Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28309

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.

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

50152 (September 24, 1997).

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

associated NOX Technical Code is available in this

docket.

diagnostic radiopharmaceutical by

radiation dosimetry evaluations in

humans and appropriate animal models.

Such an evaluation must consider

dosimetry to the total body, to specific

organs or tissues, and, as appropriate, to

target organs or target tissues. The

maximum tolerated dose need not be

established.

Dated: April 15, 1998.

William B. Schultz,

Deputy Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 98–13797 Filed 5–20–98; 11:44 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

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 compressionignition (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.

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 landbased 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, landbased 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.

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
28310 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

4This study is available in docket A–92–28.

5See 59 FR 31306.

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

7See 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.

8See 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.

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

rule was signed December 17, 1997 and is available

electronically (see Section VI below).

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

11Other 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). 13See 62 FR 50152 (September 24, 1997).

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 justdeveloped 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 <130 rpm ................................................... None ........ None ........ 17.0 ......... None.

130 rpm≤n<2000 rpm ................................... None ........ None ........ 45*n (-0.2) None.

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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28311

14See 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).

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).

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]

Tier HC

(g/kW-hr)

CO

(g/kW-hr)

NOx

(g/kW-hr)

PM

(g/kW-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.

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 landbased 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 landbased nonroad rule.

C. Emission Standards

1. Need for Multi-Category Approach

The engines to be covered by the

emission control program contemplated
28312 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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

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 LandBased Nonroad

EPA is considering defining as a first

category of CI marine engines those

engines that are derived from landbased 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

Rated power (kW) Standard level NMHC+NOx

(g/kW-hr)

CO

(g/kW-hr)

PM

(g/kW-hr)

Implementation

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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28313

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

rule was signed December 17, 1997, and is available

electronically (see section VI below).

18 In the locomotive rule, EPA defined a new

locomotive to include both freshly manufactured,

and remanufactured to like-new condition.

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

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 oceangoing 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 foreignflagged 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.

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
28314 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

19An 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).

20A copy of this document is available in this

docket.

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

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

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

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

25See 62 FR 50152 (September 24, 1997). 26See 59 FR 55929 (November 9, 1994).

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 inuse 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 propulsion, including diesel electric drive ..................................................................... E2

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

Propeller law operated main and propeller law operated auxiliary engines .............................................................................................. E3

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.

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 (onhighway 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.

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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 28315

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

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

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 lowemitting 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 lowemission 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 landbased 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 ‘‘postmanufacturer 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
28316 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

28See 62 FR 50152 (September 24, 1997). 29See 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).

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 landbased nonroad NPRM.28

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 onhigh 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 costeffective, 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:

(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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6101–2]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan;

National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete

Operable Units 100–IU–1 and 100-IU–3

of the Hanford 100 Area Superfund Site

from the National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 10 announces its

intent to delete portions of the Hanford

100 Area NPL Superfund Site. The

portions proposed to be deleted are the

100–IU–1 and 100–IU–3 Operable Units

from the National Priories List. The

100–IU–1 and IU–3 Operable Units are

part of the Hanford 100 Area NPL Site

located at the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE) Hanford Site, located in

southeastern Washington State. EPA is

requesting comment on this action.

The NPL constitutes Appendix B to

the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, which EPA

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA). This partial deletion of

the 100–IU–1 and 100–IU–3 Operable

Units is proposed in accordance with 40

CFR 300.425(e) and the Notice of Policy

Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed

on the National Priorities List. 60 FR

55466 (Nov. 1995).

This proposal for partial deletion

pertains to all known waste areas

located in the 100–IU–1 and 100–IU–3

Operable Units. The waste areas in 100-

IU–3 were associated with former

military sites used to defend the

Hanford Site during the Cold War. In

addition, a 2–4,D burial ground is

located in the 100–IU–3 Operable Unit.

The primary waste areas in the 100–IU–

1 Operable Unit were associated with

decontamination of rail cars at the

Riverland Railroad Car Wash Pit, a

munitions cache, a pesticide container

area, and a 2–4,D container area.

DATES: EPA will accept comments

concerning its proposal for partial

deletion for thirty (30) days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register and a newspaper of

record.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to:

Dennis Faulk, Superfund Site Manager,

USEPA, 712 Swift #5, Richland,

Washington 99352; (509) 376–8631.

Information Repositories: Information

and the deletion docket is available for

review at the information repository

listed below:

U.S. Department of Energy, Public

Reading Room, Washington State

University, Tri-Cities Consolidated

Information Center, Room 101L, 2770

University Drive, Richland,

Washington 99352.

In addition, the Notice of Intent to

Delete can be reviewed at the following

information repositories: Portland State

University, Branford Price Millar

Library, Science and Engineering Floor,

934 SW Harrison and Park, Portland,

Oregon; University of Washington,

Suzzallo Library, Government

Publications Room, Seattle, Washington;

Gonzaga University, Foley Center, East

502 Boone, Spokane, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis Faulk; (509)376–8631.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10

announces its intent to delete the 100–

IU–1 and 100–IU–3 Operable Units from

the National Priories List. The 100–IU–

1 and IU–3 Operable Units are part of

the Hanford 100 Area NPL Site located

at The U.S. Department of Energy(DOE)

Hanford Site, located in southeastern

Washington State. EPA is requesting

comment on this action.

EPA proposes to delete the 100–IU–1

and 100–IU–3 Operable Units from the

100 Area NPL because all appropriate

CERCLA response activities have been

completed. The waste areas in the 100–

IU–1 and 100–IU–3 Operable Units were

cleaned up by the DOE between 1992

and 1994 using expedited response

actions (ERA). At the Hanford Site, the

term ERA is used to describe actions

taken under CERCLA removal authority

as described in 40 CFR 300.415. In

February 1996, a no further action

record of decision was signed

documenting that previous ERA’s had

removed all contaminants from the

waste areas in the 100–IU–1 and 100–

IU–3 Operable Units to below cleanup

levels for residential use established

under the Washington State Model

Toxics Control Act (MTCA). It should be

noted, cleanup activities are continuing

at other operable units of the Hanford

100 Area NPL Site.

The NPL is a list maintained by EPA

of sites that EPA has determined present

a significant risk to human health,

welfare, or the environment. Sites on

the NPL may be the subject of remedial

actions financed by the Hazardous

Substance Superfund (Fund). Pursuant

to 40 CFR 300.425(e) of the NCP, any

site or portion of a site deleted from the

NPL remains eligible for remedial

actions if conditions at the site warrant

such action.

EPA will accept comments

concerning its intent for partial deletion

for thirty (30) days after publication of

this notice in the Federal Register and

a newspaper of record.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP establishes the criteria that

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL.

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e),

sites may be deleted from the NPL

where no further response is

appropriate to protect human health or

the environment. In making such a

determination pursuant to § 300.425(e),

EPA will consider, in consultation with

the State, whether any of the following

criteria have been met:

Section 300.425(e)(1)(I). Responsible

parties or other persons have

implemented all appropriate response

actions required; or

Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All

appropriate response actions under

CERCLA have been implemented under

DOE’s removal authority, and no further

response action is deemed necessary; or

Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The

remedial investigation has shown that

the release poses no significant threat to

human health or the environment and,

therefore, taking of remedial measures is

not appropriate.

Deletion of a portion of a site from the

NPL does not preclude eligibility for

subsequent remedial actions at the area

deleted if future site conditions warrant