[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37548-37608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11736]
[[Page 37547]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 94
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From New Marine Compression-
Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters/Cylinder; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37548]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 94
[AMS-FRL-7207-3]
RIN 2060-AJ98
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Marine
Compression-Ignition Engines At or Above 30 Liters/Cylinder
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, we are proposing emission standards for new
marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder and 2.5 to 30
liters per cylinder on U.S. vessels. Marine diesel engines at or above
30 liters per cylinder are very large marine engines used primarily for
propulsion power on ocean-going vessels such as container ships,
tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships. The vessels that use these
engines are flagged in the United States and in other countries.
Nationwide, these engines contribute to ozone and carbon monoxide
nonattainment and to ambient particulate matter levels, particularly in
commercial ports and along coastal areas.
We are proposing emission controls for these engines at or above 30
liters per cylinder on U.S. vessels. We are proposing a first tier that
is equivalent to the internationally negotiated oxides of nitrogen
standards and would be enforceable under U.S. law for new engines built
in 2004 and later. We are also considering adoption of a subsequent
second tier of standards, which would reflect additional reductions
that can be achieved through engine-based controls, and would apply to
new engines built after 2006 or later. In addition, we are proposing
voluntary low-emission engine standards that reflect advanced oxides of
nitrogen emission-control technologies. Meeting these standards would
likely require the use of technologies such as selective catalyst
reduction or fuel cells. If the second tier is promulgated, we would
review the second tier standards prior to their effective date to take
into consideration continued development of new technologies, such as
selective catalyst reduction and water-based emission reduction
techniques, and international activity such as action at the
International Maritime Organization to set more stringent international
standards. Consistent with these factors, EPA is also considering not
adopting Tier 2 standards in this rulemaking, and instead establishing
a schedule for a future rulemaking and addressing Tier 2 standards in
that future rulemaking.
Emissions from all marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per
cylinder, regardless of flag of registry, currently account for about
1.5 percent of national mobile source oxides of nitrogen emissions.
This contribution can be significantly higher on a port-specific basis
(5 to 25 percent of mobile source emissions in certain key ports by the
year 2020). The standards discussed in this notice, which would apply
only to new engines on U.S. flag vessels, are expected to reduce these
national emissions by about 11 percent by 2030.
The contribution of these engines to national mobile source
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide inventories is small, less than 0.1
percent, and we are considering standards to ensure that these
emissions do not increase on a engine-specific basis. The contribution
of these engines to the national mobile source particulate matter
inventory is about 2.6 percent. Reductions in particulate emissions
could be obtained from setting a sulfur content standard for the fuels
that are used by these engines, and we request comment on whether we
should adopt such standards and, if so, the level of sulfur that should
be allowed.
We are also proposing new requirements for engines at or above 2.5
liters per cylinder but less than 30 liters per cylinder. The Tier 2
standards finalized for these engines in our 1999 commercial marine
diesel engine rule apply beginning in 2007. Until then, engine
manufacturers are encouraged to voluntarily comply with the Tier 1
standards, which are equivalent to the internationally negotiated
NOX standards. The international NOX standards
are not yet enforceable. Given that they have not yet entered into
force, we believe it is appropriate to begin to require engine
manufacturers to certify these engines to the Tier 1 standards,
starting in 2004. We are also proposing to eliminate the foreign trade
exemption for all marine diesel engines, which was available for
engines installed on vessels that spend less than 25 percent of total
operating time with 320 kilometers of U.S. territory.
The proposed standards would apply to engines installed on vessels
flagged in the United States. Recognizing that foreign-flag vessels
constitute a significant portion of emissions from these engines, we
are seeking comment on whether the proposed standards and existing
Category 1 and Category 2 standards should also apply to marine engines
on foreign vessels entering U.S. ports and to no longer exclude such
foreign vessels from the emission standards. If we were to determine
that the standards should apply to engines on foreign vessels that
enter U.S. ports, then all emission standards for marine diesel engines
would apply, including those we finalized for marine diesel engines
less than 30 liters per cylinder in our 1999 rule.
DATES: Comments: Send written comments on this proposed rule by July
16, 2002. See Section IX.A of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more
information about written comments.
Hearing: We will hold a public hearing on June 13, 2002 in Long
Beach, California. See Section IX.B of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
more information about the public hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments: You may send written comments in paper form or by
e-mail. We must receive them by the date indicated under DATES above.
Send paper copies of written comments (in duplicate, if possible) to
the contact person listed below. You may also submit comments via e-
mail to ``[email protected].'' In your correspondence, refer to Docket
A-2001-11. See Section IX.A for more information on comment procedures.
Docket: EPA's Air Docket makes materials related to this rulemaking
available for review in Public Docket A-2001-11 at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102),
Room M-1500 (on the ground floor in Waterside Mall), 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, DC 20460 between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by
telephone at (202)260-7548, and by facsimile at (202)260-4400. We may
charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40
CFR part 2.
Hearing: We will hold a public hearing at the Hyatt Regency, 200
South Pine Avenue, Long Beach, California, 90802 (562) 491-1234. If you
want to testify at the hearing, notify the contact person listed below
at least ten days before the date of the hearing. See Section IX.B for
more information on the public hearing procedures.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, National
Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; Telephone (734)214-4334; Fax: (734)214-4816, E-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Affected Entities
This proposed action would affect companies and persons that
manufacture, sell, or import into the
[[Page 37549]]
United States new marine compression-ignition engines for use on
vessels flagged or registered in the United States; companies and
persons that make vessels that will be flagged or registered in the
United States and that use such engines; and the owners/operators of
such U.S.-flag vessels. We are inviting comment on including foreign
flagged vessels. Further requirements apply to companies and persons
that rebuild or maintain these engines. Affected categories and
entities include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code
Category \a\ Examples of potentially affected entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ 333618 Manufacturers of new marine diesel engines.
Industry........................ 336611 Manufacturers of marine vessels.
Industry........................ 811310 Engine repair and maintenance.
Industry........................ 483 Water transportation, freight and passenger.
Industry........................ 324110 Petroleum refineries.
Industry........................ 422710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; Petroleum and Petroleum
422720 Products Wholesalers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To
determine whether particular activities may be affected by this action,
you should carefully examine the proposed regulations. You may direct
questions regarding the applicability of this action to the person
listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Additional Information About This Rulemaking
Emission standards for new marine diesel engines at or above 30
liters per cylinder were considered by EPA in two previous rulemakings,
in 1996 and in 1999. The notice of proposed rulemaking for the first
rule (for the control of air pollution from new gasoline spark-ignition
and diesel compression-ignition marine engines) can be found at 59 FR
55930 (November 1994); a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking can
be found at 61 FR 4600 (February 7, 1996); and the final rule can be
found at 61 FR 52088 (October 4, 1996). The notice of proposed
rulemaking for the second rule (for the control of air pollution from
new compression-ignition marine engines at or above 37 kW) can be found
at 63 FR 68508 (December 11, 1998); the final rule can be found at 64
FR 73300 (December 29, 1999). These documents are available on our
websites, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marine.htm and http://www.epa.gov/otaq.marinesi.htm This proposal relies in part on information that was
obtained for those rulemakings, which can be found in Public Dockets A-
92-28 and A-97-50. Those dockets are incorporated by reference into the
docket for this proposal, A-2001-11.
Obtaining Electronic Copies of the Regulatory Documents
The preamble, regulatory language, Draft Regulatory Support
Document, and other rule documents are also available electronically
from the EPA Internet Web site. This service is free of charge, except
for any cost incurred for internet connectivity. The electronic version
of this proposed rule is made available on the date of publication on
the primary web site listed below. The EPA Office of Transportation and
Air Quality also publishes Federal Register notices and related
documents on the secondary web site listed below.
1. http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR (either select desired
date or use Search features).
2. http://www.epa.gov/otaq (look in What's New or under the
specific rulemaking topic)
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the documents and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, format changes may occur.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Overview
B. How Is This Document Organized?
C. What Requirements Are We Proposing or Considering?
D. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
E. Putting This Proposal Into Perspective
II. The Air Quality Need
A. Overview
B. What are the Public Health and Welfare Concerns Associated
with Emissions from Category 3 Diesel Marine Engines Subject to the
Proposed Standards?
C. Contribution from Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines
III. What Engines Are Covered?
A. What is a Marine Vessel?
B. What is a Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine?
C. What is a New Marine Diesel Engine?
D. What is a New Marine Vessel?
E. Would the Foreign Trade Exemption Be Retained?
IV. Standards and Technological Feasibility
A. What engine emission standards are under consideration?
B. When would the engine emission standards apply?
C. What information supports the technological feasibility of
the engine emission standards?
D. Is EPA considering not adopting Tier 2 Standards in this
rulemaking?
E. Is EPA considering any fuel standards?
V. Demonstrating Compliance
A. Overview of Certification
B. Other Certification and Compliance Issues
C. Test Procedures for Category 3 Marine Engines
D. Comparison to Annex VI Compliance Requirements
VI. Projected Impacts
A. What are the anticipated economic impacts of the proposed
standards?
B. What are the anticipated economic impacts of the standards
under consideration?
C. What are the anticipated emission reductions of the standards
under consideration?
D. What is the estimated cost per ton of pollutant reduced for
this proposal and alternatives we are considering?
E. What are the estimated health and environmental benefits for
this proposal?
F. What would be the impacts of a low sulfur fuel requirement?
VII. Other Approaches We Considered
A. Standards Considered
B. Potential Impacts of the Regulatory Alternatives
C. Summary
D. Speed-based vs. Displacement-based Emission Standards
VIII. The Blue Cruise Program
A. What Is the Blue Cruise Program?
B. How Would the Program Work?
IX. Public Participation
A. How do I submit comments?
B. Will there be a public hearing?
X. Administrative requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis (Executive
Order 12866)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business
[[Page 37550]]
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Intergovernmental Relations
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
F. Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045)
G. Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
H. Energy Effects (Executive Order 13211)
I. Introduction
A. Overview
Marine diesel engines can be significant contributors to local
ozone, CO, and PM levels, particularly in commercial ports and along
coastal areas. In recognition of their inventory impact, we recently
set emission standards for new marine diesel engines above 37 kW but
less than 30 liters per cylinder (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999). The
standards contained in that rule cover emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX), particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons (HC), and
carbon monoxide (CO), and go into effect in 2004-2007, depending on
engine size. Those standards are more stringent than the international
standards contained in Annex VI to the International Convention on the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol
of 1978 Relating Thereto (this convention is also known as MARPOL; the
standards are referred to as the Annex VI NOX limits).\1\
They also cover more pollutants, as the MARPOL limits are for
NOX emissions only. As described in Section D, below, the
Annex has not yet gone into force because the requisite number of
countries have not ratified it. Prior to the effective date of the
national standards, engine manufacturers are encouraged to voluntarily
comply with the Annex VI NOX limits pending entry into force
of Annex VI. We developed a voluntary certification program to enable
engine manufacturers to certify to the Annex VI NOX limits
prior to the Annex VI requirements entering into force. The national
emission requirements apply only to engines on vessels flagged in the
United States. Marine engines on foreign vessels were not covered by
the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Annex VI was adopted by a Conference of the Parties to
MARPOL on September 26, 1997, but has not yet entered into force.
Copies of the conference versions of the Annex and the NOx Technical
Code can be found in Docket A-95-50, Document II.B.01. Copies of
updated versions can be obtained from the International Maritime
Organization (www.imo.org.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not set standards for new marine diesel engines at or above
30 liters per cylinder in our 1999 rule. Our analysis at the time
indicated that the Annex VI NOX limits were appropriate
given the operating characteristics and fuel used by these engines.
Rather than duplicate the Annex VI emission control program in our
federal regulations, we encouraged engine manufacturers to comply with
the Annex VI limits using our voluntary certification program.
We also indicated that we would revisit the need to adopt emission
limits for these engines under the Clean Air Act if the Annex does not
go into effect internationally.
Although more than four years have gone by since Annex VI was
adopted by the Parties to the Convention, it has not yet entered into
force. There is growing concern in the United States that there are no
enforceable standards for these large marine engines. Also, recently
developed inventories suggest that the inventory contribution of these
engines can be very high in individual port areas. We estimate that
these engines account for about 1.5 percent of national mobile source
NOX emissions. This contribution can be significantly higher
on a port-specific basis. For example, we estimate that these engines
contribute about 7 percent of mobile source NOX in the
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) of Baton Rouge/New Orleans and
Wilmington NC, about 5 percent of mobile source NOX in the
Miami/ Fort Lauderdale and Corpus Christi MSAs, and about 4 percent in
the Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton/Bellingham MSA. In addition, these ships
can have a significant impact on inventories in areas without large
commercial ports. For example, Santa Barbara estimates that engine on
ocean-going marine vessels contribute about 37 percent of total
NOX in their area. These emissions are from ships that
transit the area, and ``are comparable to (even slightly larger than)
the amount of NOX produced onshore by cars and truck.\2\
These emissions are expected to increase to 62 percent by 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Memorandum to Docket A-2001-11 from Jean Marie Revelt,
``Santa Barbara County Air Qualilty News, Issue 62, July-August 2001
and other materials provided to EPA by Santa Barbara County,'' March
14, 2002. Air Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the contribution of these engines to national PM levels
is about 2.6 percent, but can also be higher on a port-specific area
(see Table 2.6-1 in the draft Regulatory Support Document (RSD) for
this rule and associated text). The estimated contribution of these
engines to national HC and CO emissions is negligible. The inventory
contribution of these engines to national NOX, PM, HC, and
CO levels is expected to increase as emissions from other mobile
sources decrease due to our recently finalized emission control
programs for highway vehicles and heavy-duty trucks. Reductions in the
inventories of these pollutants will lead to health benefits, as
described in Section II.
In addition, manufacturers of diesel engines, including marine
diesel engines, have gained greater experience with the emission
control technologies that can be applied to these engines. Our analysis
indicates that greater emission reductions can be achieved by
optimizing currently available control technologies that are being used
to achieve the Annex VI NOX limits.
This Notice discusses two tiers of NOX emission controls
for these engines. The first tier is equivalent to the internationally
negotiated NOX standards and would be enforceable under U.S.
law for new engines built in 2004 and later. The second tier of
NOX standards, if implemented, would reflect additional
reductions that can be achieved through engine-based emission controls,
and would apply to new engines built after 2006 or later. We are also
considering standards for HC and CO emissions to ensure that these
emissions do not increase on an engine-specific basis. Particulate
matter emissions from these engines are primarily due to the
characteristics of the fuel they use (residual fuel), and we are
requesting comment on whether we should consider a sulfur content limit
for that fuel. We would review the Tier 2 standards prior to their
effective date to take into consideration continued development of new
technologies, such as selective catalyst reduction and water-based
emission reduction techniques, and international activity such as
action at International Maritime Organization (IMO) to set more
stringent international standards.
Consistent with our 1999 commercial marine diesel engine standards,
this proposal also contains voluntary low emission standards for marine
diesel engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder. As emissions from
most mobile source categories continue to decline, emissions from
marine vessels and associated port equipment are becoming an
increasingly significant source for local, regional, and global
emissions. Because of the slow turnover of vessels and associated
equipment, there is an opportunity and need for the ports, shipping
companies, engine manufacturers, and fuel suppliers to work on a
collaborative effort to expedite and further reduce emissions beyond
the Annex VI NOX limits and U.S. national standards. Two
components of this proposal can help encourage these actions. The first
is voluntary low emission standards set at
[[Page 37551]]
80 percent below the Annex VI NOX limits. These standards
can be used in state-based initiatives and are expected to require the
use of advanced technologies such as fuel cells or selective catalyst
reduction. The second is the voluntary Blue Cruise program, in which
participant vessel owners can receive special recognition from EPA for
installing and using technologies that reduce waste and air emissions.
We are also proposing new requirements for engines at or above 2.5
liters per cylinder but less than 30 liters per cylinder. The Tier 2
standards we finalized for these engines in our 1999 commercial marine
diesel rule are effective in 2007. Until then, and pending entry into
force of Annex VI, we encouraged engine manufacturers to voluntarily
comply with Tier 1 standards, which are equivalent to the
internationally negotiated NOX standards. Because Annex VI
has not gone into force, they remain unenforceable. Due to the
continued uncertainty regarding entry into force of Annex VI, we
believe it is appropriate to begin to require engine manufacturers to
certify these engines to the Tier 1 standards, starting in 2004. We are
also proposing to eliminate the foreign trade exemption for all marine
diesel engines, which was available for engines installed on vessels
that spend less than 25 percent of total operating time with 320
kilometers of U.S. territory. To date, this exemption has not been
requested by engine manufacturers.
The standards discussed in this Notice, which would apply to
engines installed on vessels flagged in the United States, are intended
to help reduce ozone inventories and avoid a range of associated
adverse health effects. The costs of the proposed Tier 1 standards are
negligible and reflect certification and compliance costs only. We do
not anticipate that there will be any engineering or design costs
associated with the Tier 1 standards as manufacturers are already
certifying engines to Annex VI requirements through our voluntary
certification program. The estimated cost to industry of complying with
the Tier 2 standards being considered is about $115,000 per engine,
with an additional estimated cost of about $5,000 annually to maintain
equipment. This represents a 7 percent increase in the total engine
cost and about 0.1 percent increase in the total vessel cost. We
estimate the aggregate costs (annualized over 20 years) of the Tier 2
standards under consideration to be about $1.6 million annually. The
economic impacts and environmental benefits of the proposal and Tier 2
standards under consideration are described in Section VI, below.
