the development of our 1996 marine rule, we did not finalize standards for these engines at that time. At the time, we were considering standards based on Tier 1 land-based nonroad diesel emission controls. Emerging emission control technologies for diesel engines, particularly the Tier 2 land-based nonroad emission control technologies, led us to reconsider our approach and to defer standards for these engines to a later rulemaking.

In our 1999 commercial marine diesel engine rule, we distinguished between different types of marine diesel engines. The three categories of marine diesel engines, contained in Table I.E-3, were intended to reflect differences in the land-based counterparts of these engines.

Table I.E-3.—Marine Engine Category Definitions

Category
Displacement per cylinder
Land-based equivalent

1
disp. < 5 liters (and power > 37 kW)
Agricultural equipment; construction equipment.

2
5 liters < disp. < 30 liters
Locomotives.

3
disp > 30 liters
No mobile source equivalent Power plant generators.

The final standards for Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel standards were more stringent than the Annex VI NO
X
limits, reflecting the greater degree of emission control that would be achievable through the application of technologies that would be used on the land-based equivalents of these engines to meet the nonroad Tier 2 and locomotive Tier 1 standards. The standards also cover more pollutants than Annex VI, including standards for HC, CO, and PM as well as NO
X
. The emission standards we finalized for Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel engines are similar to the nonroad Tier 2 and locomotive Tier 1 standards, respectively.

We did not finalize standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines in 1999. Instead, we deferred to the Annex VI NO
X
emission control program. This decision was based on our technological analysis of control strategies for these engines which indicated that the appropriate standards should reflect reductions that can be obtained from injection rate shaping and some timing retard. These control technologies were consistent with the Annex VI NO
X
limits. While some Category 3 engines were already using Tier 2 engine technologies including turbocharging, injection improvements, electronics, and more efficient cooling, these technologies were being used to increase fuel efficiency and obtain optimal operation. Next-generation technologies such as exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), selective catalyst reduction (SCR), and water injection were still under development for marine diesel engines of that size. Because the Annex VI NO
X
limits would likely be implemented independently of any Clean Air Act requirement, EPA believed that it would be unnecessary and redundant to adopt the same program under the Clean Air Act. Vessel owners were anticipated to begin complying with the Annex VI NO
X
limits beginning in 2000, as indicated in the Annex.

Since 1999, Category 3 marine diesel engine manufacturers have continued to research emission control technologies and explore ways to transfer land-based diesel engine technologies to marine diesel engines. These technologies and emission control strategies are described in Sections IV and VII below, and in the draft Regulatory Support Document for this rule. Due to these advances, and due to the contribution of these engines to ozone and PM levels, we believe it is now appropriate to consider a second tier of emission limits for Category 3 marine diesel engines that will achieve greater reductions than those expected from the Annex VI NO
X
limits.

4. Continuing Action at the IMO

At the time the Annex VI NO
X
limits were adopted, several Member States expressed concern that the NO
X
limits would not result in the emissions reductions they were intended to achieve. Due to the efforts of these Member States, the Conference of the Parties adopted a resolution that provides for review of the emission limits with the aim of adopting more stringent limits taking into account the adverse effects of such emissions on the environment and any technological developments in marine engines. This review is to occur at a minimum of five-year intervals after entry into force of the Annex and, if appropriate, amend the NO
X
limits to reflect more stringent controls.

In March of 2000, the United States requested MEPC to begin consideration of more stringent emission limits for marine diesel engines.
11

EPA's analysis of emission control technology for our 1999 rulemaking indicated that more stringent standards are feasible for all Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel engines. Engine manufacturers were also beginning to apply these emission control strategies to Category 3 marine diesel engines, as well as more advanced strategies such as water emulsification and selective catalyst reduction. Reflecting the potential emission reductions that could be obtained from applying these strategies to all marine diesel engines, the U.S. recommended Annex VI Tier 2 NO
X
limits be set at 25 to 30 percent below the existing Annex VI NO
X
limits for all engines subject to the regulation (engines above 130 kW), to go into effect in 2007. This would allow a 7-year period of stability for the Annex VI NO
X
limits, permit engine manufacturers to adjust their engine designs to include new emission control technologies, and allow manufacturers of marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder to develop emission control strategies for those large engines. This recommendation was briefly discussed at the 44th session of the MEPC (London, March 3-16, 2000), but was not acted on. The United States will continue to promote more stringent standards at IMO and encourage MEPC to adopt a second tier of emission limits that will reflect available technology and reduce the impact of marine diesel engines on the world's air quality.

11
MEPC 44/11/7, Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Revision of the NO
X
Technical Code, Tier 2 emission limits for marine diesel engines at or above 130 kW, submitted by the United States. This document is available at Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-16.

5. European Union Actions

In February, 1999, the European Commission D-GXI commissioned a report to “consider, analyse and recommend policy options to further the objective of reducing the harmful environmental impact of SO
X
and NO
X
from ships operating in European waters.
12

The final report was completed in August 2000. The report explores two types of regulatory options, regulatory standards and incentive plans, for both fuel and engine emission controls. The report is currently under consideration by the Commission.

12
Davies, M. E., et al., Study on the Economic, Legal, Environmental and Practical Implications of a European Union System to Reduce Ship Emissions of SO
X
and NO
X
, Final Report for European Commission Contract B4-3040/98/000839/MAR/B1, August 2000. This report is available at
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/transport.htm#3.
A copy can also be found in Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-17.

In January 2001, the Directorate-General for the Environment issued a discussion paper entitled “A Community Strategy on Air Pollution from Seagoing Ships.”
13

This paper contains a description of issues and solicits comments that will be used to develop a European emission control strategy for marine vessels. The discussion paper envisions two products: a Commission Communication and a proposal to amend EU Directive 1999/32 on the Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels.

13
This discussion paper can be found at
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/future_transport.htm
(Under “pollutant emissions from ships” then “new developments”). A copy of this paper can also be found in Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-28.

The discussion paper notes that current inventory analysis indicates that ships will account for 75% and 60% of EU land SO
X
and NO
X
emissions, respectively. A new inventory study currently being commissioned will shed more light on these contributions, particularly in-port contributions. The discussion paper also describes current EU and international regulatory regimes and the potential for further reductions. Regarding SO
X
emissions, EU Directive 1999/32 currently prohibits the use of marine distillate fuels having more than 2,000 ppm sulfur in Community territorial waters. While there is an exemption for ships coming from third countries, those ships must use low sulfur distillate after they make their first stop at a Community port. There is some concern that this approach encourages ships to burn heavy fuel

while in Community waters. Regarding NO
X
emissions, the paper describes the MARPOL Annex VI requirements, the EPA standards established in 1999, and the U.S. action to encourage IMO to consider more stringent NO
X
limits. The paper does not suggest potential emission control programs for the EU, but it requests comment support for more stringent standards.

