Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New CI Marine Engines at or Above 37 Kilowatts

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 89

[FRL-6014-4]

RIN 2060-AH65

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New CI Marine Engines

at or Above 37 Kilowatts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(ANPRM) to invite comment from all interested parties on EPA's plans to

propose emission standards and other related provisions for new

propulsion and auxiliary marine compression-ignition (CI) engines at or

above 37 kilowatts (kW). This action supplements an earlier action for

these engines initiated as part of an overall control strategy for new

spark-ignition (SI) and CI marine engines (Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) published November 9, 1994, modified in a

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) published at

February 7, 1996). The engines covered by today's action are used for

propulsion and auxiliary power on both commercial and recreational

vessels for a wide variety of applications including, but not limited

to, barges, tugs, fishing vessels, ferries, runabouts, and cabin

cruisers. This document does not address diesel marine engines rated

under 37 kW, which are included in a proposed rulemaking for land-based

nonroad CI engines published at September 24, 1997.

DATES: EPA requests comment on this ANPRM no later than June 22, 1998.

Should a commenter miss the requested deadline, EPA will try to

consider any comments received prior to publication of the NPRM that is

expected to follow this ANPRM. There will also be opportunity for oral

and written comment when EPA publishes the NPRM.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this action are contained in Public

Docket A-97-50, located at room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,

DC 20460. The docket may be inspected from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for

copying docket materials.

Comments on this notice should be sent to Public Docket A-97-50 at

the above address. EPA requests that a copy of comments also be sent to

Jean Marie Revelt, U.S. EPA, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, Engine

Programs and Compliance Division, (734) 214-4334.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose and Background

A. Purpose

Ground level ozone levels continue to be a significant problem in

many areas of the United States. In the past, the main strategy

employed in efforts to reduce ground-level ozone was reduction of

volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In recent years, however, it has

become clear that NOX controls are often a more effective

strategy for reducing ozone. As a result, attention has turned to

NOX emission controls as the key to improving air quality in

many areas of the country. Building on the emission standards for CI

engines promulgated in the early 1990s, EPA has recently promulgated a

new emission control program for on-highway CI engines and proposed a

new program for nonroad CI engines.1, 2 Both of

these programs contain stringent standards that will greatly reduce NOx

emissions from these engines.

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

\1\ In this notice, the term ``land-based nonroad'' and

``nonroad'' refers to the land-based CI engines and equipment

regulated under 40 CFR part 89. It does not include locomotive

engines.

\2\ See 62 FR 54694 (October 21, 1997) and 62 FR 50152

(September 24, 1997).

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

Similarly, particulate matter (PM) is also a problem in many areas

of the country. Currently, there are 80 PM-10 nonattainment areas

across the U.S. (PM-10 refers to particles less than or equal to 10

microns in diameter). PM, like ozone, has been linked to a range of

serious respiratory health problems. Levels of PM caused by mobile

sources are expected to rise in the future, due to the predicted

increase in the number of individual mobile sources. Both of the new

emission programs referred to above, for on-highway and nonroad CI

engines, are anticipated to reduce ambient PM levels, either through a

reduction in directly emitted particulate matter or through a reduction

in indirect (atmospheric) PM formation caused by NOX

emissions.

Domestic and ocean-going CI marine engines account for

approximately 4.5 percent of total mobile source NOx emissions

nationwide. However, because of the nature of their operation, the

contribution of these engines to NOX levels in certain port

cities and coastal areas is much higher. To address these emissions,

today's action outlines a control program for CI marine engines at or

above 37 kW that builds on EPA's programs for on-highway and land-based

nonroad diesel engines identified above, EPA's recent locomotive rule,

discussed below, and the International Convention on the Prevention of

Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), Annex VI--Air Pollution developed

by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).3 If the

emission standards and other requirements for those CI marine engines

that use the same technologies reflected in EPA's on-highway, land-

based nonroad, or locomotive rules are implemented as discussed in

today's action, EPA would expect to see NOX and PM

reductions on a per-engine basis comparable to those achieved by

engines subject to those rules. The numerical levels that EPA is

considering applying to very large CI marine engines were intended by

IMO to result in a 30 percent NOX reduction. EPA continues

to investigate IMO's anticipated reductions for those engines, based on

the age and other characteristics of the U.S. fleet.

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

\3\ A copy of MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI and the associated

NOX Technical Code is available in this docket.

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

B. Statutory Authority

Section 213(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to: (1)

conduct a study of emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles; (2)

determine whether emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen

(NOX), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs, including

hydrocarbons (HC)) from nonroad engines and vehicles are significant

contributors to ozone or CO in more than one area which has failed to

attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone or

CO; and (3) if nonroad emissions are determined to be significant,

regulate those categories or classes of new

[[Page 28310]]

nonroad engines and vehicles that cause or contribute to such air

pollution.

The Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study required by section

213(a)(1) was completed in November 1991.4 The determination

of the significance of emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles in

more than one NAAQS nonattainment area was published on June 17,

1994.5 At the same time, the first set of regulations for

new land-based nonroad CI engines at or above 37 kW was

promulgated.6 These are often referred to as the nonroad

Tier 1 standards for large CI engines. EPA has also issued proposed or

final rules for other categories of nonroad engines, including gasoline

engines less than 19 kW,7 gasoline marine engines (outboards

and personal watercraft),8 and locomotives.9

Today's action pertains to all diesel marine engines greater than 37

kW.