The impact of the standards on air quality in specific areas will
depend in part on the characteristics of the fleet of vessels that
operate in that area, particularly on the proportion of foreign-flag
ships to U.S.-flag ships. Recognizing that foreign-flag vessels
constitute a significant portion of emissions from these engines and
that the internationally negotiated NOX standards for these
engines are not yet enforceable, we are seeking comment on whether the
standards should also apply to marine engines on foreign vessels
entering U.S. ports and to no longer exclude such foreign vessels from
the emission standards under 40 CFR 94.1(b)(3). While EPA's current
standards for marine vessels do not apply to foreign flag vessels, EPA
is inviting comments on whether it should change this approach. If we
were to apply our emission standards to foreign vessels that enter U.S.
ports as part of this rulemaking effort, then the standards would apply
to any marine engine that is manufactured after the standards become
effective and that is installed on such a foreign vessel and would be a
condition of port entry. The standards would also apply to any marine
engine installed on such a foreign vessel that is manufactured (or that
otherwise become new) after the standards become effective. While we
are seeking comment on applying the standards to foreign vessels that
use U.S. ports, we may require such standards for foreign vessels in
2003.
B. How Is This Document Organized?
This document contains ten parts. After this introductory section,
Section II describes the air quality need for this rulemaking and
projected benefits. That section contains a description of the human
health and welfare effects of exposure to ozone, PM, and CO and reports
our inventory estimates for this source for current and future years.
In Section III, we describe the set of engines that would be required
to comply with the proposed standards and our reasoning behind this
scope of application. Sections IV and VII contain the proposed emission
standards and alternatives under consideration, effective dates, and
testing requirements. We also discuss the technological feasibility of
the standards discussed in this Notice, and alternative approaches.
Section V describes various compliance provisions. Section VI
summarizes the projected impacts of the standards and discusses their
benefits. Section VIII describes a voluntary incentive program in which
participant vessel owners can receive special recognition from EPA for
installing and using technologies that reduce waste and air emissions.
Finally, Sections IX and X contain information about public
participation, how we satisfied our administrative requirements, and
the statutory provisions and legal authority for this proposal.
Additional information on many of these topics can be found in the
Draft Regulatory Support Document for this proposal.
C. What Requirements Are We Proposing or Considering?
The NOX emission standards for marine diesel engines at
or above 30 liters per cylinder (Category 3 marine diesel engines)
would consist of two tiers. Tier 1 would apply to new engines built in
2004 and later and would be equivalent to the Annex VI NOX
limits adopted by the Parties to MARPOL in 1997. We are also
considering Tier 2 NOX standards that would apply to new
engines built after 2006 or later and consist of a NOX limit
30 percent below the Tier 1/Annex VI limit. The year that EPA considers
most appropriate at this time is 2007. For both tiers of standards, we
would define NOX standards as a function of maximum engine
speed, consistent with Annex VI, but are requesting comment on the
merits of defining Tier 2 NOX standards instead as a
function of engine displacement. Both tiers of standards can be met
through engine-based emission-control technologies. The Annex VI
NOX limits are based on certification on distillate fuel,
which has a lower nitrogen content than the residual fuel that these
engines are most likely to use in operation. We are proposing numerical
emission limits based on residual fuel, but allow for certification
testing using distillate or residual fuel. In either case, we are
proposing that the test results be adjusted to account for the nitrogen
content of the fuel, and then be compared to the proposed emission
limits. The fuel quality adjustment is described in Section IV.A.2,
below.
In addition to the Tier 2 NOX limits, we are considering
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission limits at 0.4 g/kW-hr and 3.0
g/kW-hr, respectively. These standards would ensure that these
emissions do not increase on an engine-specific basis. We are also
considering adoption of a schedule to review any Tier 2 standards prior
to their effective date to take into consideration continued
development of new technologies, such as selective catalyst reduction
and water-based emission reduction techniques, and international
activity such as action at IMO to adopt more stringent standards
[[Page 37552]]
internationally. We request comment on the hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide standards.
We are not planning to adopt a Tier 2 standard for particulate
emissions from these engines. Most of the particulate emissions are a
result of the high sulfur and ash content of the fuel used by these
engines, and there is no acceptable measurement procedure for fuels
with these characteristics. We are requesting comment, however, on
whether we should consider a fuel sulfur content limit for the fuels
used by these engines. One option, for example, would be to set a
sulfur content cap equivalent to the limit for fuel used in
SOX Emission Control Areas provided in Regulation 14 of
MARPOL Annex VI. Pursuant to that regulation, the sulfur content of
fuel used by vessels operating in those areas cannot exceed 15,000 ppm.
The United States could also pursue this option through procedures
contained in Regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI. That regulation provides
for the designation of SOX emission control areas. We
estimate that reducing the sulfur content of residual fuel to 15,000
ppm may decrease the PM inventory of these engines 18 percent and the
SOX inventory by 44 percent (See Section VI.F, below). In
connection with this option, we are seeking comment as to which areas
of the United States should be considered for designation as
SOX emission control areas under MARPOL Annex VI, and
whether and how we should seek the cooperation of Canada, Mexico, and
the Carribean in designating these areas. Both of these options are
discussed in Section VI.E, below.
We are also proposing voluntary low emission NOX
standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines. These standards, which
represent an 80 percent reduction from the Annex VI NOX
limits, are intended to encourage the introduction and more widespread
use of low-emission technologies. Manufacturers could be motivated to
exceed emission requirements either to gain early experience with
certain technologies or as a response to market demand or local
government programs. Ship owners could take advantage of these and
other emission reduction technologies to receive special recognition
from EPA for installing and using technologies that reduce waste and
air emissions under our proposed voluntary Blue Cruise program.
To implement these standards for marine diesel engines at or above
30 liters per cylinder in an effective way, we are proposing several
compliance requirements. In general, the proposed compliance program
reflects our traditional manufacturer-based approach. This is in
contrast to the international approach reflected in Annex VI, which
holds the vessel owner responsible for compliance once the engine is
delivered onboard. Many of the proposed compliance provisions,
including certification application, engine labeling, and warranty
requirements, are similar or identical to the compliance provisions
that we finalized in our 1999 rulemaking. In addition, we are including
a post-installation verification provision which would require an
emission test after an engine is installed on a vessel. We are also
proposing a field measurement provision that would apply to engines
with adjustable parameters or add-on emission control devices.
Manufacturers of these engines would be required to equip the engine
with a field measurement device. The owner of a vessel with such an
engine would have to perform a field measurement when the vessel
approaches within 175 nautical miles (200 statutory miles) of the U.S.
coastline from the open sea or when it adjusts an engine parameter
within that distance. The results of this field measurement will
demonstrate that the engine is in compliance with the relevant
standards when it is operated in an area that affects U.S. air quality.
EPA will work with the U.S. Coast Guard to develop procedures to verify
onboard performance of these field measurement provisions, as Coast
Guard has the general authority to carry out such procedures on
vessels.
We are also proposing new requirements for engines at or above 2.5
liters per cylinder but less than 30 liters per cylinder. The Tier 2
standards we finalized for these engines in our 1999 commercial marine
diesel rule are effective in 2007. Until then, and pending entry into
force of Annex VI, we encouraged engine manufacturers to voluntarily
comply with Tier 1 standards, which are equivalent to the
internationally negotiated NOX standards. Because Annex VI
has not gone into force, they remain unenforceable. While the U.S. is
beginning the ratification process for Annex VI, due to the continued
uncertainty regarding its entry into force of Annex VI, we believe it
is appropriate to begin to require engine manufacturers to certify
these engines to the Tier 1 standards, starting in 2004. We are also
proposing to eliminate the foreign trade exemption for all marine
diesel engines, which was available for engines installed on vessels
that spend less than 25 percent of total operating time with 320
kilometers of U.S. territory. To date, this exemption has not been
requested by engine manufacturers.
The standards discussed above would apply to engines installed on
vessels flagged in the United States. Recognizing that foreign-flag
vessels constitute a significant portion of emissions from these
engines and that the internationally negotiated NOX
standards for these engines are not yet enforceable, we are seeking
comment on whether the standards should also apply to marine engines on
foreign vessels entering U.S. ports and to no longer exclude such
foreign vessels from the emission standards under 40 CFR 94.1(b)(3). If
we were to apply our emission standards to foreign vessels that enter
U.S. ports, then the standards would apply to any marine engine that is
manufactured after the standards become effective and that is installed
on such a foreign vessel. The standards would also apply to any marine
engine installed on such a foreign vessel that is manufactured (or that
otherwise become new) after the standards become effective. As
discussed below, if the standards were to apply to foreign flag
vessels, EPA would consider any significant differences between this
proposed rule and Annex VI.
D. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
We developed this emission control program to fulfill our
obligations under Section 213 of the Clean Air Act. That section,
described in more detail in Section E, below, requires us to set
standards for new nonroad engines. In addition, there are important
public health and welfare reasons supporting the standards proposed in
this document. As described in Section II.B, Category 3 marine diesel
engines contribute to air pollution which causes public health and
welfare problems. Emissions from these engines contribute to ground
level ozone and ambient PM and CO levels, especially in and near
commercial ports and waterways.\3\ Exposure to ground level ozone, PM,
and CO can cause serious respiratory problems. These emissions also
contribute to other environmental problems, including acid deposition,
eutrophication, and nitrification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed
by complex chemical reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and NOX in the presence of heat and sunlight.
Hydrocarbons (HC) are a large subset of VOC, and to reduce mobile-
source VOC levels we set maximum emissions limits for hydrocarbon
and particulate matter emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action is a departure from the emission control strategy we
finalized in 1999 (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999) in that we are
considering no longer
[[Page 37553]]
relying solely on MARPOL Annex VI for controlling emissions from
Category 3 marine diesel engines. While the Annex VI NOX
limits apply to engines installed on vessels constructed on or after
January 1, 2000, those standards are not enforceable until the Annex
enters into force. As specified in Article 6 of the Annex, it will
enter into force twelve months after the date on which not less than
fifteen member states, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute
not less than 50 percent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant
shipping, have ratified the agreement. To date, more than four years
after it was adopted, the Annex has been ratified by only 6 countries
representing 15.8 percent of the world's merchant shipping.\4\ In
addition, the Annex VI NOX limits no longer reflect the
greatest degree of emission control that can be achieved using newer
technology, given appropriate lead time. Since we finalized our
commercial marine diesel engine standards in 1999 (64 FR 73300,
December 29, 1999), engine manufacturers continue to make progress in
applying land-based emission control technologies to marine diesel
engines. Improvements in fuel systems and engine cooling can reduce
Category 3 engine emissions even more than the Annex VI NOX
limits would require. Some engine manufacturers are also experimenting
with water emulsification and injection and aftertreatment, including
selective catalyst reduction, for even greater reductions. These
emission control technologies are described in greater detail in
Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The countries that have ratified Annex VI are Sweden,
Norway, Bahamas, Singapore, Marshall Islands, and Malawi.
Information about Annex VI ratification can be found at www.imo.org
(look under Conventions, Status of Conventions--Complete List).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Putting This Proposal Into Perspective
This proposal should be considered in the broader context of EPA's
nonroad emission-control programs, international activities, including
MARPOL Annex VI, our previous marine emission control program, European
Union (EU) initiatives, and activities at the state level. These
programs and actions are discussed below.
1. EPA's Nonroad Emission-Control Programs
Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1) directs us to study emissions from
nonroad engines and vehicles to determine, among other things, whether
these emissions ``cause, or significantly contribute to, air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare.'' Section 213(a)(2) further requires us to determine whether
emissions of CO, VOCs, and NOX from all nonroad
engines significantly contribute to ozone or CO emissions in more than
one nonattainment area. If we determine that emissions from all nonroad
engines are significant contributors, section 213(a)(3) then requires
us to establish emission standards for classes or categories of new
nonroad engines and vehicles that in our judgment cause or contribute
to such pollution. We may also set emission standards under section
213(a)(4) regulating any other emissions from nonroad engines that we
find contribute significantly to air pollution.
We completed the Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study,
required by Clean Air Act section 213(a)(1), in November 1991.\5\ On
June 17, 1994, we made an affirmative determination under section
213(a)(2) that nonroad emissions are significant contributors to ozone
or CO in more than one nonattainment area. We also determined that
these engines make a significant contribution to PM and smoke emissions
that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. In the same document, we set a first phase of emission
standards (now referred to as Tier 1 standards) for land-based nonroad
diesel engines rated at or above 37 kW. In 1998, we set more stringent
Tier 2 and Tier 3 emission levels for new land-based nonroad diesel
engines at or above 37 kW and adopted Tier 1 standards for nonroad
diesel engines, including marine diesel engines, less than 37 kW. Our
other emission-control programs for nonroad engines are listed in Table
I.E-1. This proposal takes another step toward the comprehensive
nonroad engine emission-control strategy envisioned in the Act by
proposing enforceable emission limits for marine diesel engines at or
above 30 liters per cylinder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This study, the Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study
(NEVES) is available in docket A-92-28.
Table I.E-1.--EPA's Nonroad Emission-Control Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine category Final rulemaking Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land-based diesel engines [ge] 37 kW-- 56 FR 31306................. June 17, 1994
Tier 1.
Spark-ignition engines [le]19 kW--Phase 1 60 FR 34581................. July 3, 1995.
Spark-ignition marine.................... 61 FR 52088................. October 4, 1996.
Locomotives.............................. 63 FR 18978................. April 16, 1998.
Land-based diesel engines................ 63 FR 56968................. October 23, 1998.
--Tier 1 and Tier 2 for engines < 37
kW (these standards also apply to
marine diesel engines < 37 kW)
--Tier 2 and Tier 3 for engines [ge]
37 kW
Commercial marine diesel engines above 37 64 FR 73300................. December 29, 1999.
kW (Standards apply to engines less than
30 liters per cylinder only).
Spark-ignition engines [le]19 kW (Non- 64 FR 15208................. March 30, 1999.
handheld)--Phase 2.
Spark-ignition engines [le]19 kW 65 FR 24268................. April 25, 2000.
(Handheld)--Phase 2.
Nonroad large spark-ignition engines, 66 FR 51098 (proposal)...... October 5, 2001.
recreational vehicles, and recreational
marine diesel engines.
Marine evap. (includes highway Expected 2002
motorcycles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. MARPOL Annex VI
In response to growing international concern about air pollution
and in recognition of the highly international nature of maritime
transportation, the IMO developed a program to reduce NOX
and SOX emissions from marine vessels.\6\ \7\ The
development of Annex
[[Page 37554]]
VI took place between 1992 and 1997. The Annex VI engine emission
limits cover only NOX emissions; there are no restrictions
on PM, HC, or CO emissions. They are based on engine speed and apply to
engines above 130 kW. These standards are set out in Table I.E-2.
Originally, these standards were expected to reduce NOX
emissions by 30 percent when fully phased in. EPA inventory analysis,
based on newly estimated emission factors for these engines, indicates
that the expected reduction is on the order of about 20 percent. The
EPA inventory analysis is described in more detail in the Draft
Regulatory Support Document for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Annex covers a several air emissions from marine
vessels: ozone depleting substances, NOX, SOX,
VOCs from tanker operations, incineration, fuel oil quality. There
are also requirements for reception facilities and platforms and
drilling rigs.
\7\ To obtain copies of this document, see Footnote 1, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to implementation, the Annex VI NOX limits
apply to each diesel engine with a power output of more than 130 kW
installed on a ship constructed on or after January 1, 2000, or that
undergoes a major conversion on or after January 1, 2000. The Annex
does not distinguish between marine diesel engines installed on
recreational or commercial vessels; all marine diesel engines above 130
kW would be subject to the standards regardless of their use. The test
procedures to be used to demonstrate compliance are set out in the
Annex VI NOX Technical Code.\8\ They are based on ISO 8178
and are performed using distillate fuel. Engines can be pre-certified
or certified after they are installed onboard. After demonstrating
compliance, pre-certified engines would receive an Engine International
Air Pollution Prevention (EIAPP) certificate. This document, to be
issued by the Administration of the flag country, is needed by the ship
owner as part of the process of demonstrating compliance with all of
the provisions of Annex VI and obtaining an International Air Pollution
Prevention (IAPP) certificate for the vessel once the Annex goes into
force. The Annex also contains engine compliance provisions based on a
survey approach. These survey requirements would apply after the Annex
goes into force. An engine is surveyed after it is installed, every
five years after installation, and at least once between 5-year
surveys. Engines are not required to be tested as part of a survey,
however. The surveys can be done by a parameter check, which can be as
simple as reviewing the Record Book of Engine Parameters that must be
maintained for each engine and verifying that current engine settings
are within allowable limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ To obtain copies of this document, see Footnote 1, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After several years of negotiation, the Parties to MARPOL adopted a
final version of Annex VI at a Diplomatic Conference on September 26,
1997. However, as noted in Section I.C, above, the Annex has not yet
gone into force. Pending entry into force, ship owners and vessel
manufacturers have begun installing compliant engines on relevant ships
beginning with the date specified in Regulation 13: January 1, 2000. In
addition, ship owners must bring existing engines into compliance if
the engines undergo a major conversion on or after that date.\9\ As
defined in Regulation 13 of Annex VI, a major conversion is when the
engine is replaced by a new engine, it is substantially modified, or
its maximum continuous rating is increased by more than 10 percent. To
facilitate implementation while the Annex is not yet in force and to
allow engine manufacturers to certify their engines before the Annex
goes into force, we set up a process for manufacturers to obtain a
Statement of Voluntary Compliance.\10\ An EPA-issued Statement of
Voluntary Compliance should be exchangeable for an EIAPP certificate
once the Annex goes into effect in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As defined in Regulation 13 of Annex VI, a major conversion
means the engine is replaced by a new engine, it is substantially
modified, or its maximum continuous rating is increased by more than
10 percent.