6. Action By Individual European Countries

In 1996 the Swedish Maritime Administration, the Swedish Shipowners' Association and the Swedish Ports' and Stevedores' Association arrived at a Tripartite Agreement to decrease ship nitrogen oxides and sulphur emissions by 75% within five years. The parties agreed to establish an environmental program on differentiated fairway and port dues for NO
X
levels and fuel sulphur content. The program was constructed by first raising the ship related dues (from Swedish Kroner (SEK) 3.90 per gross tonne (GT) for oil tankers and SEK 3.60 per GT for ferries and other ships to SEK 5.30 and SEK 5.00 respectively) from which the discounts would be subtracted
14

. For use of low sulphur fuels a credit of SEK 0.90 per GT was given for ships operating on bunker oils of a sulphur content of less than 0.5 per cent by weight for ferries and less than 1.0 per cent for other ships. For low NO
X
emissions, if the emission at 75 per cent engine load is above 12 g/kWh, no NO
X
discount is given. Below this level the discount increases continuously down to a level of 2 g/kWh where the discount is SEK 1.60 per GT. A maximum discount of SEK 2.50 per GT is possible. The program entered into force January 1, 1998 and as of 1999, twenty of Sweden's fifty two ports have introduced environmentally differentiated harbour dues for reduced sulphur fuels, reduced NO
X
emissions or both. Ferries are using new technologies, including water emulsion systems (20-50% Nox reduction) and SCR systems (up to 95% NO
X
reduction), to achieve the low emission levels. To overcome initial problems and encourage the installation of catalytic converters, the Swedish Maritime Administration agreed to reimburse shipowners for the fairway dues paid during the first five years of the program (thru 2002). “Based on known planned installations, the National Maritime Administration expects that by 1 January 2001 the scheme will have reduced NO
X
emissions from ships calling at Swedish ports by 40-45 per cent compared to the situation in 1995.”
15

14
One Swedish Kroner (SEK) is about $0.09

15
A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.sjofartsverket.se/navigering/htm/frameset.htm.

Over the past three years several other localities worldwide have also incorporated adjustments in port dues based on compliance with emission levels. The Port of Mariehamn, on the Finnish Island of Aland differentiates its harbor dues with regard to ships' emissions of NO
X
and sulphur. The proposal in 1999 was to “give ships emitting less than 10 g/kWh NO
X
a rebate on a linear scale where the reduction of the port due is 8 per cent for ships emitting less than 1 gramme, and 1 per cent for ships emitting 9 g/kWh. Ships using bunker oils with less than 0.5 per cent sulphur (by weight) will receive an additional reduction of 4 per cent. For vessels meeting the latter criteria and having NO
X
emissions of less than 1 g/kWh the proposal is to offer an extra rebate of 8 per cent. Such ships will, if the scheme is adopted, get a total reduction of 20 per cent.”
16

The Norwegian government has a program for environmental differentiation of the tonnage tax (Proposition No. 1 1999/2000). The differentiation is based on a Ship Environment Index System (SEIS). The SEIS is based on up to seven different environmental parameters, including sulphur and NO
X
emissions with a maximum of 10 points of which 6 points are from the abatement of NO
X
and sulphur emissions. The program will raise the tonnage tax by 50 per cent and ships registered according to the environmental index system will receive rebates in proportion to their environmental score. Ships that earn 10 points will not pay more than they did before the new scheme began operating and ships that do not register or do not earn any points will have to pay the full tax.”
17

The Green Award Foundation, with the Port of Rotterdam and some ports in Portugal and South Africa offers reduced harbor dues for tankers of more than 20,000 DWT. To earn the award, the shipowner and the vessel must comply with national and international laws and regulations as well as demonstrate environmental and safety awareness in a number of areas affecting management and crew competence as well as technical provisions which includes exhaust emissions.

16
A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.sjofartsverket.se/navigering/htm/frameset.htm.

17
A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.sjofartsverket.se/navigering/htm/frameset.htm.

7. State Actions: SCAQMD, Alaska and Texas Smoke Requirements

Several states have programs that address smoke emissions from marine engines. This section summarizes the programs in SCAQMD, Alaska and Texas.

SCAQMD: California's South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 401 states “(b)(1) A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is: (A) As dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart as published by the United States Bureau of Mines; or (B) Of such opacity as to obscure an observer's view to a degree equal to or greater than does smoke described in subparagraph (b)(1)(A) of this rule.”
18

The Port of Long Beach has issued literature requiring compliance with the SCAQMD rules through their Smoke Stack Emissions Program.
19

18
A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/html/r401.html.

19
A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
www.polb.com.

The Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles also require, as of May 1, 2001, a Voluntary Commercial Cargo Ship Speed Reduction Program. The “Air Quality Compliance Zone” is with a 12 knot speed restriction beginning 20-nautical miles from Point Fermin to the boundaries of the existing mandatory Precautionary Area. The purpose is to reduce air pollution from ships in the South Coast Air Basin.
20

20
A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.polb.com/NavAlert.htm.

Alaska:
Under Alaska's present state law, with some exceptions, “ships must keep emissions from reducing visibility through the exhaust plume by more than 20% while in Alaska waters. Diesel exhausts and other smoky discharges from ships can create a haze that hangs over coastal communities. DEC receives regular complaints from coastal community residents about these emissions. The state has certified readers who observe the emissions coming from a cruise ship's smokestack to determine if the standards are being exceeded.”
21

21
A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/press/2001/rel_1115.htm.

Texas:
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 111 of the document on Control of Air Pollution From Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter contains requirements of visible emissions from

ships. The document, section 111.111(a)(6)(A) and (B), state that “(A) Visible emissions shall not be permitted from any railroad locomotive, ship or any other vessel to exceed an opacity of 30% for any five-minute period, except during reasonable periods of engine start-up. (B) Compliance with subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be determined by applying the following test methods, as appropriate: (i) Test Method 9, (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A), or (ii) equivalent test method approved by the executive director and EPA.” This document was effective June 11, 2000.
22

22
A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rules/pdflib/111a.pdf.

II. The Air Quality Need

A. Overview

This proposal contains a regulatory strategy for Category 3 marine diesel engines on U.S. vessels. Marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder are very large marine engines used primarily for propulsion power on ocean-going vessels such as container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships. The vessels that use these engines are flagged in the United States and in other countries. Category 3 engines have not been regulated under our nonroad engine programs. Nationwide, these engines are a significant source of mobile source air pollution. As described in Section II.C, below, emissions from all Category 3 marine diesel engines, regardless of flag of registry, currently account for about 1.5 percent of national mobile source NO
X
, and 2.6 percent of national mobile source PM inventories.

We conducted a study of emissions from nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment in 1991, as directed by the Clean Air Act, section 213(a) (42 U.S.C. 7547(a)). Based on the results of that study, we determined that emissions of NO
X
, VOCs (including HC), and CO from nonroad engines and equipment contribute significantly to ozone and CO concentrations in more than one noattainment area (see 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994). Given this determination, section 213(a)(3) of the Act requires us to establish (and from time to time revise) emission standards for those classes or categories of new nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment that in our judgment cause or contribute to such air pollution. We have determined that commercial marine diesel engines cause or contribute to such air pollution (see also the proposed commercial marine diesel engine preamble at 63 FR 68508, December 11, 1998 and the final rule at 64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999).