C. Regulatory Background

The marine engine industry consists of a complex set of entities

that manufacture a wide variety of engines. The primary entities

involved include engine manufacturers, which produce marine versions of

their land-based nonroad engines, and post-manufacturer marinizers,

which purchase engines in various stages of completion and adapt them

for operation in the marine environment. Engine sizes range from very

small engines used for auxiliary purposes onboard vessels or to propel

sailboats to very large engines used to propel ocean-going cargo ships.

However, as more fully described below, these engines can be

categorized into three basic types: those that are derived from or that

use land-based nonroad technologies; those that are derived from or

that use locomotive technologies; and those that are designed for

propulsion on very large ocean-going vessels.

Numerical emission standards for CI marine engines were originally

proposed in 1994 as part of the proposed rule for control of emissions

from new SI and CI marine engines.10 At that time, EPA had a

limited understanding of the CI marine industry and, relying on the

similarities between nonroad and CI marine engines, proposed to apply

the same emission levels as those in the then just-developed land-based

nonroad rule. The nonroad Tier 1 standards are set out in Table 1. EPA

proposed that these standards for CI marine engines become effective

January 1, 1999 for engines less than 560 kW, and January 1, 2000, for

engines 560 KW and above. Although no upper limits on engine size were

proposed for application of these standards to CI marine engines, EPA

requested comment on whether an upper limit should be established above

which the emission control program being developed concurrently by the

International Maritime Organization (Annex VI, Air Pollution to the

International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,

MARPOL 73/78) should apply. Annex VI contains, among other

provisions,11 requirements to limit NOX emissions

from diesel marine engines, but sets no limits for other pollutants

(i.e., HC, CO, PM). Negotiations were concluded September 26, 1997, and

a final version of the Annex was signed by participating IMO member

nations, including the U.S. delegation. The Annex in its entirety will

acquire the force of law in the United States only after it is ratified

by Congress. Table 1 also contains the IMO's NOX limits,

which are intended to apply to new engines greater than 130 kW

installed on vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2000, or which

undergo a major conversion after that date.

Table 1.--Comparison of Proposed Numerical Emission Limits--EPA and IMO

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

Agency Engine speed HC (g/kW-hr) CO (g/kW-hr) NOx (g/kW-hr) PM (g/kW-hr)

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

EPA (Nonroad Tier 1)........ all............. 1.3........... 11.4.......... 9.2........... 0.54

IMO........................... n -0.2)... None.

rpm.

n 2000......... None.......... None.......... 9.8........... None.

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

In response to the NPRM, several commenters requested that EPA

harmonize domestic emission standards for CI marine engines to the

levels being considered by IMO, in effect applying the proposed IMO

limits domestically. Because the proposed IMO standards were not as

stringent as the proposed domestic standards, this was a significant

issue. On February 7, 1996, EPA published a Supplemental NPRM to

address this and other concerns in more detail. 12

Specifically, EPA identified and requested comment on three alternative

harmonization approaches: (1) Adopt the IMO NOx emission standard

instead of the standard proposed in the NPRM; (2) retain the proposed

average NOx emission standard of 9.2 g/kW-hr and also adopt the IMO

emission standards across the engine speed range as a cap which no

engine could exceed; or (3) determine an appropriate engine speed or

engine power output cutoff point such that engines of high horsepower

and low and medium speeds would be subject to IMO emission limits and

engines of low horsepower and high speed would be subject to the

proposed 9.2 g/kW-hr average standard with the 9.8 g/kW-hr IMO level as

a cap which no engine could exceed. EPA also sought comment on

harmonizing the numerical emission limits for other pollutants. Options

considered were to drop, retain, or alter the proposed standards for

HC, CO, PM, and smoke.

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

\4\ This study is available in docket A-92-28.

5 See 59 FR 31306.

6 See 59 FR 31306 (June 17, 1994).

7 See 60 FR 34582 (July 3, 1995) for the final rule

establishing Tier 1 standards and 62 FR 14740 (March 27, 1997) for

the ANPRM discussing Tier 2 standards.

8 See 61 FR 52087 (October 4, 1996) for the final

rule. EPA did not set numerical emission standards for sterndrive

and inboard gasoline marine engines in this rule.

9 See 62 FR 6365 (February 11, 1997); the final rule

was signed December 17, 1997 and is available electronically (see

Section VI below).

10 See 59 FR 55929 (November 9, 1994).

11 Other provisions include requirements for ozone-

depleting substances, sulfur content of fuel, incineration, VOCs

from refueling, and fuel quality.

12 See 61 FR 4600 (February 7, 1996).

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

While the development of the national marine rule and the MARPOL

negotiations continued, EPA began a new action for land-based nonroad

diesel engines as part of a new Agency initiative to reduce national

NOx and PM emissions from mobile sources. EPA proposed a rule that

would set more stringent standards for land-based nonroad engines and

equipment, known as Tier 2 standards (set out in Table 3, below).