\10\ For more information about our voluntary certification
program, see ``guidance for Certifying to MARPOL Annex VI,'' VPCD-
99-02. This letter is available on our website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/imolettr.pdf and in Docket A-2001-11,
Document No. II-B-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. government is preparing the appropriate documents for the
President to submit Annex VI to the Senate for its advice and consent
to ratification. Besides setting standards for NOX
emissions, Annex VI regulates ozone-depleting emissions, sulfur oxides
emissions and shipboard incineration, and contains other
environmentally protective measures. In transmitting Annex VI to the
Senate, the Administration will work with Congress on new legislation
to implement the Annex. At the same time, the United States government
supports a revision of the Annex VI standards for NOX
emissions, taking into account the emission reduction potential of new
control technologies. By ratifying the Annex, the United States will
continue its leadership in promoting environmentally responsible
international emission standards at the IMO and recognize the role the
IMO plays in protecting the world's marine environment from pollution.
As described in Section I.E.4, below, we have already requested MEPC to
begin consideration of more stringent NOX emission limits
for marine diesel engines. In addition, once the Annex goes into force,
amendment of NOX standards will be made easier through the
tacit amendment process that would then apply.
3. EPA's Commercial Marine Diesel Engine Rules
Although we included marine diesel engines in the development of
our 1996 marine rule, we did not finalize standards for these engines
at that time. At the time, we were considering standards based on Tier
1 land-based nonroad diesel emission controls. Emerging emission
control technologies for diesel engines, particularly the Tier 2 land-
based nonroad emission control technologies, led us to reconsider our
approach and to defer standards for these engines to a later
rulemaking.
In our 1999 commercial marine diesel engine rule, we distinguished
between different types of marine diesel engines. The three categories
of marine diesel engines, contained in Table I.E-3, were intended to
reflect differences in the land-based counterparts of these engines.
Table I.E-3.--Marine Engine Category Definitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displacement per Land-based
Category cylinder equivalent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... disp. < 5 liters Agricultural
(and power 37 kW). construction
equipment.
2............................... 5 liters < disp. < Locomotives.
30 liters.
3............................... disp No mobile source
30 liters. equivalent Power
plant generators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37555]]
The final standards for Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel
standards were more stringent than the Annex VI NOX limits,
reflecting the greater degree of emission control that would be
achievable through the application of technologies that would be used
on the land-based equivalents of these engines to meet the nonroad Tier
2 and locomotive Tier 1 standards. The standards also cover more
pollutants than Annex VI, including standards for HC, CO, and PM as
well as NOX. The emission standards we finalized for
Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel engines are similar to the
nonroad Tier 2 and locomotive Tier 1 standards, respectively.
We did not finalize standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines
in 1999. Instead, we deferred to the Annex VI NOX emission
control program. This decision was based on our technological analysis
of control strategies for these engines which indicated that the
appropriate standards should reflect reductions that can be obtained
from injection rate shaping and some timing retard. These control
technologies were consistent with the Annex VI NOX limits.
While some Category 3 engines were already using Tier 2 engine
technologies including turbocharging, injection improvements,
electronics, and more efficient cooling, these technologies were being
used to increase fuel efficiency and obtain optimal operation. Next-
generation technologies such as exhaust gas recirculation (EGR),
selective catalyst reduction (SCR), and water injection were still
under development for marine diesel engines of that size. Because the
Annex VI NOX limits would likely be implemented
independently of any Clean Air Act requirement, EPA believed that it
would be unnecessary and redundant to adopt the same program under the
Clean Air Act. Vessel owners were anticipated to begin complying with
the Annex VI NOX limits beginning in 2000, as indicated in
the Annex.
Since 1999, Category 3 marine diesel engine manufacturers have
continued to research emission control technologies and explore ways to
transfer land-based diesel engine technologies to marine diesel
engines. These technologies and emission control strategies are
described in Sections IV and VII below, and in the draft Regulatory
Support Document for this rule. Due to these advances, and due to the
contribution of these engines to ozone and PM levels, we believe it is
now appropriate to consider a second tier of emission limits for
Category 3 marine diesel engines that will achieve greater reductions
than those expected from the Annex VI NOX limits.
4. Continuing Action at the IMO
At the time the Annex VI NOX limits were adopted,
several Member States expressed concern that the NOX limits
would not result in the emissions reductions they were intended to
achieve. Due to the efforts of these Member States, the Conference of
the Parties adopted a resolution that provides for review of the
emission limits with the aim of adopting more stringent limits taking
into account the adverse effects of such emissions on the environment
and any technological developments in marine engines. This review is to
occur at a minimum of five-year intervals after entry into force of the
Annex and, if appropriate, amend the NOX limits to reflect
more stringent controls.
In March of 2000, the United States requested MEPC to begin
consideration of more stringent emission limits for marine diesel
engines.\11\ EPA's analysis of emission control technology for our 1999
rulemaking indicated that more stringent standards are feasible for all
Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel engines. Engine manufacturers
were also beginning to apply these emission control strategies to
Category 3 marine diesel engines, as well as more advanced strategies
such as water emulsification and selective catalyst reduction.
Reflecting the potential emission reductions that could be obtained
from applying these strategies to all marine diesel engines, the U.S.
recommended Annex VI Tier 2 NOX limits be set at 25 to 30
percent below the existing Annex VI NOX limits for all
engines subject to the regulation (engines above 130 kW), to go into
effect in 2007. This would allow a 7-year period of stability for the
Annex VI NOX limits, permit engine manufacturers to adjust
their engine designs to include new emission control technologies, and
allow manufacturers of marine diesel engines at or above 30 liters per
cylinder to develop emission control strategies for those large
engines. This recommendation was briefly discussed at the 44th session
of the MEPC (London, March 3-16, 2000), but was not acted on. The
United States will continue to promote more stringent standards at IMO
and encourage MEPC to adopt a second tier of emission limits that will
reflect available technology and reduce the impact of marine diesel
engines on the world's air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ MEPC 44/11/7, Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Revision
of the NOX Technical Code, Tier 2 emission limits for
marine diesel engines at or above 130 kW, submitted by the United
States. This document is available at Docket A-2001-11, Document No.
II-A-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. European Union Actions
In February, 1999, the European Commission D-GXI commissioned a
report to ``consider, analyse and recommend policy options to further
the objective of reducing the harmful environmental impact of
SOX and NOX from ships operating in European
waters.\12\ The final report was completed in August 2000. The report
explores two types of regulatory options, regulatory standards and
incentive plans, for both fuel and engine emission controls. The report
is currently under consideration by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Davies, M. E., et al., Study on the Economic, Legal,
Environmental and Practical Implications of a European Union System
to Reduce Ship Emissions of SOX and NOX, Final
Report for European Commission Contract B4-3040/98/000839/MAR/B1,
August 2000. This report is available at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/transport.htm#3. A copy can also be found in
Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2001, the Directorate-General for the Environment issued
a discussion paper entitled ``A Community Strategy on Air Pollution
from Seagoing Ships.''\13\ This paper contains a description of issues
and solicits comments that will be used to develop a European emission
control strategy for marine vessels. The discussion paper envisions two
products: a Commission Communication and a proposal to amend EU
Directive 1999/32 on the Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ This discussion paper can be found at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/future_transport.htm (Under
``pollutant emissions from ships'' then ``new developments''). A
copy of this paper can also be found in Docket A-2001-11, Document
No. II-A-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion paper notes that current inventory analysis
indicates that ships will account for 75% and 60% of EU land
SOX and NOX emissions, respectively. A new
inventory study currently being commissioned will shed more light on
these contributions, particularly in-port contributions. The discussion
paper also describes current EU and international regulatory regimes
and the potential for further reductions. Regarding SOX
emissions, EU Directive 1999/32 currently prohibits the use of marine
distillate fuels having more than 2,000 ppm sulfur in Community
territorial waters. While there is an exemption for ships coming from
third countries, those ships must use low sulfur distillate after they
make their first stop at a Community port. There is some concern that
this approach encourages ships to burn heavy fuel
[[Page 37556]]
while in Community waters. Regarding NOX emissions, the
paper describes the MARPOL Annex VI requirements, the EPA standards
established in 1999, and the U.S. action to encourage IMO to consider
more stringent NOX limits. The paper does not suggest
potential emission control programs for the EU, but it requests comment
support for more stringent standards.
6. Action By Individual European Countries
In 1996 the Swedish Maritime Administration, the Swedish
Shipowners' Association and the Swedish Ports' and Stevedores'
Association arrived at a Tripartite Agreement to decrease ship nitrogen
oxides and sulphur emissions by 75% within five years. The parties
agreed to establish an environmental program on differentiated fairway
and port dues for NOX levels and fuel sulphur content. The
program was constructed by first raising the ship related dues (from
Swedish Kroner (SEK) 3.90 per gross tonne (GT) for oil tankers and SEK
3.60 per GT for ferries and other ships to SEK 5.30 and SEK 5.00
respectively) from which the discounts would be subtracted\14\. For use
of low sulphur fuels a credit of SEK 0.90 per GT was given for ships
operating on bunker oils of a sulphur content of less than 0.5 per cent
by weight for ferries and less than 1.0 per cent for other ships. For
low NOX emissions, if the emission at 75 per cent engine
load is above 12 g/kWh, no NOX discount is given. Below this
level the discount increases continuously down to a level of 2 g/kWh
where the discount is SEK 1.60 per GT. A maximum discount of SEK 2.50
per GT is possible. The program entered into force January 1, 1998 and
as of 1999, twenty of Sweden's fifty two ports have introduced
environmentally differentiated harbour dues for reduced sulphur fuels,
reduced NOX emissions or both. Ferries are using new
technologies, including water emulsion systems (20-50% Nox reduction)
and SCR systems (up to 95% NOX reduction), to achieve the
low emission levels. To overcome initial problems and encourage the
installation of catalytic converters, the Swedish Maritime
Administration agreed to reimburse shipowners for the fairway dues paid
during the first five years of the program (thru 2002). ``Based on
known planned installations, the National Maritime Administration
expects that by 1 January 2001 the scheme will have reduced
NOX emissions from ships calling at Swedish ports by 40-45
per cent compared to the situation in 1995.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ One Swedish Kroner (SEK) is about $0.09
\15\ A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.sjofartsverket.se/navigering/htm/frameset.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past three years several other localities worldwide have
also incorporated adjustments in port dues based on compliance with
emission levels. The Port of Mariehamn, on the Finnish Island of Aland
differentiates its harbor dues with regard to ships' emissions of
NOX and sulphur. The proposal in 1999 was to ``give ships
emitting less than 10 g/kWh NOX a rebate on a linear scale
where the reduction of the port due is 8 per cent for ships emitting
less than 1 gramme, and 1 per cent for ships emitting 9 g/kWh. Ships
using bunker oils with less than 0.5 per cent sulphur (by weight) will
receive an additional reduction of 4 per cent. For vessels meeting the
latter criteria and having NOX emissions of less than 1 g/
kWh the proposal is to offer an extra rebate of 8 per cent. Such ships
will, if the scheme is adopted, get a total reduction of 20 per
cent.''\16\ The Norwegian government has a program for environmental
differentiation of the tonnage tax (Proposition No. 1 1999/2000). The
differentiation is based on a Ship Environment Index System (SEIS). The
SEIS is based on up to seven different environmental parameters,
including sulphur and NOX emissions with a maximum of 10
points of which 6 points are from the abatement of NOX and
sulphur emissions. The program will raise the tonnage tax by 50 per
cent and ships registered according to the environmental index system
will receive rebates in proportion to their environmental score. Ships
that earn 10 points will not pay more than they did before the new
scheme began operating and ships that do not register or do not earn
any points will have to pay the full tax.''\17\ The Green Award
Foundation, with the Port of Rotterdam and some ports in Portugal and
South Africa offers reduced harbor dues for tankers of more than 20,000
DWT. To earn the award, the shipowner and the vessel must comply with
national and international laws and regulations as well as demonstrate
environmental and safety awareness in a number of areas affecting
management and crew competence as well as technical provisions which
includes exhaust emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.sjofartsverket.se/navigering/htm/frameset.htm.
\17\ A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.sjofartsverket.se/navigering/htm/frameset.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. State Actions: SCAQMD, Alaska and Texas Smoke Requirements
Several states have programs that address smoke emissions from
marine engines. This section summarizes the programs in SCAQMD, Alaska
and Texas.
SCAQMD: California's South Coast Air Quality Management District's
Rule 401 states ``(b)(1) A person shall not discharge into the
atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air
contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes
in any one hour which is: (A) As dark or darker in shade as that
designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart as published by the United
States Bureau of Mines; or (B) Of such opacity as to obscure an
observer's view to a degree equal to or greater than does smoke
described in subparagraph (b)(1)(A) of this rule.''\18\ The Port of
Long Beach has issued literature requiring compliance with the SCAQMD
rules through their Smoke Stack Emissions Program.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/html/r401.html.
\19\ A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
www.polb.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles also require, as
of May 1, 2001, a Voluntary Commercial Cargo Ship Speed Reduction
Program. The ``Air Quality Compliance Zone'' is with a 12 knot speed
restriction beginning 20-nautical miles from Point Fermin to the
boundaries of the existing mandatory Precautionary Area. The purpose is
to reduce air pollution from ships in the South Coast Air Basin.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.polb.com/NavAlert.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska: Under Alaska's present state law, with some exceptions,
``ships must keep emissions from reducing visibility through the
exhaust plume by more than 20% while in Alaska waters. Diesel exhausts
and other smoky discharges from ships can create a haze that hangs over
coastal communities. DEC receives regular complaints from coastal
community residents about these emissions. The state has certified
readers who observe the emissions coming from a cruise ship's
smokestack to determine if the standards are being exceeded.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/press/2001/rel_1115.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas: The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter
111 of the document on Control of Air Pollution From Visible Emissions
and Particulate Matter contains requirements of visible emissions from
[[Page 37557]]
ships. The document, section 111.111(a)(6)(A) and (B), state that ``(A)
Visible emissions shall not be permitted from any railroad locomotive,
ship or any other vessel to exceed an opacity of 30% for any five-
minute period, except during reasonable periods of engine start-up. (B)
Compliance with subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be determined
by applying the following test methods, as appropriate: (i) Test Method
9, (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A), or (ii) equivalent test method
approved by the executive director and EPA.'' This document was
effective June 11, 2000.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ A further detailed discussion of this topic can be found at
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rules/pdflib/111a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The Air Quality Need
A. Overview
This proposal contains a regulatory strategy for Category 3 marine
diesel engines on U.S. vessels. Marine diesel engines at or above 30
liters per cylinder are very large marine engines used primarily for
propulsion power on ocean-going vessels such as container ships,
tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships. The vessels that use these
engines are flagged in the United States and in other countries.
Category 3 engines have not been regulated under our nonroad engine
programs. Nationwide, these engines are a significant source of mobile
source air pollution. As described in Section II.C, below, emissions
from all Category 3 marine diesel engines, regardless of flag of
registry, currently account for about 1.5 percent of national mobile
source NOX, and 2.6 percent of national mobile source PM
inventories.
We conducted a study of emissions from nonroad engines, vehicles,
and equipment in 1991, as directed by the Clean Air Act, section 213(a)
(42 U.S.C. 7547(a)). Based on the results of that study, we determined
that emissions of NOX, VOCs (including HC), and CO from
nonroad engines and equipment contribute significantly to ozone and CO
concentrations in more than one noattainment area (see 59 FR 31306,
June 17, 1994). Given this determination, section 213(a)(3) of the Act
requires us to establish (and from time to time revise) emission
standards for those classes or categories of new nonroad engines,
vehicles, and equipment that in our judgment cause or contribute to
such air pollution. We have determined that commercial marine diesel
engines cause or contribute to such air pollution (see also the
proposed commercial marine diesel engine preamble at 63 FR 68508,
December 11, 1998 and the final rule at 64 FR 73300, December 29,
1999).