Where we determine that other emissions from new nonroad engines, vehicles, or equipment significantly contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, section 213(a)(4) authorizes EPA to establish (and from time to time revise) emission standards from those classes or categories of new nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment that cause or contribute to such air pollution. We have determined that commercial marine diesel engines cause or contribute to such air pollution (see also the proposed commercial marine diesel engine preamble at 63 FR 68508, December 11, 1998 and the final rule at 64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999).

B. What Are the Public Health and Welfare Concerns Associated With Emissions From Category 3 Diesel Marine Engines Subject to the Proposed Standards?

The engines that would be subject to the proposed standards generate emissions of NO
X
, HC, PM and CO that contribute to ozone and CO nonattainment as well as adverse health effects associated with ambient concentrations of PM. This section contains a summary of the general health effects of these substances. Further information can be found in Chapter 2 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. National and selected port city inventories are set out in Section II.C, and estimates of the expected impact of the proposed control program are described in Section VI.

1. Ozone and its Precursors

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NO
X
are precursors in the photochemical reaction which forms tropospheric ozone. Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by complex chemical reactions of VOCs and NO
X
in the presence of heat and sunlight. Hydrocarbons (HC) are a large subset of VOC, and to reduce mobile-source VOC levels we set maximum emissions limits for hydrocarbon and particulate matter emissions.

A large body of evidence shows that ozone can cause harmful respiratory effects including chest pain, coughing, and shortness of breath, which affect people with compromised respiratory systems most severely. When inhaled, ozone can cause acute respiratory problems; aggravate asthma; cause significant temporary decreases in lung function of 15 to over 20 percent in some healthy adults; cause inflammation of lung tissue; produce changes in lung tissue and structure; may increase hospital admissions and emergency room visits; and impair the body's immune system defenses, making people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses. Children and outdoor workers are likely to be exposed to elevated ambient levels of ozone during exercise and, therefore, are at a greater risk of experiencing adverse health effects. Beyond its human health effects, ozone has been shown to injure plants, which has the effect of reducing crop yields and reducing productivity in forest ecosystems.

There is strong and convincing evidence that exposure to ozone is associated with exacerbation of asthma-related symptoms. Increases in ozone concentrations in the air have been associated with increases in hospitalization for respiratory causes for individuals with asthma, worsening of symptoms, decrements in lung function, and increased medication use, and chronic exposure may cause permanent lung damage. The risk of suffering these effects is particularly high for children and for people with compromised respiratory systems.

Ground level ozone today remains a pervasive pollution problem in the United States. In 1999, 90.8 million people (1990 census) lived in 31 areas designated nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
23

This sharp decline from the 101 nonattainment areas originally identified under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 demonstrates the effectiveness of the last decade's worth of emission-control programs. However, elevated ozone concentrations remain a serious public health concern throughout the nation.

23
National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA, 2001, at Table A-19. This document is available at
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd99/.
The data from the Trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-XX.

Over the last decade, declines in ozone levels were found mostly in urban areas, where emissions are heavily influenced by controls on mobile sources and their fuels. Twenty-three metropolitan areas have realized a decline in ozone levels since 1989, but at the same time ozone levels in 11 metropolitan areas with 7 million people have increased.
24

Regionally,

California and the Northeast have recorded significant reductions in peak ozone levels, while four other regions (the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, the Central and Pacific Northwest) have seen ozone levels increase. The highest ambient concentrations are currently found in suburban areas, consistent with downwind transport of emissions from urban centers. Concentrations in rural areas have risen to the levels previously found only in cities.

24
National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998, March, 2000, at 28. This document is available at
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd98/.
Relevant pages of this report can be found in Memorandum to Air Docket A-2000-01 from Jean Marie Revelt, September 5, 2001. This memorandum is available in Air Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-XX.

To estimate future ozone levels, we refer to the modeling performed in conjunction with the final rule for our most recent heavy-duty highway engine and fuel standards.
25

We performed ozone air quality modeling for the entire Eastern U.S. covering metropolitan areas from Texas to the Northeast.
26

This ozone air quality model was based upon the same modeling system as was used in the Tier 2 air quality analysis, with the addition of updated inventory estimates for 2007 and 2030. The results of this modeling were examined for those 37 areas in the East for which EPA's modeling predicted exceedences in 2007, 2020, and/or 2030 and the current 1-hour design values are above the standard or within 10 percent of the standard. This photochemical ozone modeling for 2020 predicts exceedences of the 1-hour ozone standard in 32 areas with a total of 89 million people (1999 census) after accounting for light- and heavy-duty on-highway control programs.
27

We expect the NO
X
control strategy contained in this Notice for Category 3 marine engines will further assist state efforts already underway to attain and maintain the 1-hour ozone standard.

25
Additional information about this modeling can be found in our Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, document EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000. Docket No. A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-XX. This document is also available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents.

26
We also performed ozone air quality modeling for the western United States but, as described further in the air quality technical support document, model predictions were well below corresponding ambient concentrations for our heavy-duty engine standards and fuel sulfur control rulemaking. Because of poor model performance for this region of the country, the results of the Western ozone modeling were not relied on for that rule.

27
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, US EPA, EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000, at II-14, Table II.A-2. Docket No. A-2001-11, Document Number II-A-XX. This document is also available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents.

In addition to the health effects described above, there exists a large body of scientific literature that shows that harmful effects can occur from sustained levels of ozone exposure much lower than 0.125 ppm.
28

Studies of prolonged exposures, those lasting about 7 hours, show health effects from prolonged and repeated exposures at moderate levels of exertion to ozone concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm. The health effects at these levels of exposure include transient pulmonary function responses, transient respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital and emergency room visits, and transient pulmonary respiratory inflammation.

28
Additional information about these studies can be found in Chapter 2 of “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,” December 2000, EPA420-R-00-026. Docket No. A-2001-11, Document Number II-A-XX. This document is also available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents.

Prolonged and repeated ozone concentrations at these levels are common in areas throughout the country, and are found both in areas that are exceeding, and areas that are not exceeding, the 1-hour ozone standard. Areas with these high concentrations are more widespread than those in nonattainment for that 1-hour ozone standard. Monitoring data indicate that 333 counties in 33 states exceed these levels in 1997-99.
29

The Agency's recent photochemical ozone modeling forecast that 111 million people are predicted to live in areas that are at risk of exceeding these moderate ozone levels for prolonged periods of time in 2020 after accounting for expected inventory reductions due to controls on light- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.
30

29
A copy of these data can be found in Air Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-XX.

30
Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric Ginsburg, EPA, “Summary of Model-Adjusted Ambient Concentrations for Certain Levels of Ground-Level Ozone over Prolonged Periods,” November 22, 2000, at Table C, Control Scenario—2020 Populations in Eastern Metropolitan Counties with Predicted Daily 8-Hour Ozone greater than or equal to 0.080 ppm. Docket A-2001-11, Document Number II-B-XX.