13 EPA proposed that these Tier 2 standards come into effect

as early as 2001 for some engine categories. That

[[Page 28311]]

proposed rule also included more stringent Tier 3 standards (also set

out in table 3), which would go into effect subject to a feasibility

review in 2001. That feasibility review will be conducted through a

public rulemaking process. Finally, marine and land-based nonroad CI

engines less than 37 KW were included in the diesel land-based nonroad

rule, with standards to come into effect as early as 1999 for Tier 1

and 2004 for Tier 2. Smaller CI marine engines were included in the

proposal because they were not subject to any emission limits at the

time (the existing marine NPRM covered only CI marine engines at or

greater than 37 kW).

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

\13\ See 62 FR 50152 (September 24, 1997).

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

Also during this time, and pursuant to its Clean Air Act

obligations, EPA proposed a rule that would set emission standards for

new locomotive engines, which has since been finalized. 14

The locomotive program consists of three separate sets of standards,

with applicability of the standards dependent on the date a locomotive

is first manufactured. The first set of standards (Tier 0) applies to

locomotives and locomotive engines originally manufactured from 1973

through 2001. The Tier 0 standards will be phased in over a two year

period beginning in 2000, and will apply at the time of each

remanufacture (as well as at the time of original manufacture for those

covered locomotives originally manufactured in 2000 and 2001). The

second set of standards (Tier 1) apply to locomotives and locomotive

engines originally manufactured from 2002 through 2004. Such

locomotives and locomotive engines will be required to meet the Tier 1

standards at the time of original manufacture and at each subsequent

remanufacture. The final set of standards (Tier 2) apply to locomotives

and locomotive engines originally manufactured in 2005 and later. Such

locomotives and locomotive engines will be required to meet the Tier 2

standards at the time of original manufacture and at each subsequent

remanufacture. The numerical standards are contained in Table 2.

Table 2.--Locomotive Standards

[Line-haul only]

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

HC (g/kW- CO (g/kW- NOx (g/kW- PM (g/kW-

Tier hr) hr) hr) hr)

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

Tier 0.................................................. 1.3 6.7 12.7 0.80

Tier 1.................................................. 0.7 2.9 9.9 0.6

Tier 2.................................................. 0.4 2.0 7.4 0.27

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

EPA's efforts toward new emission limits for land-based nonroad

diesel engines and locomotive engines led EPA to reconsider its

approach to the control of emissions from CI marine engines. Again,

because of the similarities between land-based nonroad and locomotive

engines and CI marine engines, EPA is considering a rule based on

applying the anticipated new technologies to CI marine engines. As a

result, EPA did not take final action on CI marine engines when it

adopted standards for marine spark-ignition engines. 15

Instead, EPA is pursuing a separate initiative for marine diesel

engines which involves proposing a more ambitious emission control

program than those proposed in 1994 and modified in 1996. The remainder

of this ANPRM describes the new approach the Agency is considering for

regulating emissions from new CI marine engines.

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

\14\ See 62 FR 6365 (February 11, 1997); the final rule was

signed December 17, 1997, and is available electronically (see

section VI below).

15 See 61 FR 52087 (October 4, 1996).

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

II. General Approach for Emission Control Program

A. Building on Land-Based Nonroad and Locomotive Rulemakings

Because of the similarities between certain CI marine engines and

land-based nonroad diesel and locomotive engines, EPA intends to

continue the same general approach as described in the earlier NPRM and

SNPRM. That is, EPA envisions that the emission control program for CI

marine engines at or above 37 kW will in many cases be an outgrowth of

and depend on EPA's proposed emission control program for other land-

based engines. However, instead of basing the program on the land-based

nonroad Tier 1 program, this new proposal will look to the newer Tier 2

and locomotive programs. EPA intends to draw on both of those programs

for elements such as numerical standards, compliance program, and

manufacturer flexibility provisions. At the same time, EPA recognizes

that differences between the engines may make it difficult to apply

those programs to CI marine engines. Therefore, EPA seeks comments on

all aspects of the basic program outlined below and on the suitability

of applying provisions of the land-based and locomotive rulemakings in

this context. Interested parties should refer directly to those rules,

cited above, for more details on their contents.

B. Program Scope

The emission control program contemplated by today's action is

intended to cover all new propulsion or auxiliary compression-ignition

engines of 37 kW or greater offered for sale, introduced into commerce,

or imported into the United States for installation on a vessel that is

registered or flagged in the United States. Engines produced for

installation on vessels not registered or flagged in the United States

may be covered by an export exemption, as long as those vessels are not

operated solely within United States. With regard to size, this rule is

intended to cover all new engines from a 37 kW engine used on a small

recreational vessel to a 30,000 kW or larger engine installed on an

ocean-going container ship. With regard to application, the

requirements are intended to cover both recreational and commercial

engines. EPA requests comment generally on the proposed scope of the

program and, in particular, on its effect on international commerce.

For purposes of this rulemaking, EPA considers a propulsion engine

to be an engine that serves to move a vessel through water, either

directly or indirectly. Any other engine installed on a vessel is

considered to be an auxiliary engine. However, portable auxiliary

engines of any size not permanently affixed to a marine vessel (e.g.,

auxiliary engines that are not permanently installed but, instead, are

mounted on pallets that can be easily removed from the vessel) are not

intended to be covered by this rule; those engines are subject to the

land-based nonroad rule.