Where we determine that other emissions from new nonroad engines,
vehicles, or equipment significantly contribute to air pollution that
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,
section 213(a)(4) authorizes EPA to establish (and from time to time
revise) emission standards from those classes or categories of new
nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment that cause or contribute to
such air pollution. We have determined that commercial marine diesel
engines cause or contribute to such air pollution (see also the
proposed commercial marine diesel engine preamble at 63 FR 68508,
December 11, 1998 and the final rule at 64 FR 73300, December 29,
1999).
B. What Are the Public Health and Welfare Concerns Associated With
Emissions From Category 3 Diesel Marine Engines Subject to the Proposed
Standards?
The engines that would be subject to the proposed standards
generate emissions of NOX, HC, PM and CO that contribute to
ozone and CO nonattainment as well as adverse health effects associated
with ambient concentrations of PM. This section contains a summary of
the general health effects of these substances. Further information can
be found in Chapter 2 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document.
National and selected port city inventories are set out in Section
II.C, and estimates of the expected impact of the proposed control
program are described in Section VI.
1. Ozone and its Precursors
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX are precursors
in the photochemical reaction which forms tropospheric ozone. Ground-
level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by complex chemical
reactions of VOCs and NOX in the presence of heat and
sunlight. Hydrocarbons (HC) are a large subset of VOC, and to reduce
mobile-source VOC levels we set maximum emissions limits for
hydrocarbon and particulate matter emissions.
A large body of evidence shows that ozone can cause harmful
respiratory effects including chest pain, coughing, and shortness of
breath, which affect people with compromised respiratory systems most
severely. When inhaled, ozone can cause acute respiratory problems;
aggravate asthma; cause significant temporary decreases in lung
function of 15 to over 20 percent in some healthy adults; cause
inflammation of lung tissue; produce changes in lung tissue and
structure; may increase hospital admissions and emergency room visits;
and impair the body's immune system defenses, making people more
susceptible to respiratory illnesses. Children and outdoor workers are
likely to be exposed to elevated ambient levels of ozone during
exercise and, therefore, are at a greater risk of experiencing adverse
health effects. Beyond its human health effects, ozone has been shown
to injure plants, which has the effect of reducing crop yields and
reducing productivity in forest ecosystems.
There is strong and convincing evidence that exposure to ozone is
associated with exacerbation of asthma-related symptoms. Increases in
ozone concentrations in the air have been associated with increases in
hospitalization for respiratory causes for individuals with asthma,
worsening of symptoms, decrements in lung function, and increased
medication use, and chronic exposure may cause permanent lung damage.
The risk of suffering these effects is particularly high for children
and for people with compromised respiratory systems.
Ground level ozone today remains a pervasive pollution problem in
the United States. In 1999, 90.8 million people (1990 census) lived in
31 areas designated nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\23\
This sharp decline from the 101 nonattainment areas originally
identified under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 demonstrates the
effectiveness of the last decade's worth of emission-control programs.
However, elevated ozone concentrations remain a serious public health
concern throughout the nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999,
EPA, 2001, at Table A-19. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd99/. The data from the Trends report are the
most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A
copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-2001-11,
Document No. II-A-XX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last decade, declines in ozone levels were found mostly in
urban areas, where emissions are heavily influenced by controls on
mobile sources and their fuels. Twenty-three metropolitan areas have
realized a decline in ozone levels since 1989, but at the same time
ozone levels in 11 metropolitan areas with 7 million people have
increased.\24\ Regionally,
[[Page 37558]]
California and the Northeast have recorded significant reductions in
peak ozone levels, while four other regions (the Mid-Atlantic, the
Southeast, the Central and Pacific Northwest) have seen ozone levels
increase. The highest ambient concentrations are currently found in
suburban areas, consistent with downwind transport of emissions from
urban centers. Concentrations in rural areas have risen to the levels
previously found only in cities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998,
March, 2000, at 28. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd98/. Relevant pages of this report can be
found in Memorandum to Air Docket A-2000-01 from Jean Marie Revelt,
September 5, 2001. This memorandum is available in Air Docket A-
2001-11, Document No. II-A-XX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate future ozone levels, we refer to the modeling performed
in conjunction with the final rule for our most recent heavy-duty
highway engine and fuel standards.\25\ We performed ozone air quality
modeling for the entire Eastern U.S. covering metropolitan areas from
Texas to the Northeast.\26\ This ozone air quality model was based upon
the same modeling system as was used in the Tier 2 air quality
analysis, with the addition of updated inventory estimates for 2007 and
2030. The results of this modeling were examined for those 37 areas in
the East for which EPA's modeling predicted exceedences in 2007, 2020,
and/or 2030 and the current 1-hour design values are above the standard
or within 10 percent of the standard. This photochemical ozone modeling
for 2020 predicts exceedences of the 1-hour ozone standard in 32 areas
with a total of 89 million people (1999 census) after accounting for
light- and heavy-duty on-highway control programs.\27\ We expect the
NOX control strategy contained in this Notice for Category 3
marine engines will further assist state efforts already underway to
attain and maintain the 1-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Additional information about this modeling can be found in
our Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,
document EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000. Docket No. A-2001-11,
Document No. II-A-XX. This document is also available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents.
\26\ We also performed ozone air quality modeling for the
western United States but, as described further in the air quality
technical support document, model predictions were well below
corresponding ambient concentrations for our heavy-duty engine
standards and fuel sulfur control rulemaking. Because of poor model
performance for this region of the country, the results of the
Western ozone modeling were not relied on for that rule.
\27\ Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, US
EPA, EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000, at II-14, Table II.A-2. Docket
No. A-2001-11, Document Number II-A-XX. This document is also
available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the health effects described above, there exists a
large body of scientific literature that shows that harmful effects can
occur from sustained levels of ozone exposure much lower than 0.125
ppm.\28\ Studies of prolonged exposures, those lasting about 7 hours,
show health effects from prolonged and repeated exposures at moderate
levels of exertion to ozone concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm. The
health effects at these levels of exposure include transient pulmonary
function responses, transient respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise
performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility
to respiratory infection, increased hospital and emergency room visits,
and transient pulmonary respiratory inflammation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Additional information about these studies can be found in
Chapter 2 of ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements,'' December 2000, EPA420-R-00-026. Docket No. A-2001-
11, Document Number II-A-XX. This document is also available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prolonged and repeated ozone concentrations at these levels are
common in areas throughout the country, and are found both in areas
that are exceeding, and areas that are not exceeding, the 1-hour ozone
standard. Areas with these high concentrations are more widespread than
those in nonattainment for that 1-hour ozone standard. Monitoring data
indicate that 333 counties in 33 states exceed these levels in 1997-
99.\29\ The Agency's recent photochemical ozone modeling forecast that
111 million people are predicted to live in areas that are at risk of
exceeding these moderate ozone levels for prolonged periods of time in
2020 after accounting for expected inventory reductions due to controls
on light- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ A copy of these data can be found in Air Docket A-2001-11,
Document No. II-A-XX.
\30\ Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric Ginsburg, EPA,
``Summary of Model-Adjusted Ambient Concentrations for Certain
Levels of Ground-Level Ozone over Prolonged Periods,'' November 22,
2000, at Table C, Control Scenario--2020 Populations in Eastern
Metropolitan Counties with Predicted Daily 8-Hour Ozone greater than
or equal to 0.080 ppm. Docket A-2001-11, Document Number II-B-XX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Particulate Matter
Category 3 marine engines that would be subject to the proposed
standards contribute to ambient particulate matter (PM) levels in two
ways. First, they contribute through direct emissions of particulate
matter. Second, they contribute to indirect formation of PM through
their emissions of organic carbon, especially HC. Organic carbon
accounts for between 27 and 36 percent of fine particle mass depending
on the area of the country.
Particulate matter represents a broad class of chemically and
physically diverse substances. It can be principally characterized as
discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) phase
spanning several orders of magnitude in size. All particles equal to
and less than 10 microns are called PM10. Fine particles can
be generally defined as those particles with an aerodynamic diameter of
2.5 microns or less (also known as PM2.5), and coarse
fraction particles are those particles with an aerodynamic diameter
greater than 2.5 microns, but equal to or less than a nominal 10
microns.
Particulate matter, like ozone, has been linked to a range of
serious respiratory health problems. Scientific studies suggest a
likely causal role of ambient particulate matter (which is attributable
to several sources including mobile sources) in contributing to a
series of health effects.\31\ The key health effects categories
associated with ambient particulate matter include premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by
increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school
absences, work loss days, and restricted activity days), aggravated
asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and
difficult or painful breathing, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung
function that can be experienced as shortness of breath. Observable
human noncancer health effects associated with exposure to diesel PM
include some of the same health effects reported for ambient PM such as
respiratory symptoms (cough, labored breathing, chest tightness,
wheezing), and chronic respiratory disease (cough, phlegm, chronic
bronchitis and suggestive evidence for decreases in pulmonary
function). Symptoms of immunological effects such as wheezing and
increased allergenicity are also seen. Exposure to fine particles is
closely associated with such health effects as premature mortality or
hospital admissions for cardiopulmonary disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ EPA (1996) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-96-013.
Docket Number A-99-06, Documents Nos. II-A-18, 19, 20, and 23. The
particulate matter air quality criteria documents are also available
at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/partmatt.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM also causes adverse impacts to the environment. Fine PM is the
major cause of reduced visibility in parts of the United States. Other
environmental impacts occur when particles deposit
[[Page 37559]]
onto soils, plants, water or materials. For example, particles
containing nitrogen and sulphur that deposit on to land or water bodies
may change the nutrient balance and acidity of those environments.
Finally, PM causes soiling and erosion damage to materials, including
culturally important objects such as carved monuments and statues. It
promotes and accelerates the corrosion of metals, degrades paints, and
deteriorates building materials such as concrete and limestone.
The NAAQS for PM10 were established in 1987. According
to these standards, the short term (24-hour) standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\
is not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over three
years. The long-term standard specifies an expected annual arithmetic
mean not to exceed 50 [mu]g/m\3\ over three years. Recent PM10
monitoring data indicate that 14 designated PM10
nonattainment areas with a projected population of 23 million violated
the PM10 NAAQS in the period 1997-99. In addition, there are
25 unclassifiable areas that have recently recorded ambient
concentrations of PM10 above the PM10 NAAQS.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ EPA adopted a policy in 1996 that allows areas with
PM10 exceedances that are attributable to natural events
to retain their designation as unclassifiable if the State is taking
all reasonable measures to safeguard public health regardless of the
sources of PM10 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current 1999 PM2.5 monitored values, which cover about a
third of the nation's counties, indicate that at least 40 million
people live in areas where long-term ambient fine particulate matter
levels are at or above 16 [mu]g/m\3\ (37 percent of the population in
the areas with monitors).\33\ This 16 [mu]g/m\3\ threshold is the low
end of the range of long term average PM2.5 concentrations
in cities where statistically significant associations were found with
serious health effects, including premature mortality.\34\ To estimate
the number of people who live in areas where long-term ambient fine
particulate matter levels are at or above 16 [mu]g/m\3\ but for which
there are no monitors, we can use modeling. According to our national
modeled predictions, there were a total of 76 million people (1996
population) living in areas with modeled annual average
PM2.5 concentrations at or above 16 [mu]g/m\3\ (29 percent
of the population).\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior
Program Advisor, ``Summary of 1999 Ambient Concentrations of Fine
Particulate Matter,'' November 15, 2000. Air Docket A-2001-11,
Document No. II-B-XX.
\34\ EPA (1996) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-96-013.
Docket Number A-99-06, Documents Nos. II-A-18, 19, 20, and 23. The
particulate matter air quality criteria documents are also available
at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/partmatt.htm.
\35\ Memorandum to Docket A-99-06 from Eric O. Ginsburg, Senior
Program Advisor, ``Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model-Adjusted
Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years,'' December
6, 2000. Air Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-B-XX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate future PM2.5 levels, we refer to the
modeling performed in conjunction with the final rule for our most
recent heavy-duty highway engine and fuel standards, using EPA's
Regulatory Model System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD).\36\ The
most appropriate method of making these projections relies on the model
to predict changes between current and future states. Thus, we have
estimated future conditions only for the areas with current
PM2.5 monitored data (which cover about a third of the
nation's counties). For these counties, REMSAD predicts the current
level of 37 percent of the population living in areas where fine PM
levels are at or above 16 [mu]g/m\3\ to increase to 49 percent in
2030.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Additional information about the Regulatory Model System
for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD) and our modeling protocols can
be found in our Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements, document EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000. Docket No. A-
2001-11, Document No. A-II-XX. This document is also available at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/disel.htm#documents.
\37\ Technical Memorandum, EPA Air Docket A-99-06, Eric O.
Ginsburg, Senior Program Advisor, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis
Division, OAQPS, Summary of Absolute Modeled and Model-Adjusted
Estimates of Fine Particulate Matter for Selected Years, December 6,
2000, Table P-2. Docket Number 2001-11, Document Number II-B-XX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced through
the incomplete combustion of carbon-based fuels. Carbon monoxide enters
the bloodstream through the lungs and reduces the delivery of oxygen to
the body's organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most
serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly
those with angina or peripheral vascular disease. Healthy individuals
also are affected, but only at higher CO levels. Exposure to elevated
CO levels is associated with impairment of visual perception, work
capacity, manual dexterity, learning ability and performance of complex
tasks.
High concentrations of CO generally occur in areas with elevated
mobile-source emissions. Peak concentrations typically occur during the
colder months of the year when mobile-source CO emissions are greater
and nighttime inversion conditions are more frequent. This is due to
the enhanced stability in the atmospheric boundary layer, which
inhibits vertical mixing of emissions from the surface.
The current primary NAAQS for CO are 35 parts per million for the
one-hour average and 9 parts per million for the eight-hour average.
These values are not to be exceeded more than once per year. Air
quality carbon monoxide value is estimated using EPA guidance for
calculating design values. In 1999, 30.5 million people (1990 census)
lived in 17 areas designated nonattainment under the CO NAAQS.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999,
EPA, 2001, at Table A-19. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd99/. The data from the Trends report are the
most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A
copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-200111,
Document No. II-A-XX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationally, significant progress has been made over the last decade
to reduce CO emissions and ambient CO concentrations. Total CO
emissions from all sources have decreased 16 percent from 1989 to 1998,
and ambient CO concentrations decreased by 39 percent. During that
time, while the mobile source CO contribution of the inventory remained
steady at about 77 percent, the highway portion decreased from 62
percent of total CO emissions to 56 percent while the nonroad portion
increased from 17 percent to 22 percent.\39\ Over the next decade, we
would expect there to be a minor decreasing trend from the highway
segment due primarily to the more stringent standards for certain
light-duty trucks (LDT2s).\40\ CO standards for passenger cars and
other light-duty trucks and heavy-duty vehicles did not change as a
result of other recent rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998,
March, 2000; this document is available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd98/. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900-1998 (EPA-
454/R-00-002), March, 2000. These documents are available at Docket
No. A-2000-01, Document No. II-A-72. See also Air Quality Criteria
for Carbon Monoxide, US EPA, EPA 600/P-99/001F, June 2000, at 3-10.
Air Docket A-2001-11, Document Number II-A-XX. This document is also
available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/coabstract.htm.
\40\ LDT2s are light light-duty trucks greater than 3750 lbs.
loaded vehicle weight, up through 6000 gross vehicle weight rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Other Welfare and Environmental Effects
In addition to the health and welfare concerns just described,
Category 3 marine diesel engines can contribute to regional haze, acid
deposition, and eutrophication and nitrophication. Further information
on these effects can
[[Page 37560]]
be found in Chapter 2 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document.
C. Contribution From Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines
1. National Inventories
We developed baseline Category 3 vessel emissions inventories under
contract with E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.\41\ Inventory estimates
were developed separately for vessel traffic within 25 nautical miles
of port areas and vessel traffic outside of port areas but within 175
nautical miles of the coastline. The inventories include all Category 3
traffic, including that on the Great Lakes. Different techniques were
used to develop the port and non-port inventories. For port areas we
developed detailed emissions estimates for nine specific ports using
port activity data including port calls, vessel types and typical times
in different operating modes. Emissions estimates for all other ports
were developed by matching each of those ports to one of the nine
specific ports already analyzed based on characteristics of port
activity, such as predominant vessel types, harbor draft and region of
the country. The detailed port emissions were then scaled to the other
ports based on relative port activity. We developed non-port emissions
inventories using cargo movements and waterways data, vessel speeds,
average dead weight tonnage per ship, and assumed cargo capacity
factors. More detailed information regarding the development of the
baseline emissions inventories can be found in Chapter 6 of the Draft
Regulatory Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``Commercial Marine Emission Inventory Development,'' E.H.
Pechan and Associates, Inc. and ENVIRON International Corporation,
April, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been little study of the transport of marine vessel
NOX emissions and the distance they may travel to impact air
quality on land. Pollutant transport is a very complicated subject, and
the transport distance can vary dramatically depending on a variety of
factors, including the pollutant under consideration, as prevailing
wind speed and direction, and other atmospheric conditions. When we
consider how far off the coast to include emissions in our baseline the
correct answer may well vary depending on geographic area and
prevailing atmospheric conditions. Thus, in developing baseline
emissions inventories we looked at two scenarios that we believe
reasonably bracket the distances from shore that vessel emissions my be
emitted and expected in impact air quality on land. First, we looked
only at the pollutants emitted within 25 nautical miles of a port area
as a reasonable lower bound to estimate the national inventory of
Category 3 marine diesel engines. As an upper bound we considered all
Category 3 emissions within 175 nautical miles of shore.