2. Particulate Matter

Category 3 marine engines that would be subject to the proposed standards contribute to ambient particulate matter (PM) levels in two ways. First, they contribute through direct emissions of particulate matter. Second, they contribute to indirect formation of PM through their emissions of organic carbon, especially HC. Organic carbon accounts for between 27 and 36 percent of fine particle mass depending on the area of the country.

Particulate matter represents a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances. It can be principally characterized as discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) phase spanning several orders of magnitude in size. All particles equal to and less than 10 microns are called PM
10
. Fine particles can be generally defined as those particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (also known as PM
2.5
), and coarse fraction particles are those particles with an aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 microns, but equal to or less than a nominal 10 microns.

Particulate matter, like ozone, has been linked to a range of serious respiratory health problems. Scientific studies suggest a likely causal role of ambient particulate matter (which is attributable to several sources including mobile sources) in contributing to a series of health effects.
31

The key health effects categories associated with ambient particulate matter include premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, work loss days, and restricted activity days), aggravated asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult or painful breathing, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function that can be experienced as shortness of breath. Observable human noncancer health effects associated with exposure to diesel PM include some of the same health effects reported for ambient PM such as respiratory symptoms (cough, labored breathing, chest tightness, wheezing), and chronic respiratory disease (cough, phlegm, chronic bronchitis and suggestive evidence for decreases in pulmonary function). Symptoms of immunological effects such as wheezing and increased allergenicity are also seen. Exposure to fine particles is closely associated with such health effects as premature mortality or hospital admissions for cardiopulmonary disease.

31
EPA (1996) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-96-013. Docket Number A-99-06, Documents Nos. II-A-18, 19, 20, and 23. The particulate matter air quality criteria documents are also available at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/partmatt.htm
.

PM also causes adverse impacts to the environment. Fine PM is the major cause of reduced visibility in parts of the United States. Other environmental impacts occur when particles deposit

onto soils, plants, water or materials. For example, particles containing nitrogen and sulphur that deposit on to land or water bodies may change the nutrient balance and acidity of those environments. Finally, PM causes soiling and erosion damage to materials, including culturally important objects such as carved monuments and statues. It promotes and accelerates the corrosion of metals, degrades paints, and deteriorates building materials such as concrete and limestone.

The NAAQS for PM
10
were established in 1987. According to these standards, the short term (24-hour) standard of 150 μg/m
3
is not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over three years. The long-term standard specifies an expected annual arithmetic mean not to exceed 50 μg/m
3
over three years. Recent PM
10
monitoring data indicate that 14 designated PM
10
nonattainment areas with a projected population of 23 million violated the PM
10
NAAQS in the period 1997-99. In addition, there are 25 unclassifiable areas that have recently recorded ambient concentrations of PM
10
above the PM
10
NAAQS.
32

32
EPA adopted a policy in 1996 that allows areas with PM
10
exceedances that are attributable to natural events to retain their designation as unclassifiable if the State is taking all reasonable measures to safeguard public health regardless of the sources of PM
10
emissions.

Current 1999 PM
2.5
monitored values, which cover about a third of the nation's counties, indicate that at least 40 million people live in areas where long-term ambient fine particulate matter levels are at or above 16 μg/m
3
(37 percent of the population in the areas with monitors).
33

This 16 μg/m
3
threshold is the low end of the range of long term average PM
2.5
concentrations in cities where statistically significant associations were found with serious health effects, including premature mortality.
34

To estimate the number of people who live in areas where long-term ambient fine particulate matter levels are at or above 16 μg/m
3
but for which there are no monitors, we can use modeling. According to our national modeled predictions, there were a total of 76 million people (1996 population) living in areas with modeled annual average PM
2.5
concentrations at or above 16 μg/m
3
(29 percent of the population).
35

33
Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, “Summary of 1999 Ambient Concentrations of Fine Particulate Matter,” November 15, 2000. Air Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-B-XX.

34
EPA (1996) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-96-013. Docket Number A-99-06, Documents Nos. II-A-18, 19, 20, and 23. The particulate matter air quality criteria documents are also available at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/partmatt.htm
.

35
Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, “Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model-Adjusted Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years,” December 6, 2000. Air Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-B-XX.

To estimate future PM
2.5
levels, we refer to the modeling performed in conjunction with the final rule for our most recent heavy-duty highway engine and fuel standards, using EPA's Regulatory Model System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD).
36

The most appropriate method of making these projections relies on the model to predict changes between current and future states. Thus, we have estimated future conditions only for the areas with current PM
2.5
monitored data (which cover about a third of the nation's counties). For these counties, REMSAD predicts the current level of 37 percent of the population living in areas where fine PM levels are at or above 16 μg/m
3
to increase to 49 percent in 2030.
37

36
Additional information about the Regulatory Model System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD) and our modeling protocols can be found in our Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, document EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000. Docket No. A-2001-11, Document No. A-II-XX. This document is also available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/disel.htm#documents
.

37
Technical Memorandum, EPA Air Docket A-99-06, Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, OAQPS, Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model-Adjusted Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years, December 6, 2000, Table P-2. Docket Number 2001-11, Document Number II-B-XX.

3. Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced through the incomplete combustion of carbon-based fuels. Carbon monoxide enters the bloodstream through the lungs and reduces the delivery of oxygen to the body's organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly those with angina or peripheral vascular disease. Healthy individuals also are affected, but only at higher CO levels. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with impairment of visual perception, work capacity, manual dexterity, learning ability and performance of complex tasks.

High concentrations of CO generally occur in areas with elevated mobile-source emissions. Peak concentrations typically occur during the colder months of the year when mobile-source CO emissions are greater and nighttime inversion conditions are more frequent. This is due to the enhanced stability in the atmospheric boundary layer, which inhibits vertical mixing of emissions from the surface.

The current primary NAAQS for CO are 35 parts per million for the one-hour average and 9 parts per million for the eight-hour average. These values are not to be exceeded more than once per year. Air quality carbon monoxide value is estimated using EPA guidance for calculating design values. In 1999, 30.5 million people (1990 census) lived in 17 areas designated nonattainment under the CO NAAQS.
38

38
National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA, 2001, at Table A-19. This document is available at
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd99/.
The data from the Trends report are the most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-200111, Document No. II-A-XX.

Nationally, significant progress has been made over the last decade to reduce CO emissions and ambient CO concentrations. Total CO emissions from all sources have decreased 16 percent from 1989 to 1998, and ambient CO concentrations decreased by 39 percent. During that time, while the mobile source CO contribution of the inventory remained steady at about 77 percent, the highway portion decreased from 62 percent of total CO emissions to 56 percent while the nonroad portion increased from 17 percent to 22 percent.
39

Over the next decade, we would expect there to be a minor decreasing trend from the highway segment due primarily to the more stringent standards for certain light-duty trucks (LDT2s).
40

CO standards for passenger cars and other light-duty trucks and heavy-duty vehicles did not change as a result of other recent rulemakings.