C. Emission Standards

1. Need for Multi-Category Approach

The engines to be covered by the emission control program

contemplated

[[Page 28312]]

in today's action are very diverse, in terms of engine size, emission

technology, control hardware, and costs associated with reducing

emissions. EPA therefore believes that it is not reasonable to propose

one set of numerical emission levels for all CI marine engines. Because

of the differences among engines, numerical standards that are

reasonable and feasible for a 37 kW engine used on an 18-foot boat may

not be reasonable or feasible for a 1500 kW engine installed on a tug

or a 20,000 kW engine installed on an ocean-going container ship.

Similarly, numerical emission limits that are appropriate for very

large engines may be too loose for smaller engines, leaving them

virtually unregulated. Therefore, EPA is considering setting different

numerical standards for different size CI marine engines, as discussed

in further detail below. EPA seeks comment on how the categories of

engines should be defined. Options for defining the categories include

engine power, displacement, bore size, or underlying engine technology.

While it is also possible to consider setting numerical standards

based on the use of the vessel (i.e., whether it is used for commercial

or recreational purposes), EPA is not considering doing so. Regardless

of their ultimate use, CI marine engines of similar size can and do use

the same emission control technologies, although they may be calibrated

differently for performance reasons. Therefore, there appears to be no

need to make such a use-based distinction for purposes of the proposed

rulemaking.

2. Category 1: Engines Similar to Land-Based Nonroad

EPA is considering defining as a first category of CI marine

engines those engines that are derived from land-based nonroad CI

engines or that use similar technologies. As noted above, EPA recently

issued an NPRM for control of emissions from land-based nonroad CI

engines. Preliminary research confirms that many CI marine engines are

derived from land-based nonroad CI engines covered in that NPRM, using

the same base engine or engine block as their land-based counterparts

and employing the same or similar engine technologies. Therefore, EPA

believes that the NOx emission control technologies utilized for

nonroad engines can be extended to these marine engines, and

concomitantly that the numerical emission levels specified for Tier 2

and Tier 3 land-based nonroad engines are appropriate for CI marine

engines. The land-based nonroad standards are set out in Table 3. CI

marine engines should be able to achieve these emission limits on the

E3 duty cycle (described below in section I.D. of today's ANPRM) by

applying technologies under development for land-based nonroad engines,

including increased use of turbocharging, better engine cooling,

electronic controls, and exhaust gas recirculation. Because of the

relationship between land-based and marine engines, the 2001

feasibility review intended for land-based engine standards would be

expanded to include a re-evaluation of any Tier 3 standards adopted for

marine engines. EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of

extending land-based requirements to this category of CI marine engines

and on the appropriateness of promulgating Tier 3 standards for marine

engines prior to a formal technology review. .........................

Table 3.--Proposed Standards and Implementation Dates for Land-Based Nonroad CI Engines Rated Over 37 kW

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

NMHC+NOx (g/ Implementation

Rated power (kW) Standard level kW-hr) CO (g/kW-hr) PM (g/kW-hr) date

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

37 75............... Tier 2........... 7.5 5.0 0.40 2004

Tier 3........... 4.7 5.0 ............ 2008

75 130.............. Tier 2........... 6.6 5.0 0.30 2003

Tier 3........... 4.0 5.0 ............ 2007

130 225............. Tier 2........... 6.6 3.5 0.20 2003

Tier 3........... 4.0 3.5 ............ 2006

225 450............. Tier 2........... 6.4 3.5 0.20 2001

Tier 3........... 4.0 3.5 ............ 2006

450 560............. Tier 2........... 6.4 3.5 0.20 2002

Tier 3........... 4.0 3.5 ............ 2006

>560........................... Tier 2........... 6.4 3.5 0.20 2006

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

Table 3 also sets out the proposed implementation dates for land-

based nonroad engines. EPA seeks comment on applying these dates to CI

marine engines. Specifically, EPA seeks comment on the extent to which

implementation should be delayed to provide additional time to work out

the marinization of the land-based engine or application of technology

to uncontrolled CI marine engines as new standards are implemented. In

addition, if such delays are required, EPA seeks comment on the

appropriate extension of the schedule.

If the standards described above are directly applied to CI marine

engines, one important result would be that engines greater than 560 kW

would remain unregulated until 2006. To close this gap, EPA is

considering applying interim standards to these engines. One option

would be to apply the Tier 1 standards described in Table 1, to go into

effect in 2000 as originally proposed in the CI marine

NPRM.16 The other option is to apply the IMO NOx emission

limits in the interim. These standards are also scheduled to apply

beginning in 2000. EPA seeks comment on the relative merits of these

two approaches. If the Tier 1 standards are adopted, EPA does not

believe the effective dates should be delayed for CI marine since these

emission limits are similar to those of the IMO which will go into

effect for engines installed on vessels constructed on or after January

1, 2000.

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

\16\ See 59 FR 55929 (November 9, 1994).

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

3. Category 2: Engines Similar to Locomotive Engines

EPA is considering defining as a second category of CI marine

engines those engines that are derived from locomotive engines or that

use similar technologies. These engines are typically used in vessels

such as tugs, ferries, and small coastal container or bulk carriers

that operate primarily in US waters. Despite their relatively small

number, these engines contribute

[[Page 28313]]

disproportionately to coastal and port NOx levels due to the

high power ratings, high number of hours they are used, and the way

they are used (high load factors).