Not surprisingly, these two different distances yield different
inventory results. The 1996 NOX and PM emissions inventories
are shown in Table II.C-1. We used 1996 as the starting point for this
analysis because that is the most recent year that we have detailed
information available for the nine specific port areas. As will be
discussed later in this section, this initial analysis shows that the
contribution from U.S. and foreign flagged vessels differs between
these two areas.
Table II.C-1.--Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine 1996 Baseline Emissions
Inventories
[thousand short tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario NOX PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 25 nautical miles of ports........................ 101 9.3
Within 175 nautical miles of coast....................... 190 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remainder of the analysis associated with the proposed
emissions standards we will consider all emissions that occur within
175 nautical miles from the coast as our primary scenario. We request
comment on all aspects of our emissions inventories. In particular, we
request comment on whether we should consider a range different than
175 nautical miles from the coast as our primary scenario, and why. We
also request comment on whether we should consider different distances
from the coast for different areas of the country. For example, should
we consider a smaller distance on the East coast than the West coast to
account for prevailing wind patterns?
We will continue to investigate this issue throughout this
rulemaking, and will incorporate any new information into the final
rule. For example, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has presented
information to us recommending that a different, shorter (offshore
distance) limit be established rather than the proposed 175 nautical
miles as the appropriate location where emissions from marine vessels
would affect on-shore air quality. DoD's extensive work on the marine
vessels issue in Southern California resulted in a conclusion that
emissions within 60 nautical miles of shore could make it back to the
coast due to eddies and the nature of the sea breeze effects. Satellite
data however showed a distinct tendency for a curved line of
demarcation separating the offshore (unobstructed) or parallel ocean
wind flow from a region of more turbulent, recirculated air which would
impact on-shore areas. That curved line of demarcation was close to San
Nicolas Island which is about 60 nautical miles offshore. Studies and
published information on other coastal areas in California indicates
that they experience somewhat narrower (perhaps 30 nautical miles)
region of ``coastal influence.'' The Gulf Coast and the U.S. East coast
would similarly have their own unique meteorological conditions that
might call for different lines of demarcation between on-shore and off-
shore effects.
To estimate inventories for years after 1996, we developed
inventory projections based on expected increases in vessel freight
movement and expected changes in vessel characteristics, as well as
fleet turnover based on 25 years as the average age of the world fleet
at time of scrappage. We also take the MARPOL Annex VI NOX
limits into account because, although these international
NOX standards are not yet in force, we expect that most, if
not all shipbuilders and shipping companies around the world are
currently complying with them, and we expect this trend to continue.
Our estimated emissions inventories are based on the assumption that
all vessels built after 1999, both U.S. and foreign flagged, will
comply with the MARPOL NOX limits. Table II.C-2 shows the
future year NOX and PM inventories for selected years out to
2030. More detailed information regarding the development of the future
year emissions inventories can be found in Chapter 6 of the Draft
Regulatory Support Document. We request comment on these inventory
projections. In particular, we request comment on whether freight
growth will continue at the exponential rate that is has seen in the
past, and for how long such exponential growth can be expected to
continue.
One very important consideration in projecting future year
inventories is the make up and size of the future vessel fleet. The
size and make up of the future U.S. flagged fleet is dependent on
vessel construction at U.S. shipyards, the nature of vessel replacement
practices, and any growth in the number of ships in the fleet.
Projecting future vessel production at U.S. shipyards is difficult for
two reasons. First, vessel construction totals for U.S. shipyards
[[Page 37561]]
have varied quite a bit from year to year, with no clear trends.
Second, the U.S. government discontinued subsidies to U.S. shipyards in
1983, creating a dramatic downward shift in production at U.S.
shipyards. We request comment on likely future production at U.S.
shipyards, including production estimates and the rationale behind the
estimates. Vessel replacement practices also play a role in future year
emissions inventory projections. For example, the current U.S. flagged
fleet contains a large number of older steamships. We request comment
on whether these steamships are likely to be replaced with diesels when
they are scrapped. We also request comment on whether there are any
other vessel replacement practices or trends that we should consider
when projecting future year emissions inventories. As shown in Chapter
6 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document, a substantial portion of
the U.S. flagged fleet is over 30 years old. We request comment on the
size and nature of any increase in U.S. shipbuilding activity that may
occur in the near future in an effort to replace the aging fleet.
Finally, we request comment on whether the total number of U.S. flagged
vessels is expected to grow substantially in the future and why.
Table II.C-2.--Future Year NOX and PM Inventories for Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines
[thousand short tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX PM
Year ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ports Non-ports All areas Ports Non-ports All areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................. 101 89 190 9 8 17
2010............................. 146 128 274 14 12 26
2020............................. 196 172 367 20 16 37
2030............................. 288 243 531 30 24 54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline emission inventory estimates for the year 2000 for
Category 3 marine diesel engines are summarized in Table II.C-3 in the
context of other emissions sources. This table shows the relative
contributions of the different mobile-source categories to the overall
national mobile-source inventory. Of the total emissions from mobile
sources, all Category 3 marine diesel engines contributed about 1.5
percent of NOX and 2.6 percent of PM emissions in the year
2000.
Our draft emission projections for 2020 for Category 3 marine
diesel engines show how emissions from these engines are expected to
increase over time if left uncontrolled beyond the MARPOL Annex VI
NOX limits. The projections for 2020 are summarized in Table
II.C-4 and indicate that Category 3 marine diesel engines are expected
to contribute 5.7 percent NOX and 5.8 percent of PM
emissions in the year 2020. Population growth and the effects of other
regulatory control programs are factored into these projections. The
relative importance of uncontrolled nonroad engines is higher than the
projections for 2000 because there are already emission control
programs in place for the other categories of mobile sources which are
expected to reduce their emission levels. The effectiveness of all
control programs is offset by the anticipated growth in engine
populations.
Table II.C-3.--Modeled Annual Emission Levels for Mobile-Source Categories in 2000
[thousand short tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX HC CO PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
Tons mobile Tons mobile Tons mobile Tons mobile
source source source source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for engines subject to proposed standards (U.S. 79 0.6 2 0.0 4 0.0 7.0 1.0
flagged commercial marine--Category 3)....................
Commercial Marine CI--Category 3........................... 195 1.5 8 0.1 16 0.0 18.0 2.6
Commercial Marine CI--Categories 1 and 2................... 700 5.2 22 0.3 103 0.1 20 2.9
Highway Motorcycles........................................ 8 0.1 84 1.1 329 0.4 0.4 0.1
Nonroad Industrial SI 19 kW.................... 306 2.3 247 3.2 2,294 2.9 1.6 0.2
Recreational SI............................................ 13 0.1 737 9.6 2,572 3.3 5.7 0.8
Recreation Marine CI....................................... 24 0.2 1 0.0 4 0.0 1 0.1
Marine SI Evap............................................. 0 0.0 89 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0
Marine SI Exhaust.......................................... 32 0.2 708 9.2 2,144 2.7 38 5.4
Nonroad SI < 19 kW......................................... 106 0.8 1,460 18.9 18,359 23.5 50 7.2
Nonroad CI................................................. 2,625 19.6 316 4.1 1,217 1.6 253 36.3
Locomotive................................................. 1,192 8.9 47 0.6 119 0.2 30 4.3
Total Nonroad.............................................. 5,201 39 3,719 48 27,157 35 418 60
Total Highway.............................................. 7,981 60 3,811 50 49,811 64 240 34
Aircraft................................................... 178 1 183 2 1,017 1 39 6
Total Mobile Sources....................................... 13,360 100 7,713 100 77,985 100 697 100
Total Man-Made Sources..................................... 24,444 .......... 18,659 .......... 100,064 .......... 3,093 ..........
Mobile Source percent of Total Man-Made Sources............ 55 .......... 41 .......... 78 .......... 23 ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37562]]
Table II.C-4.--Modeled Annual Emission Levels for Mobile-Source Categories in 2020
[thousand short tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX HC CO PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
Tons mobile Tons mobile Tons mobile Tons mobile
source source source source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for engines subject to proposed standards (U.S. 150 2.3 5 0.1 9 0.0 14.0 2.2
flagged commercial marine--Category 3)....................
Commercial Marine CI--Category 3........................... 367 5.7 17 0.3 37 0.0 37.0 5.8
Commercial Marine CI--Categories 1 and 2................... 617 9.6 24 0.4 125 0.1 19.0 3.0
Highway Motorcycles........................................ 14 0.2 144 2.3 569 0.6 0.8 0.1
Nonroad Industrial SI 19 kW.................... 486 7.6 348 5.5 2,991 3.3 2.4 0.4
Recreational SI............................................ 27 0.4 1,706 27.1 5,407 6.0 7.5 1.2
Recreation Marine CI....................................... 39 0.6 1 0.0 6 0.0 1.5 0.2
Marine SI Evap............................................. 0 0.0 102 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0
Marine SI Exhaust.......................................... 58 0.9 284 4.5 1,985 2.2 28 4.4
Nonroad SI < 19 kW......................................... 106 1.7 986 15.6 27,352 30.3 77 12.0
Nonroad CI................................................. 1,791 28.0 142 2.3 1,462 1.6 261 40.6
Locomotive................................................. 611 9.5 35 0.6 119 0.1 21 3.3
Total Nonroad.............................................. 4,116 63 3,789 60 40,053 44 455 70
Total Highway.............................................. 2,050 33 2,278 36 48,903 54 145 23
Aircraft................................................... 232 4 238 4 1,387 2 43 7
Total Mobile Sources....................................... 6,398 100 6,305 100 90,343 100 643 100
Total Man-Made Sources..................................... 16,374 .......... 16,405 .......... 114,011 .......... 3,027 ..........
Mobile Source percent of Total Man-Made Sources............ 39 .......... 38 .......... 79 .......... 21 ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Inventories for Specific Ports
In the previous section we presented estimates of Category 3 marine
diesel engine emissions as percentages of the national mobile source
inventory. Total national man-made source inventories were also
included in Tables II.C-3 and II.C-4 for comparison. However, marine
vessel activity tends to be concentrated in port areas, and thus we
would expect that Category 3 marine diesel engines would have a
proportionately bigger impact on the mobile source pollution
inventories of port areas. Using the port-specific Category 3
inventories developed for use in our national inventory in conjunction
with total port area inventories developed in support of the heavy-duty
on-highway 2007 rule, we developed estimates of the contribution of
Category 3 marine diesel engines to the mobile source NOX
and PM inventories of several selected port areas, including several
ozone nonattainment areas. The NOX results are shown in
Table II.C-5, and the PM results are shown in Table II.C-6. As can be
seen from these tables, the relative contribution of Category 3 marine
diesel engine pollution to mobile source pollution is expected to
increase in the future. This is due both to the expected growth of
shipping traffic in the future and the effect of emissions control
programs already in place for other mobile sources.
Table II.C-5.--Modeled NOX Inventories as a Percentage of Mobile Source
NOX in Selected Port Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of mobile
----------------------------------------------------- source NOX from C3
-------------------
Ozone nonattainment area? Port area 1966 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y........................ Baton Rouge and New 7.4 15.8
Orleans, LA.
Y........................ Los Angeles/Long Beach, 2.0 8.6
CA.
Y........................ Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX. 1.4 3.1
Y........................ Houston/Galveston/ 1.5 4.9
Brazoria, TX.
Y........................ Baltimore/Washington, DC. 2.1 11.4
Y........................ Philadelphia/Wilmington/ 1.8 6.9
Atlantic City.
Y........................ New York/New Jersey...... 1.0 6.2
N........................ Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton/ 4.3 26.3
Bellingham, WA.
N........................ Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 5.4 28.1
N........................ Portland/Salem, OR....... 1.9 11.9
N........................ Wilmington, NC........... 6.9 26.8
N........................ Corpus Christi, TX....... 4.8 12.2
N........................ Brownsville/Harlington/ 1.8 6.6
San Benito, TX.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37563]]
Table II.C-6--Modeled PM Inventories as a Percentage of Mobile Source PM
in Selected Port Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of mobile
----------------------------------------------------- source PM from C3
-------------------
Port area 1996 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baton Rouge and New Orleans, LA..................... 12.1 22.6
Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA \1\...................... 3.9 10.8
Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX............................ 7.4 18.3
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria, TX...................... 3.3 8.5
Baltimore/Washington DC............................. 3.2 9.6
Philadelphia/Wilmington/Atlantic City............... 2.8 6.3
New York/New Jersey................................. 1.6 5.7
Seattle/Tacoma/Bremerton/Bellingham, WA............. 8.5 25.5
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, FL............................ 10.6 28.7
Portland/Salem, OR.................................. 3.9 12.1
Wilmington, NC...................................... 8.1 22.4
Corpus Christi, TX.................................. 6.0 9.6
Brownsville/Harlington/San Benito, TX............... 3.1 14.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PM nonattainment area.
3. Emissions in Nonport Areas
These ships can also have a significant impact on inventories in
areas without large commercial ports. For example, Santa Barbara
estimates that engines on ocean-going marine vessels contribute about
37 percent of total NOX in their area. These emissions are
from ships that transit the area, and ``are comparable to (even
slightly larger than) the amount of NOX produced onshore by
cars and truck.\42\ These emissions are expected to increase to 62
percent by 2015. While Santa Barbara's exact conditions may be unique
due to the relative close proximity of heavily used shipping channels
to shore and the meteorological conditions in their area, other coastal
areas may also have relatively high inventory impacts from ocean-going
vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Memorandum to Docket A-2001-11 from Jean Marie Revelt,
``Santa Barbara County Air Quality News, Issue 62, July-August 2001
and other materials provided to EPA by Santa Barbara County,'' March
14, 2002. Air Docket A-2001-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Contribution by Flag
It is important to determine how much of the Category 3 marine
diesel engine pollution inventory is contributed by U.S. flagged
vessels given that we are considering whether to restrict application
of the proposed standards and standards under consideration to U.S.
flag vessels only or to apply the standards to all vessels (U.S. and
foreign-flag entering U.S. ports). We estimated the relative
contribution of U.S. and foreign flagged vessels separately for the
port areas and the non-port areas due to the fact that we had different
data sets available to us for the two areas.
We estimated the contribution of U.S. flagged vessels for the ports
areas using port call data obtained from the U.S. Maritime
Administration (MARAD). These data contained all port calls in 1999 to
U.S. ports by vessels of greater than 1000 gross registered tons,
including the country in which they are flagged and the number of port
calls each vessel made. An analysis of the port call data shows that
U.S. flagged vessels only account for 6.4 percent of port calls to U.S.
ports. For the lack of more detailed information regarding the breakout
of U.S. and foreign flagged vessel emissions we applied the percentage
of port calls from U.S. and foreign flagged vessels to the national
ports inventories to determine the relative contributions of each to
the national ports inventories.
We used freight tonnage data from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
(USACE) to develop relative U.S. and foreign flagged emissions
contributions in non-ports areas within 175 nautical miles of the
coast. In contrast to the data for the ports areas, the USACE data
suggests that more than 80 percent of the non-ports emissions come from
U.S. flagged vessels.
The relative contributions from U.S. and foreign flagged vessels
are quite different between the ports areas and the non-ports areas.
Some of this difference can be explained through U.S. cabotage law,
which requires that any vessel operating between two U.S. ports be U.S.
flagged. Thus, while most port traffic is foreign flagged, the foreign
flagged vessels would tend to come into a single U.S. port and then
leave U.S. waters. In contrast, U.S. flagged vessels would typically
travel from one U.S. port to another, thus accounting for a higher
percentage of the non-ports emissions. We request comment on this
assessment of U.S. and foreign flagged vessel contributions, as well as
additional data that would help us further understand the relative
contributions of U.S. and foreign flagged vessels to the national
pollution inventories.
For the purposes of the future inventory projections we assumed
that the current split of U.S. and foreign flagged emissions would
continue. However, this assumption, in combination with our assumed
growth rates, implies that the manufacture of Category 3 vessels in the
U.S. for the U.S. flagged fleet would occur in the future at rates
greater than the recent build rate of around two vessels per year. More
likely, seven to nine new U.S. flagged vessels would need to be built
per year to accommodate the U.S. flagged vessel emissions growth
assumptions. We request comment on whether the U.S. flagged fleet is
expected to grow at this rate in the future, or instead whether a
growing fraction of vessel emissions would come from foreign flagged
vessels in the future. Specifically, we request comment on the likely
replacement rates and expected new capacity of the U.S. fleet in the
future.
III. What Engines Are Covered?
The scope of application of this proposal is broadly set by Clean
Air Act section 213(a)(3), which instructs us to set standards for new
nonroad engines and new nonroad vehicles. In this case, the proposed
rule is intended to cover all new marine diesel engines installed on
vessels flagged or registered in the United States that have a specific
engine displacement greater than or equal to 30 liters per cylinder.