39
National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998, March, 2000; this document is available at
http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd98/
. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900-1998 (EPA-454/R-00-002), March, 2000. These documents are available at Docket No. A-2000-01, Document No. II-A-72. See also Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide, US EPA, EPA 600/P-99/001F, June 2000, at 3-10. Air Docket A-2001-11, Document Number II-A-XX. This document is also available at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/coabstract.htm
.

40
LDT2s are light light-duty trucks greater than 3750 lbs. loaded vehicle weight, up through 6000 gross vehicle weight rating.

4. Other Welfare and Environmental Effects

In addition to the health and welfare concerns just described, Category 3 marine diesel engines can contribute to regional haze, acid deposition, and eutrophication and nitrophication. Further information on these effects can

be found in Chapter 2 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document.

C. Contribution From Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines

1. National Inventories

We developed baseline Category 3 vessel emissions inventories under contract with E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.
41

Inventory estimates were developed separately for vessel traffic within 25 nautical miles of port areas and vessel traffic outside of port areas but within 175 nautical miles of the coastline. The inventories include all Category 3 traffic, including that on the Great Lakes. Different techniques were used to develop the port and non-port inventories. For port areas we developed detailed emissions estimates for nine specific ports using port activity data including port calls, vessel types and typical times in different operating modes. Emissions estimates for all other ports were developed by matching each of those ports to one of the nine specific ports already analyzed based on characteristics of port activity, such as predominant vessel types, harbor draft and region of the country. The detailed port emissions were then scaled to the other ports based on relative port activity. We developed non-port emissions inventories using cargo movements and waterways data, vessel speeds, average dead weight tonnage per ship, and assumed cargo capacity factors. More detailed information regarding the development of the baseline emissions inventories can be found in Chapter 6 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document.

41
“Commercial Marine Emission Inventory Development,” E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc. and ENVIRON International Corporation, April, 2002.

There has been little study of the transport of marine vessel NO
X
emissions and the distance they may travel to impact air quality on land. Pollutant transport is a very complicated subject, and the transport distance can vary dramatically depending on a variety of factors, including the pollutant under consideration, as prevailing wind speed and direction, and other atmospheric conditions. When we consider how far off the coast to include emissions in our baseline the correct answer may well vary depending on geographic area and prevailing atmospheric conditions. Thus, in developing baseline emissions inventories we looked at two scenarios that we believe reasonably bracket the distances from shore that vessel emissions my be emitted and expected in impact air quality on land. First, we looked only at the pollutants emitted within 25 nautical miles of a port area as a reasonable lower bound to estimate the national inventory of Category 3 marine diesel engines. As an upper bound we considered all Category 3 emissions within 175 nautical miles of shore.

Not surprisingly, these two different distances yield different inventory results. The 1996 NO
X
and PM emissions inventories are shown in Table II.C-1. We used 1996 as the starting point for this analysis because that is the most recent year that we have detailed information available for the nine specific port areas. As will be discussed later in this section, this initial analysis shows that the contribution from U.S. and foreign flagged vessels differs between these two areas.

Table II.C-1.—Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine 1996 Baseline Emissions Inventories
[thousand short tons]

Scenario

NO
X

PM

Within 25 nautical miles of ports
101
9.3

Within 175 nautical miles of coast
190
17

For the remainder of the analysis associated with the proposed emissions standards we will consider all emissions that occur within 175 nautical miles from the coast as our primary scenario. We request comment on all aspects of our emissions inventories. In particular, we request comment on whether we should consider a range different than 175 nautical miles from the coast as our primary scenario, and why. We also request comment on whether we should consider different distances from the coast for different areas of the country. For example, should we consider a smaller distance on the East coast than the West coast to account for prevailing wind patterns?

We will continue to investigate this issue throughout this rulemaking, and will incorporate any new information into the final rule. For example, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has presented information to us recommending that a different, shorter (offshore distance) limit be established rather than the proposed 175 nautical miles as the appropriate location where emissions from marine vessels would affect on-shore air quality. DoD's extensive work on the marine vessels issue in Southern California resulted in a conclusion that emissions within 60 nautical miles of shore could make it back to the coast due to eddies and the nature of the sea breeze effects. Satellite data however showed a distinct tendency for a curved line of demarcation separating the offshore (unobstructed) or parallel ocean wind flow from a region of more turbulent, recirculated air which would impact on-shore areas. That curved line of demarcation was close to San Nicolas Island which is about 60 nautical miles offshore. Studies and published information on other coastal areas in California indicates that they experience somewhat narrower (perhaps 30 nautical miles) region of “coastal influence.” The Gulf Coast and the U.S. East coast would similarly have their own unique meteorological conditions that might call for different lines of demarcation between on-shore and off-shore effects.

To estimate inventories for years after 1996, we developed inventory projections based on expected increases in vessel freight movement and expected changes in vessel characteristics, as well as fleet turnover based on 25 years as the average age of the world fleet at time of scrappage. We also take the MARPOL Annex VI NO
X
limits into account because, although these international NO
X
standards are not yet in force, we expect that most, if not all shipbuilders and shipping companies around the world are currently complying with them, and we expect this trend to continue. Our estimated emissions inventories are based on the assumption that all vessels built after 1999, both U.S. and foreign flagged, will comply with the MARPOL NO
X
limits. Table II.C-2 shows the future year NO
X
and PM inventories for selected years out to 2030. More detailed information regarding the development of the future year emissions inventories can be found in Chapter 6 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. We request comment on these inventory projections. In particular, we request comment on whether freight growth will continue at the exponential rate that is has seen in the past, and for how long such exponential growth can be expected to continue.

One very important consideration in projecting future year inventories is the make up and size of the future vessel fleet. The size and make up of the future U.S. flagged fleet is dependent on vessel construction at U.S. shipyards, the nature of vessel replacement practices, and any growth in the number of ships in the fleet. Projecting future vessel production at U.S. shipyards is difficult for two reasons. First, vessel construction totals for U.S. shipyards

have varied quite a bit from year to year, with no clear trends. Second, the U.S. government discontinued subsidies to U.S. shipyards in 1983, creating a dramatic downward shift in production at U.S. shipyards. We request comment on likely future production at U.S. shipyards, including production estimates and the rationale behind the estimates. Vessel replacement practices also play a role in future year emissions inventory projections. For example, the current U.S. flagged fleet contains a large number of older steamships. We request comment on whether these steamships are likely to be replaced with diesels when they are scrapped. We also request comment on whether there are any other vessel replacement practices or trends that we should consider when projecting future year emissions inventories. As shown in Chapter 6 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document, a substantial portion of the U.S. flagged fleet is over 30 years old. We request comment on the size and nature of any increase in U.S. shipbuilding activity that may occur in the near future in an effort to replace the aging fleet. Finally, we request comment on whether the total number of U.S. flagged vessels is expected to grow substantially in the future and why.