EPA is considering two ways to address emissions from engines in

this category. The first approach would be to apply the NOx

emission limits contained in MARPOL Annex VI, as reflected in the NOx

curve. These limits would apply to new engines constructed on or after

January 1, 2000. Alternatively, due to their relatively high

contribution to the NOx and PM inventories on a per engine basis, more

stringent emission limits may be appropriate for these engines. Thus,

the second approach would be to apply the numerical emission limits for

new locomotive engines to these CI marine engines (see Table 2, above).

EPA seeks comment on both of these approaches, and on the extent to

which the implementation dates in the locomotive rule should be

adjusted to accommodate application of those standards to marine

engines.17

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

\17\ See 62 FR 6365 (February 11, 1997); the final rule was

signed December 17, 1997, and is available electronically (see

section VI below).

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

4. Category 3: Low Speed, High Horsepower Engines

EPA is considering defining as a third category of CI marine

engines those low speed, high horsepower engines that are used for

propulsion purposes on ocean-going engines or Great Lakes freighters.

These engines, which are typically larger than those derived from

locomotive engines, are built to unique specifications onboard the

vessel, and are manufactured in very small numbers. For such new

engines, EPA is considering setting numerical standards for this

category consistent with the IMO NOx curve (see Table 1

above). EPA believes this approach to be reasonable for this category

of engines, primarily because of their use patterns. Such engines are

used in large vessels that engage in ocean travel and may operate only

a limited amount of time in U.S. ports, while they are loading or

unloading cargo and/or people. Setting standards more stringent than

those adopted by IMO for such engines may accordingly have only a

minimal impact on U.S. air quality, especially since the more stringent

standards could apply only to engines installed on vessels flagged or

registered in the United States. In addition, because more stringent

standards would apply only to U.S. vessels, they may also affect the

competitiveness of U.S. shipping vessels in the world transportation

market, since engines installed on foreign-flagged vessels would need

to comply only with the IMO emission limits. EPA seeks comment on the

appropriateness of this approach for these very large engines.

With regard to the effective date for Category 3 engines, EPA is

considering two approaches. The first reflects the approach typically

used by EPA: standards are effective based on the construction date of

the engine. Under this approach, EPA would require engines manufactured

on or after January 1, 2000 to meet these limits. The second approach

reflects the approach typically used by IMO and which is incorporated

in MARPOL Annex VI: standards are effective based on the construction

date of the vessel on which they are installed. Under this approach,

engines installed on vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2000

would be required to meet these limits. The difference between these

two approaches is not insignificant, since construction on a vessel may

begin up to two years before the engine is manufactured and installed.

Thus, using the IMO approach may lead to earlier implementation. EPA

seeks comment on the relative merits of either approach.

5. Smoke Standards

In previous diesel engine emission control programs, EPA has

typically set smoke standards as well as NOx and PM emission

limits for diesel engines. However, as in the proposed rule for land-

based and small marine nonroad engines, EPA does not intend to propose

a smoke standard for the CI marine engines subject to this rule. This

is primarily because a test procedure to accurately measure smoke

levels has not yet been developed for marine engines. While the test

for land-based engines could be used, it may be inappropriate because

it does not reflect how marine engines are actually operated. In

addition, current PM controls for CI engines, as well as customer

awareness and demand for smoke-controlled engines, may effectively

control smoke from these engines beyond any levels the Agency may

reasonably set. EPA seeks comment on the necessity of setting smoke

standards.

6. Remanufacturing Requirements

To address the fact that certain types of engines are kept in

service for very long periods of time, both the locomotive rule and the

IMO's NOx emission control program contain remanufacturing

requirements. The locomotive rule's three tiers of numerical emission

limits apply to freshly manufactured 18 and existing engines

whenever they are remanufactured to a condition similar to freshly

manufactured. The MARPOL Annex VI NOx curve emission limits

apply to new engines and to existing engines when they are

substantially modified. Remanufacturing provisions were included in

both of these rules because of the slow rate of fleet turnover in these

sectors, which prevents the realization of significant emission

reductions from these categories of engines until well into the future.

EPA seeks comment on the appropriateness of applying these rebuild

provisions to Category 2 and 3 engines.

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

\18\ In the locomotive rule, EPA defined a new locomotive to

include both freshly manufactured, and remanufactured to like-new

condition.

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

While remanufacturing provisions could be extended to Category 1

engines, EPA is not currently considering doing so for two reasons.

First, current industry rebuilding practices for Category 1 engines may

make it difficult to implement a remanufacturing program. As noted

above, there is a large degree of diversity among these engines, in

terms of their applications (e.g., auxiliary/propulsion engines on

fishing vessels, barges, tugs, recreational vessels, etc.). This

diversity, in turn, is likely to lead to a diverse set of

remanufacturing practices, depending on application and engine type. In

other words, engines on fishing vessels may not be remanufactured at

the same rate as engines on recreational vessels. This diversity may

make it difficult to set a uniform process and standard on the Category

1 segment of the marine industry. Second, it is not clear that a

remanufacturing requirement for Category 1 engines would yield an

emission benefit large enough to offset the potential burden on users,

and so may not justify such a requirement. At the same time, EPA is

considering extending the proposed land-based nonroad rebuild

provisions to Category 1 engines. EPA seeks comment on the

characteristics of rebuilding practices for Category 1 engines, the

appropriateness of extending a remanufacturing requirement to those

engines, and whether a remanufacturing requirement, if extended, should

vary according to the intended use of the engine.