Under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, once emission standards
apply to a group of
[[Page 37564]]
engines, a manufacturer of a new engine must get a certificate of
conformity from us before selling an engine, importing an engine, or
otherwise introducing an engine into commerce in the United
States.43 44 We also require vessel manufacturers to install
only certified engines on new vessels that will be flagged or
registered in the United States once emission standards apply. The
certificate of conformity (and corresponding engine label) provide
assurance that engine manufacturers have met their obligation to make
engines that meet the emission standards over the useful life we
specify in the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The term ``manufacturer'' means any person engaged in the
manufacturing or assembling of new engines or importing such engines
for resale, or who acts for and is under the control of any such
person in connection with the distribution of such engines. 40 CFR
94.2.
\44\ For this proposal, we consider the United States to include
the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. See CAA section 302(d)
definition of ``State.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of application for emission standards for commercial
marine diesel engines up to 30 liters per cylinder was established in
our 1999 rulemaking (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999). In that rule, we
adopted a set of clarifying definitions that apply to those commercial
marine diesel engines and the vessels that use them. We are proposing
to apply those definitions to Category 3 marine diesel engines for the
purpose of identifying the engines and vessels that must comply with
the proposed standards. According to those definitions, which can be
found in 40 CFR 94.2, a Category 3 marine diesel engine would be
subject to the proposed standards if it is:
[sbull] Manufactured after the emission standards become effective,
whether domestic or imported;
[sbull] Installed for the first time in a marine vessel flagged in
the U.S. after having been used in another application subject to
different emission standards; or
[sbull] Installed on a new vessel flagged in the U.S.
At the same time we are soliciting comment on whether the emission
standards should also apply to marine engines on foreign vessels
entering U.S. ports and to no longer exclude such foreign vessels from
the emission standards under 40 CFR [sect] 94.1(b)(3). We are inviting
comment on whether to modify the definition of a ``new marine engine''
to find that engine emission standards would apply to Category 1, 2 and
3 marine diesel engines that are manufactured after the standards
become effective and that are installed on a foreign flagged vessel
that enters a U.S. port. If we were to adopt such an approach, we
anticipate the standards would also apply to any marine engine that is
installed on a foreign vessel if the vessel is manufactured (or that
otherwise become new) after the standards become effective.
We are also proposing to eliminate the foreign trade exemption.
Under this exemption, contained in 40 CFR section 94.906(d), engines on
vessels flagged or registered in the United States that spend less than
25 percent of total operating time within 320 kilometers of U.S.
territory are not required to comply with the proposed limits. This
would generally affect auxiliary engines, which are usually less than
30 liters per cylinder.
EPA is not considering inclusion of gas turbines in this rulemaking
given the limited amount of information that we currently have about
emissions from turbines. EPA's current belief is that gas turbines
generally have lower emissions than diesels. However, we are requesting
that commenters provide to us any emissions information that is
available as well as whether it would be appropriate to regulate
turbines and diesels together. Commenters supporting the regulation of
turbines should also address whether any special provisions would be
needed for the testing and certification of turbines.
In the remainder of this section we discuss the proposed scope of
application of the rule in greater detail.
A. What Is a Marine Vessel?
For the purpose of our marine diesel engine standards, ``marine
vessel'' has the meaning specified in the General Provisions of the
United States Code, 1 U.S.C. 3 (see 40 CFR 94.2). According to that
definition, the word ``vessel'' includes ``every description of
watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being
used, as a means of transportation on water.''
B. What Is a Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine?
In our 1999 commercial marine diesel engine rule, we defined marine
engine as an engine that is installed or intended to be installed on a
marine vessel. We also differentiated between three types of marine
diesel engines. As explained in that rule, this approach is necessary
because marine diesel engines are typically derivatives of land-based
diesel engines and the land-based engines are not all subject to the
same numerical standards and effective dates.
The definitions for the different categories of marine diesel
engines are contained in 40 CFR 94.2. Category 1 marine diesel engines,
those having a rated power greater than or equal to 37 kilowatts and a
specific engine displacement less than 5.0 liters per cylinder, are
similar to land-based nonroad engines used in construction and farm
equipment. Category 2 marine diesel engines, those having a specific
engine displacement greater than or equal to 5.0 liters per cylinder
but less than 30 liters per cylinder, are most often similar to
locomotive engines. Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel engines are
used as propulsion engines (i.e., an engine that moves a vessel through
the water or directs the movement of a vessel (40 CFR 94.2)) on tugs,
fishing vessels, supply vessels, and smaller cargo vessels. They are
also used as auxiliary engines (i.e., a marine engine that is not a
propulsion engine (40 CFR 94.2)) to provide electricity for navigation
equipment and crew service or other services such as pumping or
powering winches or anchors.
Category 3 marine diesel engines, which are the primary focus of
this proposal, are defined as having a specific engine displacement
greater than or equal to 30 liters per cylinder. These are very large
engines used for propulsion on large vessels such as container ships,
tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships. Most of these engines are
installed on ocean-going vessels, although a few are found on ships in
the Great Lakes. Category 3 marine diesel engines have no land-based
mobile source counterpart, although they are similar to engines used to
generate electricity in municipal power plants. In marine applications
they are either mechanical drive or indirect drive. Mechanical drive
engines can be direct drive (engine speed is the same as propeller
speed; this is common on very large ships) or have a gearbox (i.e.,
they have reduction gears; this is common on ships using medium speed
Category 3 marine diesel engines). Indirect drive engines are used to
generate electricity that is then used to turn the propeller shaft.
These are common in cruise ships since they have heavy electricity
demands. Category 3 marine diesel engines typically operate at a lower
speed and higher power than Category 1 and Category 2 engines, with the
slowest speed being 130-200 rpm.
[[Page 37565]]
Table III.B-1--Marine Engine Category Definitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Displacement per
Category cylinder hp range (kW) rpm range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............. disp. < 5 liters 37-2,300 1,800-3,000
(and power [ge] 37
kW).
2............. 5 [le] disp. < 30 1,500-8,000 750-1,500
liters.
3............. disp [ge] 30 liters. 2,500-80,000 80-900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What Is a New Marine Diesel Engine?
1. The Current Regulatory Definition
As set out in 40 CFR 94.2, a new marine engine is (i) a marine
engine, the equitable or legal title to which has never been
transferred to an ultimate purchaser; (ii) a marine engine installed on
a vessel, the equitable or legal title to such vessel has never been
transferred to an ultimate purchaser; or (iii) a marine engine that has
not been placed into service on a vessel. In cases where the equitable
or legal title to an engine or vessel is not transferred to an ultimate
purchaser prior to its being placed into service, an engine ceases to
be new after it is placed into service.
What this means is that a marine engine is new and is subject to
the proposed standards before its initial sale is completed or it is
placed into service. Practically, it means that any engine must meet
the proposed emission standards that are in effect the first time it is
sold or placed into service or the first time the vessel on which it is
installed is sold or placed into service. This is true for any engine
that is sold for the first time as a marine engine (placed into service
on a marine vessel), regardless of whether it has previously been used
in other nonroad or on-highway purposes. This clarification is
necessary because some marine engines are made by ``marinizing''
existing land-based nonroad or highway engines. Without this
clarification a marinized used highway or land-based engine would not
be subject to the standards since its title was already transferred to
the initial highway or land-based nonroad user.
With respect to imported marine diesel engines, 40 CFR 94.2 defines
``new'' as an engine that is not covered by a certificate of conformity
at the time of importation and that was manufactured after the starting
date of the emissions standards which are applicable to such engine (or
which would be applicable to such engine had it been manufactured for
importation into the United States). According to this definition, the
proposed standards would apply to engines that are imported by any
person, whether newly manufactured or used, and whether they are
imported as uninstalled engines or if they are already installed on a
marine vessel that is imported into the U.S. In one example, a person
may want to import a vessel built after the effective date of the
standards but the engine does not have a certificate of conformity from
EPA because the engines and vessel were manufactured elsewhere. We
would still consider it to be a new engine or vessel, and it would need
to comply with the applicable emission standards. This provision is
important to prevent manufacturers from trying to avoid the emission
standards by building vessels abroad, transferring their title, and
then importing them as used vessels.
2. Should Engines on Foreign Flag Vessels That Enter U.S. Ports Be
Covered?
Today's proposal solicits comment on whether to modify the
definition of a ``new'' marine engine to find that engine emission
standards apply to Category 1, 2, and 3 marine diesel engines that are
built after the standards become effective and that are installed on
foreign flag vessels that enter U.S. ports. Such vessels and their
engines would be subject to U.S. engine emission standards as a
condition of port state entry.
The 1999 marine engine rule did not apply to marine engines on
foreign vessels. 40 CFR 94.1(b)(3). At that time we concluded that
engines installed on vessels flagged in another country that come into
the United States temporarily will not be subject to the emission
standards. Those vessels are not considered imported under the U.S.
customs laws, and under the interpretation adopted in that rule we did
not consider their engines ``new'' for purposes of Clean Air Act
section 213, 42 U.S.C. 7547. 64 FR 73300, 73302 (Dec. 12, 1999).
Section 213 authorizes regulation of ``new nonroad engine'' and
``new nonroad vehicle.'' However, Title II of the Clean Air Act does
not define either ``new nonroad engine'' or ``new nonroad vehicle.''
Section 216 defines a ``new motor vehicle engine'' to include an engine
that has been ``imported.'' EPA modeled the current regulatory
definitions of ``new nonroad engine''and ``new marine engine'' at 40
CFR 89.2 and 40 CFR 94.2, respectively, after the statutory definitions
of ``new motor vehicle engine'' and ``new motor vehicle.'' Because
``new nonroad engine'' is not defined in the statute, EPA is seeking
comment on whether ``new nonroad engine'' could be defined to include
marine engines on foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports and that are
manufactured after the standards go into effect, whether or not they
are considered imported under the U.S. customs laws. EPA also invites
comment on whether the term ``import,'' which is not defined in Title
II, should be defined to include foreign flag vessels, for purposes of
the definition of ``new nonroad engine'' only, whether or not they are
considered imported under the U.S. customs laws.
EPA has discretion in defining ``new nonroad engine'' as it is used
in Section 213 of the Act. EPA solicits comment on whether it would be
appropriate and within EPA's authority to exercise this discretion to
define ``new nonroad engine'' to include marine engines on foreign
vessels that enter US ports, in light of environmental and
international oceans policy and any other relevant factors, including
consideration of their significant emissions contribution to air
quality problems in the United States. If EPA were to regulate foreign-
flagged vessels, such vessels would be subject to enforcement as a
condition of port entry.
Even if EPA determined that it had the discretion to define ``new
nonroad engine'' as outlined above, EPA could conclude that the most
appropriate exercise of its discretion would involve retention of the
1999 definition of ``new nonroad engine.'' EPA could conclude that
revising the definition would not be warranted at this time because of
the potential implications that setting engine emission standards for
foreign vessels might have on international commerce and future
international negotiations under MARPOL and in other fora. EPA will
consider, therefore, whether setting a national standard in this
situation and changing its interpretation of ``new nonroad engine'' to
apply this standard to foreign vessels could adversely affect the U.S.'
position with respect to the variety of other international issues that
are addressed under MARPOL and in other fora. In considering whether to
impose requirements on foreign vessels that are
[[Page 37566]]
more stringent than those imposed on such vessels by their flag states
or which may be more stringent than those set out in international
instruments (or agreements), EPA will consider whether this would raise
questions of international oceans policy or would have adverse
ramifications on U.S. foreign policy.
In such a case, it might be more appropriate at this time to
exercise any discretion EPA may have by retaining the 1999 definition
of ``new nonroad engine.''
However EPA decides this issue it would be free to revisit it in
the future as appropriate. For example, EPA could revisit any decision
to retain the 1999 definition if negotiations with other nations do not
lead to international agreement on emissions that adequately protect
air quality in the U.S. when foreign vessels enter U.S. ports.
EPA also clarifies that any extension of the rule to foreign flag
vessels would not include extension to any warship, naval auxiliary, or
other ship owned or operated by a foreign state and used for government
noncommercial service.
3. Should Engines on Foreign Flag Vessels Be Covered Regardless of the
Number of Their Annual Visits?
If we were to apply the standards to engines that are manufactured
after the standards become effective and that are installed on foreign
flag vessels that enter U.S. ports, one thing to consider is whether
this provision should be limited by the number of times a vessel visits
U.S. ports annually.
Were we to apply the standards to engines on foreign flag vessels,
using a strict approach, any engines on a vessel manufactured (or that
otherwise becomes new) after the effective date of the standards, or
manufactured before the effective date but has engines that are
manufactured after the effective date, that comes to the United States,
whether once a year, twenty times a year, or even more, would be
required to have compliant engines.
An alternative approach would apply the standards only to those
vessels that are frequent visitors to the United States. A review of
1999 data on vessel entrances from the United States Maritime
Administration for 1999 indicates that there is considerable variation
in the number of vessel entrances per ship. According to that data,
which is described in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft Regulatory
Support Document for this rulemaking, there were about 2,500 foreign
flag vessels that made only one or two entrances into the United States
in 1999. These vessels accounted for 33 percent of all foreign flag
vessels that entered this country, but they accounted for only about 5
percent of all vessel entrances. There were about 3,900 foreign flag
vessels that entered the United States four or fewer times in that
year, accounting for about 52 percent of all vessels, but they
accounted for only about 12.5 percent of all vessel entrances. In other
words, there is a large set of vessels that come to the United States
only a few times a year. The vast majority of entrances by foreign flag
vessels, 87.5 percent, are made by about 3,700 vessels that come here 5
or more times a year. We estimate that emissions from engines on
foreign flag vessels were on average about 1.7 tons NOX per
vessel in 2000. This means that foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports
only once or twice a year contributed about 6,100 tons of
NOX in 2000 (about 3 percent of total Category 3
NOX emissions of 195,000 tons), and foreign flag vessels
that entered U.S. ports four or fewer times a year contributed about
14,500 tons of NOX in 2000 (about 7.4 percent of Category 3
NOX emissions).
If we were to conclude that it was appropriate under the Clean Air
Act to apply the standards to engines on foreign flag vessels, it might
be appropriate to exempt engines on foreign-flag vessels that come to
the United States only a few times a year. This could be a temporary
exemption that would apply only as long as a vessel remains below the
threshold number of vessel entrances. To qualify for such an exemption,
the shipowner would have to show that the ship does not frequently
enter U.S. ports. This demonstration could be made based on the average
number of times the vessel entered the United States in the previous
two years, for existing vessels, or on the expected usage of the vessel
for new vessels (e.g., a regular container or tanker route), for new
vessels. In any case, a shipowner that did not obtain an exemption
would have to demonstrate in some form that the vessel's engines are
compliant. In other words, under such an approach, each foreign flag
that seeks to enter a U.S. port would be required to have either a
compliant engines or an exemption from the program based on the
frequency of its visits. Under this approach, such a requirement would
apply for every trip, not just trips in excess of the threshold number
of trips to obtain the exemption.
This alternative relies on the assumption that a vessel that enters
the United States only periodically does not have dramatically
different number of vessel entrances from year to year. We request
comment on whether this is, in fact, the case. Another important aspect
of such an exemption for foreign flag vessels, if we were to include
them in this rule, is what would happen if the vessel wished to make a
third, or fifth, entry into a U.S. port. This is important because of
the certification burden associated with making that extra annual trip.
The owner of a ship with such an exemption would have to be confident
that the vessel would not seek entry more than the allowable number of
times. Alternatively, it might be possible to petition EPA for
permission to enter an extra time. This might require entering into a
settlement agreement in advance of a violation of the terms of the
exemption. The settlement could include a fine, a restriction on the
number of entries in the future, or some other requirement. We seek
comment on this as well as alternative methods to address the case in
which a ship would seek to enter U.S. ports in excess of the number of
visits specified in the exemption, and on whether obtaining an advance
agreement with EPA would be too burdensome.
We request comment on all aspects of this potential alternative.
Specifically, we request comment on the number of times a ship should
be allowed to enter U.S. ports in a twelve-month period before being
required to have compliant engines. We also request comment on whether
there is much variability in port entries from year to year for vessels
that come to U.S. ports only periodically.
D. What is a New Marine Vessel?
The definition of new vessel is set out in 40 CFR 94.2. This
definition is similar to the definition of new engine: a new marine
vessel is a vessel the equitable or legal title of which has never been
transferred to an ultimate purchaser. In the case where the equitable
or legal title to a vessel is not transferred to an ultimate purchaser
prior to its being placed into service, a vessel ceases to be new when
it is placed into service. Thus, a vessel is new and must have a
certified engine and meet any other requirements for new vessels until
its initial sale is completed or it is placed into service.
In addition, a vessel is considered to be new when it has been
modified such that the value of the modifications exceeds 50 percent of
the value of the modified vessel. As noted in our 1999 rulemaking, this
provision is intended to prevent someone from re-using the hull or
other parts from a used vessel to avoid emission standards. When
applying this provision, the modifications must be completed prior
[[Page 37567]]
to the effective date of the standards that would otherwise apply. For
example, if a second tier of engine standards goes into effect in 2007,
modifications that are completed by December 31, 2006 will not trigger
the engine requirements and the engines on that vessel would not have
to meet the standards. However, if the vessel modifications are
completed on or after January 1, 2007, and they exceed 50 percent of
the value of the modified vessel, then the engines on the vessel must
meet the standards regardless of whether they have been changed as part
of the vessel modification.