Table II.C-2.—Future Year NO
X
and PM Inventories for Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines

[thousand short tons]

Year

NO
X

Ports
Non-ports
All areas
PM
Ports
Non-ports
All areas

1996
101
89
190
9
8
17

2010
146
128
274
14
12
26

2020
196
172
367
20
16
37

2030
288
243
531
30
24
54

Baseline emission inventory estimates for the year 2000 for Category 3 marine diesel engines are summarized in Table II.C-3 in the context of other emissions sources. This table shows the relative contributions of the different mobile-source categories to the overall national mobile-source inventory. Of the total emissions from mobile sources, all Category 3 marine diesel engines contributed about 1.5 percent of NO
X
and 2.6 percent of PM emissions in the year 2000.

Our draft emission projections for 2020 for Category 3 marine diesel engines show how emissions from these engines are expected to increase over time if left uncontrolled beyond the MARPOL Annex VI NO
X
limits. The projections for 2020 are summarized in Table II.C-4 and indicate that Category 3 marine diesel engines are expected to contribute 5.7 percent NO
X
and 5.8 percent of PM emissions in the year 2020. Population growth and the effects of other regulatory control programs are factored into these projections. The relative importance of uncontrolled nonroad engines is higher than the projections for 2000 because there are already emission control programs in place for the other categories of mobile sources which are expected to reduce their emission levels. The effectiveness of all control programs is offset by the anticipated growth in engine populations.

Table II.C-3.—Modeled Annual Emission Levels for Mobile-Source Categories in 2000
[thousand short tons]

Category

NO
X

Tons
Percent of mobile source
HC
Tons
Percent of mobile source
CO
Tons
Percent of mobile source
PM
Tons
Percent of mobile source

Total for engines subject to proposed standards (U.S. flagged commercial marine—Category 3)
79
0.6
2
0.0
4
0.0
7.0
1.0

Commercial Marine CI—Category 3
195
1.5
8
0.1
16
0.0
18.0
2.6

Commercial Marine CI—Categories 1 and 2
700
5.2
22
0.3
103
0.1
20
2.9

Highway Motorcycles
8
0.1
84
1.1
329
0.4
0.4
0.1

Nonroad Industrial SI > 19 kW
306
2.3
247
3.2
2,294
2.9
1.6
0.2

Recreational SI
13
0.1
737
9.6
2,572
3.3
5.7
0.8

Recreation Marine CI
24
0.2
1
0.0
4
0.0
1
0.1

Marine SI Evap
0
0.0
89
1.2
0
0.0
0
0.0

Marine SI Exhaust
32
0.2
708
9.2
2,144
2.7
38
5.4

Nonroad SI < 19 kW
106
0.8
1,460
18.9
18,359
23.5
50
7.2

Nonroad CI
2,625
19.6
316
4.1
1,217
1.6
253
36.3

Locomotive
1,192
8.9
47
0.6
119
0.2
30
4.3

Total Nonroad
5,201
39
3,719
48
27,157
35
418
60

Total Highway
7,981
60
3,811
50
49,811
64
240
34

Aircraft
178
1
183
2
1,017
1
39
6

Total Mobile Sources
13,360
100
7,713
100
77,985
100
697
100

Total Man-Made Sources
24,444

18,659

100,064

3,093

Mobile Source percent of Total Man-Made Sources
55

41

78

23

Table II.C-4.—Modeled Annual Emission Levels for Mobile-Source Categories in 2020
[thousand short tons]

Category

NO
X

Tons
Percent of mobile source
HC
Tons
Percent of mobile source
CO
Tons
Percent of mobile source
PM
Tons
Percent of mobile source

Total for engines subject to proposed standards (U.S. flagged commercial marine—Category 3)
150
2.3
5
0.1
9
0.0
14.0
2.2

Commercial Marine CI—Category 3
367
5.7
17
0.3
37
0.0
37.0
5.8

Commercial Marine CI—Categories 1 and 2
617
9.6
24
0.4
125
0.1
19.0
3.0

Highway Motorcycles
14
0.2
144
2.3
569
0.6
0.8
0.1

Nonroad Industrial SI > 19 kW
486
7.6
348
5.5
2,991
3.3
2.4
0.4

Recreational SI
27
0.4
1,706
27.1
5,407
6.0
7.5
1.2

Recreation Marine CI
39
0.6
1
0.0
6
0.0
1.5
0.2

Marine SI Evap
0
0.0
102
1.6
0
0.0
0
0.0

Marine SI Exhaust
58
0.9
284
4.5
1,985
2.2
28
4.4

Nonroad SI < 19 kW
106
1.7
986
15.6
27,352
30.3
77
12.0

Nonroad CI
1,791
28.0
142
2.3
1,462
1.6
261
40.6

Locomotive
611
9.5
35
0.6
119
0.1
21
3.3

Total Nonroad
4,116
63
3,789
60
40,053
44
455
70

Total Highway
2,050
33
2,278
36
48,903
54
145
23

Aircraft
232
4
238
4
1,387
2
43
7

Total Mobile Sources
6,398
100
6,305
100
90,343
100
643
100

Total Man-Made Sources
16,374

16,405

114,011

3,027

Mobile Source percent of Total Man-Made Sources
39

38

79

21

2. Inventories for Specific Ports

In the previous section we presented estimates of Category 3 marine diesel engine emissions as percentages of the national mobile source inventory. Total national man-made source inventories were also included in Tables II.C-3 and II.C-4 for comparison. However, marine vessel activity tends to be concentrated in port areas, and thus we would expect that Category 3 marine diesel engines would have a proportionately bigger impact on the mobile source pollution inventories of port areas. Using the port-specific Category 3 inventories developed for use in our national inventory in conjunction with total port area inventories developed in support of the heavy-duty on-highway 2007 rule, we developed estimates of the contribution of Category 3 marine diesel engines to the mobile source NO
X
and PM inventories of several selected port areas, including several ozone nonattainment areas. The NO
X
results are shown in Table II.C-5, and the PM results are shown in Table II.C-6. As can be seen from these tables, the relative contribution of Category 3 marine diesel engine pollution to mobile source pollution is expected to increase in the future. This is due both to the expected growth of shipping traffic in the future and the effect of emissions control programs already in place for other mobile sources.