D. Duty Cycles

To ensure the benefits of the emission control program, engine

manufacturers must certify their engines to the required emission

limits using an appropriate duty cycle. The many kinds of duty cycles

that exist for marine

[[Page 28314]]

engines make it necessary to specify which duty cycle will be used to

demonstrate compliance with the specified emission limits. The choice

of duty cycle is a function of engine size, engine characteristics, and

how the engine is used. EPA is considering separate duty cycles for

propulsion and auxiliary applications for each of the three categories

of engines described above.

For Category 1 propulsion engines, EPA is considering two duty

cycles: the International Standards Organization (ISO) E3 and E5 duty

cycles. The E3 cycle is a four-mode steady-state cycle which was

developed to represent in-use operation of commercial marine diesel

propulsion engines. The E5 duty cycle, which was developed to represent

in-use operation of recreational marine diesel engines, is similar to

the E3 except that it includes an idle mode and is more heavily

weighted towards lower power modes. At this time, EPA is considering

proposing to require use of the E3 duty cycle for these

engines.19

To ease the certification burden associated with this rule, EPA is

considering proposing a flexibility to marine engine manufacturers that

was proposed in the land-based nonroad rule for CI marine engines less

than 37 kW. This provision would allow marine engines to be included in

land-based engine families, thus avoiding the necessity of performing a

separate certification test for both the land-based nonroad and marine

engines. In essence, the flexibility would enable manufacturers to

certify propulsion marine engines on ISO's C1 test cycle, which is an

8-mode test designed for variable speed, variable load engines.

Although the C1 test procedure may not be as representative of marine

operation as the E3 or E5 cycles, it should provide comparable

assurance of control. If this flexibility is adopted in the CI marine

engine program, the engine manufacturer will not be relieved of the

responsibility to ensure that the marine engine in fact meets the

emission limits on the E3 test cycle even though it is part of a land-

based family. EPA seeks comment on whether this cross-over testing

should be allowed.

For Category 3 propulsion engines, EPA is considering applying the

duty cycles and procedures contained in the International Maritime

Organization's NOx Technical Code.20 These test cycles are

set out in Table 5.

Table 5.--Duty Cycles--Category Engines

(As set out in Annex VI NOx Technical Code)

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

Engine Cycle

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

Constant-speed marine engines for ship's main E2

propulsion, including diesel electric drive.

Variable-pitch propeller sets................... E2

Propeller law operated main and propeller law E3

operated auxiliary engines.

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

Finally, for Category 2 propulsion engines, EPA requests comment on

whether one of the two approaches described above is appropriate, or

whether another duty cycle should be required.

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

\19\ An explanation of EPA's preliminary view on using the E3

duty cycle is set forth in Memorandum to Docket #A-96-40 from Mike

Samulski, ``Selection of Duty Cycle to Propose for High Speed CI

Marine Engines (February 19, 1997).

20 A copy of this document is available in this

docket.

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

With regard to auxiliary engines of any category, EPA intends to

propose the ISO D2 duty cycle for variable-speed engines, which was

designed for constant-speed generator sets with an intermittent load.

In addition, EPA is considering extending the C1 flexibility described

above to marine auxiliary engines. EPA seeks comment on the

appropriateness of this cross-over testing for auxiliary engines.

E. Certification and Compliance Requirements

1. Certification

EPA is planning to put into place certification, engine family

selection, recordkeeping and reporting requirements similar to those

proposed in the nonroad land-based rule. EPA seeks comments on any

revisions to these elements that may be necessary in the context of the

CI marine engine emission control program, and any alterations that may

be required for the different categories of CI marine engines.

2. Averaging, Banking, and Trading

In past federal mobile source rulemakings, EPA has adopted

averaging, banking, and trading programs, and each of the programs

referred to in today's ANPRM (on-highway 21 and land-based

nonroad 22, locomotive 23, and gasoline marine

24 rules) include such programs. EPA requests comment on the

need or applicability of such a program to CI marine engines.

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

\21\ See 62 FR 54694 (October 21, 1997).

\22\ See 62 FR 50152 (September 24, 1997).

\23\ See 62 FR 6365 (February 11, 1997).

\24\ See 61 FR 52087 (October 4, 1996).

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

3. Interface with IMO

Although EPA does not anticipate any difficulties with the

interface between the domestic and IMO certification programs, EPA

seeks comment on any problems that could arise.

4. Other Compliance Issues

EPA plans to draw on the compliance program set out in the land-

based nonroad NPRM. 25 EPA intends to include selective

enforcement auditing and recall provisions, in which engines are tested

at the production line or in the field, respectively. EPA also intends

to propose emission defect warranty and reporting requirements for

marine diesel engines. Tampering prohibitions and importation

restrictions will be outlined in the NPRM. EPA requests comment on how

to apply these programs to marine diesel engines. Commenters are

encouraged to provide detailed discussion of any revisions that may be

needed to the land-based nonroad version of these programs to

accommodate the marine engine market. EPA seeks comment on applying

similar requirements to Category 2 and Category 3 engines, and how such

provisions should interface with IMO requirements. In addition, EPA

seeks comment on whether the production line testing program contained

in the locomotive rule should be extended to Category 1 engines as an

alternative to selective enforcement auditing.