The definition in 40 CFR 94.2 refers to the ``value'' of the
modifications, rather than the costs. This should therefore be based on
the appraised value of the vessel before modifications compared with
the value of the modified vessel. The following equation demonstrates
the calculation, showing that a vessel is new if:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MY02.012
If the value of the modifications exceeds 50 per cent of the final
value of the modified vessel, we would treat the vessel as new under 40
CFR part 94. To evaluate whether the modified vessel would be
considered new, one would need to project the fair market value of the
modified vessel based on an objective assessment, such as an appraisal
for insurance or financing purposes, or some other third-party
analysis. While the preliminary decision can be based on the projected
value of the modified vessel, the decision must also be valid when
basing the calculations on the actual assessed value of the vessel
after modifications are complete.
E. Would the Foreign Trade Exemption Be Retained?
In addition to their main propulsion engines, which are generally
Category 3 marine diesel engines, ocean-going commercial vessels
typically have several Category 1 and Category 2 engines that are used
in auxiliary power applications. They provide electricity for important
navigational and maneuvering equipment, and crew services.
Several commenters to our earlier marine diesel engine rulemaking
expressed concern that requiring ship owners to obtain and use
compliant Category 1 and Category 2 engines for vessels that spend most
of their time outside the U.S. could be burdensome for those vessels if
these engines need to be repaired or replaced when they are away from
U.S. ports. Consequently, we provided a foreign trade exemption for
these engines. A vessel owner can obtain this exemption for Category 1
and Category 2 marine diesel engines if it can be demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the vessel: (a) Will spend less than
25 percent of its total engine operation time within 320 kilometers of
U.S. territory; or (b) will not operate between two U.S. ports (40 CFR
94.906(d)). Engines that are exempt under this provision must be
labeled to indicate that they have been certified only to the MARPOL
Annex VI NOX curve limits and that they are for use solely
on vessels that meet the above criteria.
Today, we are proposing to eliminate this foreign trade exemption
because the conditions that led to the need for it no longer hold.
Specifically, we have learned that many engine spare parts are kept
onboard vessels to enable ship operators to perform maintenance and
repairs while the ship is underway. In addition, obtaining parts that
are not kept onboard is not expected to be a problem. Modern package
delivery systems should allow ship owners to obtain parts quickly, even
overnight, and necessary parts can be shipped to the next convenient
port on a ship's route. In the unlikely case that an engine fails
catastrophically and must be replaced by a compliant engine, we are
confident that the ship operator will be able to make arrangements to
obtain a certified engine since the major manufacturers of marine
diesel engines operate abroad as well as in the United States. Because
the burden associated with repairing or replacing engines away from the
United States is not significant, we believe it is appropriate to
eliminate the exemption. We do not expect this change to have any
impact on shipowners and operators, however, we request comments on the
elimination of this exemption. Would this change have any measurable
impact on U.S. flag shipowners or operators? Would it put U.S. flag
shipowners or operators at a competitive disadvantage, in particular if
a Tier 2 standard is included in the final rule? If so, please provide
information supporting this concern.
IV. Standards and Technological Feasibility
A. What Engine Emission Standards Are Under Consideration?
Manufacturers of Category 3 marine engines have available a wide
range of technologies to control emissions. Many of these technologies
are similar to those that have been developed for smaller nonroad and
highway diesel engines. While Category 3 marine engines are much larger
than other regulated diesel engines, many of the same engineering
principles of emission formation and control apply. In fact,
manufacturers have applied significant effort to reduce emissions from
these engines, both to meet Annex VI NOX standards and to
develop technologies to address concerns in specific areas. At the same
time, it is clear that a substantial opportunity remains to adapt
technologies to Category 3 marine engines
The following discussion of emission standards and the associated
control technologies applies without respect to whether the standards
ultimately apply only to U.S.-flag vessels or to all vessels calling on
U.S. ports. Engine technology has become a very global field, with
emission-control technology and compliant engines coming from all parts
of the world. Manufacturers and owners of foreign-flag vessels would
not face any unique constraints in using engines certified to EPA
emission standards compared with U.S.-flag vessels. Nevertheless, we
are proposing emission standards only for engines installed on U.S.-
flag vessels, so references in this section to Category 3 marine
engines apply specifically to those engines that would be subject to
the proposed emission standards, unless otherwise noted.
Clean Air Act section 213 directs EPA to adopt standards
requiring: * * *the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
through the application of technology which the Administrator
determines will be available for the engines or vehicles to which
such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to the cost
of applying such technology within the period of time available to
manufacturers and to noise, energy, and safety factors associated
with the application of such technology.
To implement this Clean Air Act directive, we are seeking comment on
two separate tiers of emission standards
[[Page 37568]]
for new marine diesel engines, as described below.
This section also describes an approach for setting Tier 2 HC and
CO standards, applying Tier 1 standards to engines between 2.5 and 30
liters per cylinder, and defining voluntary low-emission standards.
1. Tier 1 Emission Standards
We propose to adopt a first tier of standards starting in the 2004
model year \45\ equivalent to the Annex VI NOX limits.
Manufacturers have introduced basic emission-control technologies for
all types of marine diesel engines in response to the Annex VI
standards. This effort has demonstrated the feasibility of in-cylinder
technologies including optimized turbocharging, higher compression
ratio, and optimized fuel injection, which generally includes timing
retard and changes to the number and size of injector holes to increase
injection pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ We are proposing to base model years on the date on which
the engine is first assembled. In other rules, we have defined the
date of manufacture to be the date of the final assembly of the
engine. However, we recognize that Category 3 engines are often
disassembled for shipment to the site at which it is installed in
the ship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section V, we are proposing to accept emission data
for Tier 1 certification based on testing with either distillate or
residual fuel. Since most or all manufacturers have been using
distillate fuel to comply with Annex VI requirements, we expect
manufacturers to meet Tier 1 standards generally by submitting their
available emission data from testing with distillate fuels. However,
since Annex VI does not include detailed specifications for test fuels,
we believe that we will need to correct emission data for the effect of
fuel nitrogen content. This correction is described later in this
section. We would require that certified engines continue to meet Tier
1 emission standards throughout their useful life when tested with
either distillate or residual fuel, after correction for the effect of
fuel nitrogen. The proposed Tier 1 NOX limits, reflecting
the fuel adjustment, are set out in Table IV.A-1.
Table IV.A-1.--Proposed Tier 1 NOX Emission Limits (g/kW-hr)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine speed (n) n [ge] 130 rpm** n < 130 rpm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1........................ 45.0xn-0.2 + 1.4 18.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The proposed regulations specify emission standards based on testing
with measured emission values corrected to take into account the
nitrogen content of the fuel. Emission values are corrected to values
consistent with testing engines with fuel containing 0.4 weight
percent nitrogen. Testing with fuel containing 0.2 weight-percent
nitrogen (typical for in-use distillate marine fuels) would have a
correction of 1.4 g/kW-hr, so the proposed Tier 1 NOX standards would
match the Annex VI NOX standards at this test point.
** No cap would apply to engines over 2000 rpm, because Category 3
engines all have engine speeds well below that speed.
We are also proposing to apply the Tier 1 standards to all marine
diesel engines with specific displacement between 2.5 and 30 liters per
cylinder. This would apply to these engines from 2004 to 2006, after
which the EPA Tier 2 marine engine emission standards established in
December 1999 would apply (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999). All testing
to show compliance for these engines would be based on testing with
distillate fuels meeting the specifications in 40 CFR 94.108.\46\ As
with the Category 3 engines, this would merely formalize the Annex VI
standards, which these engines should already meet. Including these
engines in this proposal would remove any ambiguity regarding the
applicability of emission standards. We are not proposing to include
engines under 2.5 liters per cylinder, because the December 1999
emission standards generally start already in 2004. Marine diesel
engines below 0.9 liters per cylinder need not meet EPA emission
standards until 2005. Most of those engines are under 130 kW and are
therefore not subject to Annex VI standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Without the fuel-based corrections described below, the
proposed Tier 1 standards for these engines default to
NOX = 45.0 -0.2, with emissions
capped at 9.8 g/kW-hr for engine speeds over 2000 rpm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Effect of Fuel Variables on Emission Standards
Another objective of the Clean Air Act is to adopt test procedures
that represent in-use operating conditions as much as possible,
including specification of test fuels consistent with the fuels that
compliant engines will use over their lifetimes. This raises the
question of testing Category 3 marine engines with distillate and
residual fuel. Distillate fuel has a higher quality than residual fuel,
but costs significantly more, so vessels with Category 3 marine engines
primarily use residual fuel. The Annex VI emission standard is based on
allowing manufacturers to test with marine distillate fuels, which
generally have nitrogen levels of 0.0 to 0.4 weight percent. As
discussed in the Draft Regulatory Support Document, NOX
emission levels increase with greater amounts of nitrogen that are
bound up in the fuel. Residual fuels generally have higher nitrogen
concentrations (typically 0.2 to 0.6 weight percent).
We are proposing that manufacturers of Category 3 engines may
certify that they meet the applicable emission standards using either
distillate or residual fuel. The proposed regulations include a range
of fuel specifications for each fuel type (40 CFR 94.108). However, for
testing engines after installation in the vessel, we would expect
manufacturers to use residual fuel. This would add assurance that
emission-control technologies reduce emissions under real operation in
vessels. Without this assurance, manufacturers could implement and
optimize technologies to achieve substantial emission control with
distillate fuel without necessarily reducing emissions when engines
operate with residual fuel.
To appropriately account for the emission-related effects of fuel
quality, we analyzed the effect of nitrogen in contributing to
NOX emissions. The first step is to assign a default
nitrogen content for distillate fuels as a benchmark to properly
characterize the Annex VI NOX standards. Fuel sampling shows
an average concentration of 0.2 percent nitrogen in distillate fuel by
weight (i.e., weight percent).\47\ The comparable average value for
residual fuels is 0.4 weight percent. To adjust the standard for
testing with high-nitrogen residual fuel, we calculated the amount of
additional NOX that would form if all the additional fuel-
bound nitrogen would react to form NOX. This calculation
depends on assigning a value for brake-specific fuel consumption, for
which we use 220 g/
[[Page 37569]]
kW-hr.\48\ The resulting correction of 1.4 g/kW-hr shows up as an
additive term in the equation in Table IV.A-1, since it is a constant
value (independent of speed), assuming a consistent brake-specific fuel
consumption rate.\49\ For all testing with Category 3 engines, we would
require measuring fuel-bound nitrogen and correcting measured values to
what would occur with a nitrogen concentration of 0.4 weight percent
(see Section V). This corrected value would be used to determine
whether the engine meets emission standards or not. This correction
methodology would apply equally to testing with distillate or residual
fuels. Note that Annex VI includes a 10-percent allowance for higher
emissions when performing simplified in-use testing with residual fuel.
However, we believe that the nitrogen-based correction for any testing
with any fuel is a better way to ensure that the targeted emission
reductions are achieved in use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Lloyds report.
\48\ ``Commercial Marine Emissions Inventory Development, Draft
Final Report,'' EPA Work Assignment Number 1-1, Prepared by ENVIRON
International Corporation, April 2002.
\49\ In contrast, Annex VI and the proposed Tier 1 standards
allow for a 10-percent increase in emissions when testing with
residual fuel, which makes the fuel correction a function of engine
speed. For most Category 3 engines, 1.4 g/kW-hr is roughly 10
percent of the Annex VI NOX emission standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed approach to account for fuel nitrogen would help us
ensure that engines meet the targeted level of emission control for the
whole range of in-use fuels. At the same time, it allows substantial
testing flexibility without compromising our ability to set an emission
standard requiring the greatest degree of emission reductions for any
given fuel. We request comment on this approach to testing with
distillate and residual fuels. In particular, we request comment on the
appropriate adjustment in the emission standard to account for the
effects of testing with residual and distillate fuels in general and
fuel-bound nitrogen in particular. We also request comment on how this
approach to test fuels affects the cost of emission testing.
3. Tier 2 Emission Standards
EPA is considering adoption of a second tier of standards that
would reflect additional reductions that could be achieved through
engine-based controls and would apply to new engines built after 2006
or later. The year that EPA considers most appropriate at this time is
2007. The NOX standards we are considering for potential
Tier 2 standards are based on a 30 percent reduction from Tier 1 to
allow manufacturers both greater flexibility in choosing the
combination of emission control technologies to apply to their engines
and a compliance margin for certification purposes. The NOX
limits we are considering for a second tier of standards are contained
in Table IV.A-2.
Table IV.A-2.--Tier 2 Standards Currently Under Consideration, NOX
Emission Limits (g/kW-hr)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine speed (n) n [ge] 130 rpm** n < 130 rpm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2........................ 31.5xn-0.2 + 1.4 13.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See notes to Table IV.A-1.
** See notes to Table IV.A-1.
Control of diesel engine emissions typically focuses on
NOX and PM emissions. HC and CO limits for diesel engines
generally receive less attention because the diesel combustion process
inherently prevents high rates of HC and CO emissions. We estimate that
HC emissions are currently at 0.4 g/kW-hr, which is significantly lower
than NOX emissions from Category 3 engines, even after
manufacturers substantially reduce NOX emissions.
Hydrocarbon emissions nevertheless combine with NOX
emissions to form ozone. We have generally adopted emission standards
for other types of diesel engines in the form of a single standard for
combined NOX and HC emissions. To prevent increases in HC
emissions, we are considering a Tier 2 standard at the baseline level
of 0.4 g/kW-hr. This may achieve modest reductions in HC emissions, but
more importantly would prevent HC emission increases that might
otherwise result from controlling NOX emissions alone. We
request comment on whether we should set an emission standard for HC
emissions and how to best to set an appropriate standard if one is
warranted. We further request comment on setting a combined
NOX+HC standard for Category 3 engines as part of a second
tier of standards. Commenters supporting a NOX+HC standard
should also address how to use NOX-only onboard emission
measurements in the context of a NOX+HC standard, since it
may not be possible to measure HC emissions.
We do not expect manufacturers to apply control technologies to
reduce CO emissions. In fact, for current technologies, CO emissions
generally decrease as manufacturers improve fuel consumption rates, so
there is no incentive that would lead manufacturers to increase CO
emissions. In other EPA programs for diesel engines, we generally set
CO emission standards to prevent emission increases over time. We are
considering this same approach with Tier 2 standards for Category 3
marine engines. Uncontrolled CO levels are generally less than 1 g/kW-
hr. We are therefore considering a Tier 2 emission standard of 3 g/kW-
hr for these engines, which would ensure that manufacturers don't cause
significant increases in CO emissions when applying technologies
designed to address NOX emissions. A tighter standard may
cause a manufacturer to spend a disproportionate amount of effort
developing emission-control technologies for small changes in CO
emissions. We request comment on regulating CO emission levels this way
and specifically whether this is an appropriate level for a CO emission
standard.
Regarding PM from Category 3 marine engines, the majority of
emissions comes directly from the high concentration of sulfur in the
fuel. Short of changing in-use fuel quality, emission-control
technologies only address the remaining portion of PM, since engine
technologies are ineffective at reducing sulfur-related PM emissions.
Furthermore, no acceptable procedure exists for measuring PM from
Category 3 marine engines, because current established PM test methods
show unacceptable variability when sulfur levels exceed 0.8 weight
percent, which is common for both residual and distillate marine fuels
for Category 3 engines. No PM test method or calculation methodology
has been developed to correct that variability for these engines. For
these reasons, we are not considering a PM standard for Category 3
engines. We request comment on our approach; commenters supporting PM
emission standards should address these issues and suggest
[[Page 37570]]
an appropriate standard reflecting an achievable level of control,
considering costs and other statutory factors. See the section below
for discussion of regulating in-use fuels to achieve PM,
SOX, and possibly additional NOX reductions.
Testing has shown that optimizing engine systems and developing
additional control technologies will allow manufacturers of Category 3
marine engines to meet emission standards more stringent than Annex VI
levels. Such improvements will require additional time. As discussed in
Section IV.C, we believe manufacturers can achieve these proposed
emission standards by further optimizing their designs and developing
additional technologies for better control of fuel injection, charge
air induction and mixing, and the overall design of combustion chambers
and the timing of combustion events. We request comment on the level of
the Tier 2 standards. Section IV.B discusses the timing of introducing
the proposed Tier 1 standards and the Tier 2 standards under
consideration.
4. Emission Effects of Test Conditions and Engine Operating Modes
Section V describes how we propose to address varying test
conditions for emission measurements to show that engines meet emission
standards when operated over the ISO E3 duty cycle. In general, we
define a range of conditions for barometric pressure, humidity, ambient
air temperature and ambient water temperature for testing according to
the proposed duty cycle. Weighted engine emissions may not exceed the
emission standards within the specified ranges of ambient conditions.