Table II.C-5.—Modeled NO
X
Inventories as a Percentage of Mobile Source NO
X
in Selected Port Areas

Ozone nonattainment area?
Port area

Percent of mobile source NO
X
from C3

1966
2020

Y
Baton Rouge and New Orleans, LA
7.4
15.8

Y
Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA
2.0
8.6

Y
Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX
1.4
3.1

Y
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria, TX
1.5
4.9

Y
Baltimore/Washington, DC
2.1
11.4

Y
Philadelphia/Wilmington/Atlantic City
1.8
6.9

Y
New York/New Jersey
1.0
6.2

N
Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton/Bellingham, WA
4.3
26.3

N
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, FL
5.4
28.1

N
Portland/Salem, OR
1.9
11.9

N
Wilmington, NC
6.9
26.8

N
Corpus Christi, TX
4.8
12.2

N
Brownsville/Harlington/San Benito, TX
1.8
6.6

Table II.C-6—Modeled PM Inventories as a Percentage of Mobile Source PM in Selected Port Areas

Port area
Percent of mobile source PM from C3
1996
2020

Baton Rouge and New Orleans, LA
12.1
22.6

Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA
1

3.9
10.8

Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX
7.4
18.3

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria, TX
3.3
8.5

Baltimore/Washington DC
3.2
9.6

Philadelphia/Wilmington/Atlantic City
2.8
6.3

New York/New Jersey
1.6
5.7

Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton/Bellingham, WA
8.5
25.5

Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, FL
10.6
28.7

Portland/Salem, OR
3.9
12.1

Wilmington, NC
8.1
22.4

Corpus Christi, TX
6.0
9.6

Brownsville/Harlington/San Benito, TX
3.1
14.9

1
PM nonattainment area.

3. Emissions in Nonport Areas

These ships can also have a significant impact on inventories in areas without large commercial ports. For example, Santa Barbara estimates that engines on ocean-going marine vessels contribute about 37 percent of total NO
X
in their area. These emissions are from ships that transit the area, and “are comparable to (even slightly larger than) the amount of NO
X
produced onshore by cars and truck.
42

These emissions are expected to increase to 62 percent by 2015. While Santa Barbara's exact conditions may be unique due to the relative close proximity of heavily used shipping channels to shore and the meteorological conditions in their area, other coastal areas may also have relatively high inventory impacts from ocean-going vessels.

42
Memorandum to Docket A-2001-11 from Jean Marie Revelt, “Santa Barbara County Air Quality News, Issue 62, July-August 2001 and other materials provided to EPA by Santa Barbara County,” March 14, 2002. Air Docket A-2001-11.

4. Contribution by Flag

It is important to determine how much of the Category 3 marine diesel engine pollution inventory is contributed by U.S. flagged vessels given that we are considering whether to restrict application of the proposed standards and standards under consideration to U.S. flag vessels only or to apply the standards to all vessels (U.S. and foreign-flag entering U.S. ports). We estimated the relative contribution of U.S. and foreign flagged vessels separately for the port areas and the non-port areas due to the fact that we had different data sets available to us for the two areas.

We estimated the contribution of U.S. flagged vessels for the ports areas using port call data obtained from the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD). These data contained all port calls in 1999 to U.S. ports by vessels of greater than 1000 gross registered tons, including the country in which they are flagged and the number of port calls each vessel made. An analysis of the port call data shows that U.S. flagged vessels only account for 6.4 percent of port calls to U.S. ports. For the lack of more detailed information regarding the breakout of U.S. and foreign flagged vessel emissions we applied the percentage of port calls from U.S. and foreign flagged vessels to the national ports inventories to determine the relative contributions of each to the national ports inventories.

We used freight tonnage data from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) to develop relative U.S. and foreign flagged emissions contributions in non-ports areas within 175 nautical miles of the coast. In contrast to the data for the ports areas, the USACE data suggests that more than 80 percent of the non-ports emissions come from U.S. flagged vessels.

The relative contributions from U.S. and foreign flagged vessels are quite different between the ports areas and the non-ports areas. Some of this difference can be explained through U.S. cabotage law, which requires that any vessel operating between two U.S. ports be U.S. flagged. Thus, while most port traffic is foreign flagged, the foreign flagged vessels would tend to come into a single U.S. port and then leave U.S. waters. In contrast, U.S. flagged vessels would typically travel from one U.S. port to another, thus accounting for a higher percentage of the non-ports emissions. We request comment on this assessment of U.S. and foreign flagged vessel contributions, as well as additional data that would help us further understand the relative contributions of U.S. and foreign flagged vessels to the national pollution inventories.

For the purposes of the future inventory projections we assumed that the current split of U.S. and foreign flagged emissions would continue. However, this assumption, in combination with our assumed growth rates, implies that the manufacture of Category 3 vessels in the U.S. for the U.S. flagged fleet would occur in the future at rates greater than the recent build rate of around two vessels per year. More likely, seven to nine new U.S. flagged vessels would need to be built per year to accommodate the U.S. flagged vessel emissions growth assumptions. We request comment on whether the U.S. flagged fleet is expected to grow at this rate in the future, or instead whether a growing fraction of vessel emissions would come from foreign flagged vessels in the future. Specifically, we request comment on the likely replacement rates and expected new capacity of the U.S. fleet in the future.

III. What Engines Are Covered?

The scope of application of this proposal is broadly set by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(3), which instructs us to set standards for new nonroad engines and new nonroad vehicles. In this case, the proposed rule is intended to cover all new marine diesel engines installed on vessels flagged or registered in the United States that have a specific engine displacement greater than or equal to 30 liters per cylinder. Under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, once emission standards apply to a group of

engines, a manufacturer of a new engine must get a certificate of conformity from us before selling an engine, importing an engine, or otherwise introducing an engine into commerce in the United States.
43 44

We also require vessel manufacturers to install only certified engines on new vessels that will be flagged or registered in the United States once emission standards apply. The certificate of conformity (and corresponding engine label) provide assurance that engine manufacturers have met their obligation to make engines that meet the emission standards over the useful life we specify in the regulations.

43
The term “manufacturer” means any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new engines or importing such engines for resale, or who acts for and is under the control of any such person in connection with the distribution of such engines. 40 CFR 94.2.

44
For this proposal, we consider the United States to include the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. See CAA section 302(d) definition of “State.”

The scope of application for emission standards for commercial marine diesel engines up to 30 liters per cylinder was established in our 1999 rulemaking (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999). In that rule, we adopted a set of clarifying definitions that apply to those commercial marine diesel engines and the vessels that use them. We are proposing to apply those definitions to Category 3 marine diesel engines for the purpose of identifying the engines and vessels that must comply with the proposed standards. According to those definitions, which can be found in 40 CFR 94.2, a Category 3 marine diesel engine would be subject to the proposed standards if it is:

• Manufactured after the emission standards become effective, whether domestic or imported;

• Installed for the first time in a marine vessel flagged in the U.S. after having been used in another application subject to different emission standards; or

• Installed on a new vessel flagged in the U.S.

At the same time we are soliciting comment on whether the emission standards should also apply to marine engines on foreign vessels entering U.S. ports and to no longer exclude such foreign vessels from the emission standards under 40 CFR § 94.1(b)(3). We are inviting comment on whether to modify the definition of a “new marine engine” to find that engine emission standards would apply to Category 1, 2 and 3 marine diesel engines that are manufactured after the standards become effective and that are installed on a foreign flagged vessel that enters a U.S. port. If we were to adopt such an approach, we anticipate the standards would also apply to any marine engine that is installed on a foreign vessel if the vessel is manufactured (or that otherwise become new) after the standards become effective.

We are also proposing to eliminate the foreign trade exemption. Under this exemption, contained in 40 CFR section 94.906(d), engines on vessels flagged or registered in the United States that spend less than 25 percent of total operating time within 320 kilometers of U.S. territory are not required to comply with the proposed limits. This would generally affect auxiliary engines, which are usually less than 30 liters per cylinder.