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

\25\ See 62 FR 50152 (September 24, 1997).

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

F. Other Issues

1. Competitiveness with Spark-Ignition Engines

In response to the original marine NPRM, some commenters argued

that CI engines should be subject to no more stringent regulation than

gasoline SI sterndrive or inboard engines. 26 According to

these commenters, CI

[[Page 28315]]

marine engines compete directly with SI sterndrive and inboard engines

in certain markets, particularly for inboard cruisers. As described in

the final rule for SI marine engines, EPA determined not to set

standards for SI marine sterndrive and inboard engines, and these

engines remain unregulated at this time. 27

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

\26\ See 59 FR 55929 (November 9, 1994).

\27\ See 61 FR 52087 (October 4, 1996).

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

EPA understands that manufacturers of inboard cruisers often give

customers a choice of purchasing either gasoline or diesel engines for

certain types of vessels. However, information obtained from vessel

manufacturers indicates that the choice of engine is complex. Customers

primarily consider reliability, durability, fuel economy, and power

when making their engine choice. In other words, the decision of

whether to purchase a gasoline engine or a diesel engine appears to

depend mainly on the intended usage patterns of the consumer.

Typically, diesel engines are more attractive to customers interested

in slow cruising over long distances, while gasoline engines are more

attractive to customers interested in certain performance

characteristics (e.g., speed). Thus, diesel engines do not appear to

compete directly with gasoline engines in that the performance of the

engines is not similar and the engines are not completely

interchangeable in terms of use.

Current pricing of the engines further supports this argument.

Information received by EPA suggests that at nearly the same power

rating, the price of diesel engines is estimated to be double that for

counterpart gasoline engines, in part due to fabrication requirements.

EPA believes that if the two engine types were truly competitive, their

prices would be more similar. EPA nevertheless recognizes that diesel

and gasoline engines are offered on some of the same or similar

vessels, and is therefore requesting additional information on this

issue.

2. Voluntary Low-Emitting Engine Program

EPA is interested in adopting voluntary standards involving very

low-emitting engine technologies, similar to those proposed in the

land-based nonroad engine NPRM. The nonroad ``Blue Sky Series'' program

sets out voluntary standards which manufacturers can meet using novel

technologies or alternative fuels. The intended goal of adopting

voluntary standards is two-fold: to increase the potential for emission

reductions and to encourage the development and initial introduction of

new technologies. The creation of incentives to produce Blue Sky Series

engines would be left to the discretion of states or other

organizations. The concentrated use of large marine engines near

certain nonattainment areas should motivate consideration of these

voluntary low-emission standards for new engines. Retrofit of existing

engines may also be appropriate, but would not fall under the Blue Sky

Series program.

Voluntary standards for diesel marine engines could be set up to be

similar to those proposed for land-based engines, with some important

differences. First, as proposed in the land-based nonroad NPRM, Blue

Sky Series engines would be certified using the highway transient test.

Testing these engines on a transient test cycle is important to ensure

adequate control of particulate emissions. Use of the highway test

cycle for large CI marine engines would, however, be problematic

because of the very different operating modes experienced in use.

Voluntary standards for some or all marine diesel engines would

therefore need to rely on the ISO CI or another test cycle, with a

corresponding shift in focus to reducing NOx emissions. Second, the

numerical levels for the voluntary standards proposed in the land-based

nonroad NPRM would need to be revised, to reflect the potential for

achieving superior emission control from the various sizes of marine

engines. Finally, as with the land-based nonroad Blue Sky Series

program, manufacturers would not be relieved of the responsibility to

demonstrate compliance with the prevailing mandatory standards,

although initial certification of such engines could be streamlined.

EPA requests comment on the potential success of a voluntary

emission standards program for CI marine engines. EPA further requests

comment on the appropriate makeup of a program of voluntary standards

for all sizes of CI marine engines, including those subject to the

MARPOL Annex VI NOx levels.

III. Potential Impacts

EPA will include detailed analysis of the emissions reductions and

air quality benefits that would result from the standards proposed in

the NPRM. EPA will also include in the NPRM an analysis of the expected

environmental and economic impacts of meeting the proposed emission

standards. The estimated economic impacts for land-based nonroad

engines to meet proposed standards will be the starting point for a

projection of Category 1 engine impacts. EPA expects that manufacturers

will comply with diesel marine emission standards by marinizing engines

that have been designed for land-based emission standards. Adjustments

will be made to account for the unique design and operation of the

marinized engines. Cost calculations will include certification and

testing costs, as well as a consideration of fuel economy impacts

resulting from the anticipated technologies; however, no fuel economy

penalty was projected for land-based engines. Cost estimates for

Category 2 engines will be similarly derived from the analysis

completed for locomotive engines. EPA does not currently contemplate

proposing standards more stringent than IMO levels for Category 3

engines and therefore intends not to estimate any cost impact for those

engines.

