[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28309-28317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13791]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 NO<INF>X</INF> controls are often a more effective 
strategy for reducing ozone. As a result, attention has turned to 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.<SUP>1,</SUP> <SUP>2</SUP> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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).<SUP>3</SUP> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
(NO<INF>X</INF>), 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.<SUP>4</SUP> 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.<SUP>5</SUP> At the same time, the first set of regulations for 
new land-based nonroad CI engines at or above 37 kW was 
promulgated.<SUP>6</SUP> 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,<SUP>7</SUP> gasoline marine engines (outboards 
and personal watercraft),<SUP>8</SUP> and locomotives.<SUP>9</SUP> 
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.<SUP>10</SUP> 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,<SUP>11</SUP> requirements to limit NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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)  NO<INF>x  (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 rpmn<2000     None..........  None..........  45*n (<SUP>-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. <SUP>12</SUP> 
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.
    <SUP>5</SUP> See 59 FR 31306.
    <SUP>6</SUP> See 59 FR 31306 (June 17, 1994).
    <SUP>7</SUP> 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.
    <SUP>8</SUP> 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.
    <SUP>9</SUP> See 62 FR 6365 (February 11, 1997); the final rule 
was signed December 17, 1997 and is available electronically (see 
Section VI below).
    <SUP>10</SUP> See 59 FR 55929 (November 9, 1994).
    <SUP>11</SUP> Other provisions include requirements for ozone-
depleting substances, sulfur content of fuel, incineration, VOCs 
from refueling, and fuel quality.
    <SUP>12</SUP>  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). 
<SUP>13</SUP> 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. <SUP>14</SUP> 
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-    NO<INF>x  (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. <SUP>15</SUP> 
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).
    <SUP>15</SUP>  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+NO<INF>x (g/                                Implementation  
        Rated power (kW)           Standard level      kW-hr)     CO (g/kW-hr)  PM (g/kW-hr)         date       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 <ls-thn-eq>75...............  Tier 2...........          7.5           5.0           0.40               2004 
                                 Tier 3...........          4.7           5.0   ............               2008 
75 <ls-thn-eq>130..............  Tier 2...........          6.6           5.0           0.30               2003 
                                 Tier 3...........          4.0           5.0   ............               2007 
130 <ls-thn-eq>225.............  Tier 2...........          6.6           3.5           0.20               2003 
                                 Tier 3...........          4.0           3.5   ............               2006 
225 <ls-thn-eq>450.............  Tier 2...........          6.4           3.5           0.20               2001 
                                 Tier 3...........          4.0           3.5   ............               2006 
450 <ls-thn-eq>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.<SUP>16</SUP> 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 NO<INF>x</INF> 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 NO<INF>x</INF> 
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.<SUP>17</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 NO<INF>x</INF> 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 NO<INF>x</INF> 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 NO<INF>x</INF> emission control program contain remanufacturing 
requirements. The locomotive rule's three tiers of numerical emission 
limits apply to freshly manufactured <SUP>18</SUP> and existing engines 
whenever they are remanufactured to a condition similar to freshly 
manufactured. The MARPOL Annex VI NO<INF>x</INF> 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.<SUP>19</SUP>
    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.<SUP>20</SUP> 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).
    <SUP>20</SUP> 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 <SUP>21</SUP> and land-based 
nonroad <SUP>22</SUP>, locomotive <SUP>23</SUP>, and gasoline marine 
<SUP>24</SUP> 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. <SUP>25</SUP> 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. <SUP>26</SUP> 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. <SUP>27</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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