EPA is not considering inclusion of gas turbines in this rulemaking given the limited amount of information that we currently have about emissions from turbines. EPA's current belief is that gas turbines generally have lower emissions than diesels. However, we are requesting that commenters provide to us any emissions information that is available as well as whether it would be appropriate to regulate turbines and diesels together. Commenters supporting the regulation of turbines should also address whether any special provisions would be needed for the testing and certification of turbines.

In the remainder of this section we discuss the proposed scope of application of the rule in greater detail.

A. What Is a Marine Vessel?

For the purpose of our marine diesel engine standards, “marine vessel” has the meaning specified in the General Provisions of the United States Code, 1 U.S.C. 3 (see 40 CFR 94.2). According to that definition, the word “vessel” includes “every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.”

B. What Is a Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine?

In our 1999 commercial marine diesel engine rule, we defined marine engine as an engine that is installed or intended to be installed on a marine vessel. We also differentiated between three types of marine diesel engines. As explained in that rule, this approach is necessary because marine diesel engines are typically derivatives of land-based diesel engines and the land-based engines are not all subject to the same numerical standards and effective dates.

The definitions for the different categories of marine diesel engines are contained in 40 CFR 94.2. Category 1 marine diesel engines, those having a rated power greater than or equal to 37 kilowatts and a specific engine displacement less than 5.0 liters per cylinder, are similar to land-based nonroad engines used in construction and farm equipment. Category 2 marine diesel engines, those having a specific engine displacement greater than or equal to 5.0 liters per cylinder but less than 30 liters per cylinder, are most often similar to locomotive engines. Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel engines are used as propulsion engines (i.e., an engine that moves a vessel through the water or directs the movement of a vessel (40 CFR 94.2)) on tugs, fishing vessels, supply vessels, and smaller cargo vessels. They are also used as auxiliary engines (i.e., a marine engine that is not a propulsion engine (40 CFR 94.2)) to provide electricity for navigation equipment and crew service or other services such as pumping or powering winches or anchors.

Category 3 marine diesel engines, which are the primary focus of this proposal, are defined as having a specific engine displacement greater than or equal to 30 liters per cylinder. These are very large engines used for propulsion on large vessels such as container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships. Most of these engines are installed on ocean-going vessels, although a few are found on ships in the Great Lakes. Category 3 marine diesel engines have no land-based mobile source counterpart, although they are similar to engines used to generate electricity in municipal power plants. In marine applications they are either mechanical drive or indirect drive. Mechanical drive engines can be direct drive (engine speed is the same as propeller speed; this is common on very large ships) or have a gearbox (i.e., they have reduction gears; this is common on ships using medium speed Category 3 marine diesel engines). Indirect drive engines are used to generate electricity that is then used to turn the propeller shaft. These are common in cruise ships since they have heavy electricity demands. Category 3 marine diesel engines typically operate at a lower speed and higher power than Category 1 and Category 2 engines, with the slowest speed being 130-200 rpm.

Table III.B-1—Marine Engine Category Definitions

Category
Displacement per cylinder
hp range (kW)
rpm range

1
disp. < 5 liters (and power ≥ 37 kW)
37-2,300
1,800-3,000

2
5 ≤ disp. < 30 liters
1,500-8,000
750-1,500

3
disp ≥ 30 liters
2,500-80,000
80-900

C. What Is a New Marine Diesel Engine?

1. The Current Regulatory Definition

As set out in 40 CFR 94.2, a new marine engine is (i) a marine engine, the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser; (ii) a marine engine installed on a vessel, the equitable or legal title to such vessel has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser; or (iii) a marine engine that has not been placed into service on a vessel. In cases where the equitable or legal title to an engine or vessel is not transferred to an ultimate purchaser prior to its being placed into service, an engine ceases to be new after it is placed into service.

What this means is that a marine engine is new and is subject to the proposed standards before its initial sale is completed or it is placed into service. Practically, it means that any engine must meet the proposed emission standards that are in effect the first time it is sold or placed into service or the first time the vessel on which it is installed is sold or placed into service. This is true for any engine that is sold for the first time as a marine engine (placed into service on a marine vessel), regardless of whether it has previously been used in other nonroad or on-highway purposes. This clarification is necessary because some marine engines are made by “marinizing” existing land-based nonroad or highway engines. Without this clarification a marinized used highway or land-based engine would not be subject to the standards since its title was already transferred to the initial highway or land-based nonroad user.

With respect to imported marine diesel engines, 40 CFR 94.2 defines “new” as an engine that is not covered by a certificate of conformity at the time of importation and that was manufactured after the starting date of the emissions standards which are applicable to such engine (or which would be applicable to such engine had it been manufactured for importation into the United States). According to this definition, the proposed standards would apply to engines that are imported by any person, whether newly manufactured or used, and whether they are imported as uninstalled engines or if they are already installed on a marine vessel that is imported into the U.S. In one example, a person may want to import a vessel built after the effective date of the standards but the engine does not have a certificate of conformity from EPA because the engines and vessel were manufactured elsewhere. We would still consider it to be a new engine or vessel, and it would need to comply with the applicable emission standards. This provision is important to prevent manufacturers from trying to avoid the emission standards by building vessels abroad, transferring their title, and then importing them as used vessels.

2. Should Engines on Foreign Flag Vessels That Enter U.S. Ports Be Covered?

Today's proposal solicits comment on whether to modify the definition of a “new” marine engine to find that engine emission standards apply to Category 1, 2, and 3 marine diesel engines that are built after the standards become effective and that are installed on foreign flag vessels that enter U.S. ports. Such vessels and their engines would be subject to U.S. engine emission standards as a condition of port state entry.

The 1999 marine engine rule did not apply to marine engines on foreign vessels. 40 CFR 94.1(b)(3). At that time we concluded that engines installed on vessels flagged in another country that come into the United States temporarily will not be subject to the emission standards. Those vessels are not considered imported under the U.S. customs laws, and under the interpretation adopted in that rule we did not consider their engines “new” for purposes of Clean Air Act section 213, 42 U.S.C. 7547. 64 FR 73300, 73302 (Dec. 12, 1999).

Section 213 authorizes regulation of “new nonroad engine” and “new nonroad vehicle.” However, Title II of the Clean Air Act does not define either “new nonroad engine” or “new nonroad vehicle.” Section 216 defines a “new motor vehicle engine” to include an engine that has been “imported.” EPA modeled the current regulatory definitions of “new nonroad engine”and “new marine engine” at 40 CFR 89.2 and 40 CFR 94.2, respectively, after the statutory definitions of “new motor vehicle engine” and “new motor vehicle.” Because “new nonroad engine” is not defined in the statute, EPA is seeking comment on whether “new nonroad engine” could be defined to include marine engines on foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports and that are manufactured after the standards go into effect, whether or not they are considered imported under the U.S. customs laws. EPA also invites comment on whether the term “import,” which is not defined in Title II, should be defined to include foreign flag vessels, for purposes of the definition of “new nonroad engine”

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A02-11736. Public record. Not legal advice.