IV. Small Business Concerns

Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq. requires the Administrator to assess the economic impact of

proposed rules on small entities. The Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, Public Law 104-121, amended

the RFA to strengthen its analytical and procedural requirements and to

ensure that small entities are adequately considered during rule

development. The Agency accordingly requests comment on the potential

impacts on a small business of the program outlined in today's

proposal. Such comments will help the Agency meet its obligations under

SBREFA and will suggest how EPA can minimize the impacts of this rule

for small companies that may be adversely affected.

EPA has identified three distinct groups of entities involved in

the marine industry that could be affected by the emission control

program under consideration. The first group, considered by EPA as

``post-manufacturer marinizers,'' are companies that purchase an engine

block from an engine manufacturer and modify it in such as way to make

it adaptable to the marine environment. As with the SI marine emission

standards, these companies would need to certify the marinized engines

under the standards contemplated here. Most of these companies would be

considered small business entities according to the size standards

defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations. Through

early outreach efforts, EPA has learned that these small post-

manufacturer marinizers may face at least two challenges not faced by

large companies. First, they may have to redesign their end product, to

[[Page 28316]]

incorporate a change made by their engine supplier in response to new

emission requirements for CI land-based or marine engines. Second, many

if not all of these companies will be facing compliance requirements

for the first time. EPA requests comment on the burdens expected to be

faced by these companies and potential flexibility provisions that may

provide necessary relief. To identify potential flexibility provisions,

commenters are encouraged to examine the proposed in the land-based

nonroad NPRM.\28\

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

\28\ See 62 FR 50152 (September 24, 1997).

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

The second group of companies that may be affected by the proposed

program are engine manufacturers that produce a wide variety of on-

highway and nonroad engines. As noted above, CI marine engines produced

by these manufacturers are typically derived from land-based nonroad or

on-highway engines or are based on the same technology. Because these

engine manufacturers have control over the manufacturing process for

the base on-high or nonroad engine, they also have more control than

the post-manufacturer marinizers over the internal design of the marine

engines they market as well as more flexibility over the marinizing

process. Typically, these engine manufacturers are considered large

according to the SBA size standards. EPA requests comment on the degree

to which these larger CI marine engine manufacturers will be affected

by the proposed emission control program and, more specifically, the

extent to which it would be appropriate to include flexibility

provisions for these manufacturers.

The final group of companies that may be affected by the proposed

program are vessel manufacturers. They may be affected to the extent

that they need to accommodate changed engine designs from their engine

suppliers. EPA expects that most of the application of emission control

technology to achieve proposed emission limits will not affect vessel

design. EPA seeks comment from vessel manufacturers and others on the

potential impact on vessel design, as well as the appropriateness of

equipment manufacturer flexibilities.

V. Public Participation

The Agency is committed to a full and open regulatory process and

looks forward to input from a wide range of interested parties as the

rulemaking process develops. If EPA proceeds as expected with a

proposed rule, these opportunities will include a formal public comment

period and a public hearing. EPA encourages all interested parties to

become involved in this process as it develops.

With today's action, EPA opens a comment period for this ANPRM.

Comments will be accepted through June 22, 1998. The Agency strongly

encourages comment on all aspects of this proposal. The most useful

comments are those supported by appropriate and detailed rationales,

data, and analyses. All comments, with the exception of proprietary

information, should be directed to the EPA Air Docket Section, Docket

No. A-97-50 before the date specified above. Commenters who wish to

submit proprietary information for consideration should clearly

separate such information from other comments by (1) labeling

proprietary information ``Confidential Business Information'' and (2)

sending proprietary information directly to the contact person listed

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and not to the public docket.

This will help ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently

placed in the docket. If a commenter wants EPA to use a submission of

confidential information as part of the basis for an NPRM, then a

nonconfidential version of the document that summarizes the key data or

information should be sent to the docket.

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed

by EPA only to the extent allowed and in accordance with the procedures

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies

the submission when it is received by EPA, it will be made available to

the public without further notice to the commenter.

VI. Copies of Documents

This ANPRM is available in the public docket as described under

ADDRESSES above. This document is 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 Federal

Register version is made available on the day of publication on the

first Web site listed below. The EPA Office of Mobile Sources also

publishes these notices on the second Web site listed below.

Internet (Web)

http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/

(either select desired date or use Search feature)

http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/

(look in What's New or under the specific rulemaking topic)

Please note that due to differences between the software used to

develop the document and the software into which the document may be

downloaded, minor changes in format, pagination, etc. may occur.

VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement

to accompany any general notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate which may result in estimated costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private

sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, for any rule

subject to section 202 EPA generally must select the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the

objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements.

Under section 203, before establishing any regulatory requirements that

may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, EPA must take

steps to inform and advise small governments of the requirements and

enable them to provide input.

EPA has determined that the requirements of UMRA do not extend to

advance notices of proposed rulemaking such as this Advance Notice.

VIII. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866, the Agency must determine whether

this regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of

the Executive Order.\29\ The EO defines ``significant regulatory

action'' as any regulatory action (including an advanced notice of

proposed rulemaking) that is likely to result in a rule that may:

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

\29\ See 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).

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

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or,

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

A draft of this ANPRM was reviewed by OMB prior to publication, as

[[Page 28317]]

required by EO 12866. Any written comments from OMB and any EPA

response to OMB comments have been placed in the public docket for this

Notice.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 89

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Nonroad source pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 11, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98-13791 Filed 5-21-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P