For humidity and ambient water temperature, we specify a proposed
method for correcting emission levels to a reference condition. We
don't propose to allow any correction or adjustment based on varying
ambient air temperatures or barometric pressures within the specified
ranges. The specified ranges of test conditions apply to both
laboratory testing and testing onboard a vessel. We are also proposing
other provisions that would require equivalent emission control under
other ambient conditions.
An additional concern relates to the way emissions vary under
different engine operating conditions. For Category 1 and Category 2
engines, we adopted ``not-to-exceed'' provisions to define an objective
measure to ensure that engines would be reasonably controlling
emissions under the whole range of expected normal operation, as well
as the defeat-device prohibition. Since these smaller engines are mass
produced for a wide range of vessels used in many different
applications, we expected ``normal operation'' for these engines to
vary considerably around the ideal propeller curve. We are not
considering not-to-exceed standards for Category 3 engines, since each
engine intended to operate on a propeller curve is matched with a
propeller for custom installation on a specific vessel. Also, the very
large mass of ocean-going vessels make them relatively insensitive to
perturbations caused by varying vessel loads, water currents, or
weather conditions. As a result, engine operation should invariably be
limited to a very narrow range around the propeller curve. Propulsion
engines that operate at constant speed (whether coupled to a variable-
pitch propeller or generator for electric-drive units) will similarly
operate over a very narrow range. Moreover, we are considering a
requirement that manufacturers test their production engines after
installation on the vessel to show compliance with Tier 2 emission
standards, which further removes the possibility of engines departing
significantly from areas of engine operation over for which they are
demonstrated to control emissions.
The proposed ISO E3 duty cycle includes four test modes weighted to
reflect the operation of commercial marine vessels. The modal
weightings are based on 70 percent of engine operation occurring at 75
percent or more of the engine's maximum power. For Category 1 and
Category 2 engines, we have applied this same duty cycle, which
reflects the way such engines are expected to operate. We are
concerned, however, that Category 3 engines operate at significantly
lower power levels when they are operating within range of a port. Ship
pilots generally operate engines at reduced power for several miles to
approach a port, with even lower power levels very close to shore.
Because of the relatively low weighting of the low-power test modes, it
is very possible that manufacturers could meet emission standards
without significantly reducing emissions at the low-power modes that
are more prevalent for these engines as they operate close to
commercial ports. This issue would generally not apply to vessels that
rely on multiple engines providing electric-drive propulsion, since
these engines can be shut down as needed to maintain the desired engine
loading.
We are considering a variety of options to address this concern. We
could re-weight the modes of the duty cycle to emphasize low-power
operation. This has several disadvantages. For example, we have no
information to provide a basis for applying different weighting
factors. Also, changing the duty cycle would depart from the historic
norm for marine engine testing. This would make it more difficult to
make use of past emission data, which is all based on the established
modal weighting. An alternative approach would be to cap emission rates
at the two low-power modes. We could set the cap at the same level as
the emission standard, or allow for a small variation above the
emission standard. For mechanically controlled engines, such an
approach could dictate the overall design of the engine. On the other
hand, we expect most or all new engines to have electronic controls,
which would enable the manufacturer to target emission controls
specifically for low-power operation without affecting the
effectiveness of emission controls at higher power. We request comment
on the need to adopt special provisions to ensure appropriate control
of emissions during low-power operation. We specifically request
comment on an additional requirement to limit emission levels of the
two low-power modes to the level of the NOX emission
standard for each engine.
An additional concern relates to variation in emission levels
between test modes. The proposed defeat device provisions (which
already apply to Category 1 and Category 2 engines) would prevent
manufacturers from producing their engines to control emissions more
effectively at established test points than at other points not
included in the test. This is especially important for Category 3
engines that leave the U.S., because we are expecting ship operators to
measure emissions to show that the engines still meet emission
standards within a certain range of a U.S. port. As described in
Section V.B.10, outside the U.S., ship operators may make adjustments
outside the range of adjustable parameters to which the engine is
certified. Engine manufacturers would be required to develop emission
targets to allow the operator to ensure that the engine has been
readjusted to the certified configuration. These emission targets would
vary with operating conditions and would include targets for engine
speeds other than the test points speeds. We are proposing that
Category 3 engine manufacturers design their engines to achieve
equivalent control for varying engine speeds after any changes are made
to compensate for changes such as switching fuels. In identifying the
NOX
[[Page 37571]]
emission targets, manufacturers would have the choice of either
applying the same injection timing map for the tested and nontested
engine speeds, or ensuring that NOX emissions for nontest
speeds follow a linear interpolation between test points. Ship
operators would be required to adjust their engines to have
NOX levels below the target level.
5. Voluntary Low-Emission Standards
We are also proposing voluntary low-emission standards, consistent
with the approach we have taken in several other programs, to encourage
the introduction and more widespread use of low-emission technologies.
Manufacturers would need to reduce emissions 80 percent below Annex VI
levels (excluding the nitrogen adjustment), as shown in Table IV.A-1,
to qualify their engines for designation as voluntary low-emission
engines. These reduced emission levels would apply to testing with both
residual and distillate fuels, with the appropriate adjustments for
nitrogen content of the fuel. Data show that engines utilizing
selective catalytic reduction are capable of meeting these emission
levels. If we establish an objective qualifying level for voluntary
low-emission engines, this would make it easier for state and local
governments or individual port authorities to develop meaningful
incentive-based programs to encourage preferential use of these very
low-emitting engines.
Engines certified to the voluntary low-emission standards would
also need to meet HC and CO levels at levels we are considering for the
second tier of standards. The voluntary low-emission standards are
contained in Table IV.A-3.
Table IV.A-3.--Proposed Blue Sky NOX Emission Limits (g/kW-hr)\*\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine speed (n) n [ge] 130 rpm\**\ n < 130 rpm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Sky...................... 9.0xn-0.2 + 1.4 4.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See notes to Table IV.A-1.
** See notes to Table IV.A-1.
6. Hotelling Emissions
In addition to emissions from engines while the ship is moving in
port, many ships run one or more engines to produce electricity for
ship operations while in port for loading and unloading. These
emissions are concentrated locally in the port area, which may have a
disproportionate effect on neighboring communities. Several options are
available specifically to address this concern for ``hotelling''
emissions. Many of these go beyond our usual approach of setting
emission standards for new engines, but we request comment on these and
other possible approaches, given the potential to achieve substantial
additional reductions in this area.
Focusing on port emissions raises several questions. (1) Would it
be appropriate for regulatory provisions to focus on reducing emissions
specifically from port facilities, including hotelling emissions from
ships? (2) Should EPA provide targets or incentives to encourage port
authorities to reduce overall port emissions, including land-based
equipment and vehicles? (3) What form might such a policy take--
regulatory, voluntary, administered by EPA or local governments,
including financial or logistical incentives? (4) Is it appropriate to
adopt national policies to ensure emission reductions in all port areas
or should such policy development be tailored to port-specific
concerns? (5) Should EPA emission standards differentiate between in-
port and transit emission levels? If so, what form or emission levels
would be appropriate for in-port operations?
While we are not proposing to take action to address hotelling or
other in-port emissions separately, we request comment on these issues
and on any other possible approaches to encourage or ensure that
emission controls are applied appropriately in port areas.
B. When Would the Engine Emission Standards Apply?
Proposing emission standards for new Category 3 marine engines
starting in 2004 allows less than the usual lead time for meeting EPA
requirements. We note, however, that manufacturers are already meeting
the Annex VI standards, which apply to engines installed on vessels
built on or after January 1, 2000. The Tier 1 standards proposed in
this document require no additional development, design, or testing
beyond what manufacturers are already doing to meet Annex VI standards.
Under the proposed EPA regulations, engine manufacturers would need
to comply with emission standards for all engines produced after the
specified date. This date would be based on the point of final engine
assembly, which for large Category 3 marine engines typically occurs
when the engine is installed in the vessel. Shipbuilders and owners
would not be responsible for meeting EPA standards, but we are
proposing to apply the prohibition from 40 CFR 94.1103(a)(5), which
prevents shipbuilders from selling vessels with noncompliant engines if
they initiate construction of a vessel after the date that regulations
begin to apply. This raises a question about vessels whose keel is laid
before new standards take effect if vessel completion does not occur
until after standards take effect. This question is best addressed by
an example--if EPA were to adopt Tier 2 standards that would apply in
January 2007 and if a ship's keel is laid in June 2006, with final
vessel assembly in June 2007, that vessel could use Tier 1 engines only
if the engine manufacturer completes the engine assembly before January
1, 2007. This should not be an issue for Tier 1 engines, since vessels
are generally already using engines that meet Annex VI NOX
limits.
As described in the Draft Regulatory Support Document,
manufacturers are well underway in pursuing emission-control
technologies that would reduce emissions from Category 3 marine engines
beyond Annex VI levels. If EPA were to adopt Tier 2 standards in a
final rule in 2003, manufacturers would have four years to implement
technologies needed to meet such standards by 2007. This would include
time in the early years for selecting specific approaches and
developing those technologies. Manufacturers would also need that time
to integrate the various technologies into an overall engine design
that performs well and is durable. Given that engine manufacturers
already have limited experience in applying these technologies to
Category 3 marine engines, we believe the Tier 2 standards will be
achievable in the time frame under consideration. In addition, Tier 2
emission standards are already scheduled to apply to Category 2 engines
in 2007. To the extent that some Category 3 engines compete directly
with Category 2 engines, sharing an implementation date helps in
maintaining a level playing field between competitive engines. We
request comment on the implementation
[[Page 37572]]
dates for the Tier 2 program under consideration.
C. What Information Supports the Technological Feasibility of the
Engine Emission Standards?
Annex VI calls for marine diesel engines over 130 kW to meet
emission standards if they are installed on vessels built on or after
January 1, 2000. Engine manufacturers are meeting the Annex VI
standards today with a variety of emission-control technologies.
Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document identifies several
technologies that individual manufacturers have already incorporated to
reduce emissions. The most common approach has been to focus on
increased compression ratio, adapted fuel injection, valve timing and
different fuel nozzles to trim NOX emissions. Manufacturers
have generally been able to do this with little or no increase in fuel
consumption. By building engines that can meet the Annex VI standards,
manufacturers have shown that they can meet the identical Tier 1
standards proposed here for Category 3 marine engines.
As described in the Draft Regulatory Support Document, we have
relied on existing data to account for fuel effects in selecting the
proposed Tier 1 and potential Tier 2 NOX emission standards
for testing Category 3 marine engines with residual fuel. Engines
designed to meet Annex VI NOX standards using in-use
distillate fuels should be able to meet the proposed Tier 1 standards
without adopting any new technologies.
While manufacturers have used a wide variety of technologies to
meet Annex VI standards for Category 3 marine engines, engines have so
far generally incorporated only a few of the available emission-control
technologies. To meet more stringent standards, manufacturers would
need to integrate Tier 1 technologies more broadly into the fleet and
pursue several additional approaches. These include:
--Improved fuel injection. This includes injection timing, injection
pressure, rate shaping (or split injection), and common rail injection
systems. Electronic controls would also allow for more precise metering
and timing of individual injections.
--Intake air management. Manufacturers can use more effective
turbocharging and aftercooling to reduce NOX emissions.
Also, valve timing can be manipulated to vary expansion and compression
ratios or to recirculate exhaust gases.
--Combustion chamber modifications. Several design variables affect the
compression and mixing of the fuel-air mixture before and during
combustion, including higher compression ratios, piston geometry, and
injector location.
Test data show that these technologies can reduce emissions up to
40 percent below Annex VI NOX standards.\50\ We believe
manufacturers could incorporate emission-control technologies to
achieve a 30-percent reduction below Annex VI standards for all their
Category 3 marine engines. Some industry representatives have indicated
that this level of control is achievable.\51\ Specifying 30 percent
instead of 40 percent allows for a compliance margin for manufacturers
to ensure that they meet emission standards consistently with all the
engines they produce in an engine family. This also allows for
manufacturers to show that they meet emission standards under the range
of prescribed testing and operating conditions, as described above,
including measures to cap emission levels at low-power modes to the
level of the proposed emission standards. These technologies, and
accompanying emission data, are described in more detail in Chapter 4
of the Draft Regulatory Support Document, while Chapter 5 adds specific
detail regarding our estimated deployment of each of the targeted
control technologies in the analysis to develop costs estimates related
to the emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Ingalls, M., Fritz S., ``Assessment of Emission Control
Technology for EPA Category 3 Commercial Marine Diesel Engines,''
Southwest Research Institute, September 2001 (Docket A-2001-11,
document II-A-08).
\51\ Mayer, Hartmut, Euromot, e-mail response to EPA questions,
January 31, 2002 (Docket A-2001-11, IIA-D-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis of emission-control technologies in most cases applies
equally to two-stroke and four-stroke engines. While there are many
fundamental differences between these types of engines, most emission-
control strategies could be applied effectively to both types. Perhaps
the most significant difference between these engines is the tendency
for significantly larger displacements and slower operating speeds with
two-stroke engines. The emission standards for Category 3 marine
engines incorporate the same shape of the NOX curve
specified by Annex VI (and shown in Table IV.A-1), which reflects the
generally increasing NOX emission levels for larger engines
with slower operating speeds. The emission standards therefore
implicitly take into account higher emission levels for two-stroke
engines.
Section VII discusses a range of alternative approaches we
considered in developing this proposal and explains our reasons to
defer their adoption at this time.
If we adopt Tier 2 standards as part of this rulemaking, we intend
to revisit and reopen the Tier 2 standards in approximately 2005. At
that time we would fully reassess the circumstances and re-determine
the appropriate level of the standards. We believe it is important to
preserve our ability to coordinate our actions under the Clean Air Act
with the future actions of the U.S. government involving MARPOL. To
maximize this coordination and to allow for all appropriate
harmonization, we would establish a rulemaking schedule for a future
reopening and revisiting of any Tier 2 standards. In this future
rulemaking we would reconsider the level of any Tier 2 standards based
on all the circumstances then present, including the information then
available concerning technological feasibility, cost, and other
relevant aspects of emissions control for these engines, as well as the
then current status of emissions standards under MARPOL. This
reconsideration could lead to revised Tier 2 standards to reflect the
appropriate level of the standard under the Clean Air Act based on the
circumstances present at that time. We would implement this process by
adopting in this rule a specific schedule for a future rulemaking,
including for example a set date for final action on the future
rulemaking.
D. Is EPA Considering Not Adopting Tier 2 Standards in This Rulemaking?
EPA is also considering not adopting Tier 2 standards in this
rulemaking, and instead establishing a schedule for a future rulemaking
and addressing Tier 2 standards in that future rulemaking. For these
reasons, EPA has not included proposed regulations in this Notice. In
that future rulemaking, EPA would propose and establish appropriate
Tier 2 standards based on an assessment of all of the circumstances
then present, including the information then available concerning
technological feasability, cost, and other relevant aspects of
emissions control for these engines, as well as the then current status
of emissions standards under MARPOL. This would be similar to the
reopening rulemaking discussed above, involving reopening of any Tier 2
standards adopted in the current rulemaking. However, instead of
revisiting Tier 2 standards adopted in the current rulemaking, under
this alternative no Tier 2 standards would be set until the future
rulemaking. The schedule for the future rulemaking would be the same as
that discussed above, approximately 2005, and as with the reopening
[[Page 37573]]
rulemaking this schedule would be included in the regulations adopted
in this rulemaking.
The benefit of this alternative would stem from its potential to
facilitate the international process of updating the Annex VI emissions
standards. As discussed earlier in this preamble, EPA anticipates that
further discussions will be held at the IMO, in the Marine Environment
Protection Committee, concerning adoption of a second, more stringent
level of emissions standards. If delaying the initial establishment of
Tier 2 standards to a future rulemaking facilitates the successful
completion of updating the Annex VI emissions standards, the overall
environmental result might be better than adoption of Tier 2 standards
in this rulemaking. In addition, it could facilitate EPA's actions to
harmonize its regulations as appropriate with future Annex VI
provisions. This future rulemaking would occur whether or not Annex VI
negotiations were concluded by that date. Delaying setting Tier 2
standards until a future rulemaking, however, also raises the issue of
whether adoption in this rulemaking of only Tier 1 standards and
establishment of a schedule for a future Tier 2 rulemaking would be
consistent with the Agency's obligations under the Clean Air Act. EPA
invites comment on all issues associated with this alternative.
E. Is EPA Considering Any Fuel Standards?
The majority of Category 3 engines are designed to run on residual
fuel. This fuel is made from the very end products of the oil refining
process, formulated from residues remaining after the primary
distilling stages of the refining process. It has higher contents of
ash, metals, and nitrogen that may increase exhaust emissions. Residual
also has sulfur content up to 45,000 ppm; the global average sulfur
concentration is currently about 27,000 ppm, though fuel sold in the
U.S. has sulfur levels somewhat above the average.\52\ Operating on
fuels with such high sulfur contents results in high SOX and
direct sulfate PM emissions.
Using a residual fuel with a lower sulfur content would reduce the
fraction of PM emissions from ash and metals. Using distillate fuel
instead of residual fuel could result in even lower emissions. The
simpler molecular structure of distillate fuel may result in more
complete combustion with reduced levels of carbonaceous PM. Operation
on distillate fuel would also reduce NOX emissions because
distillate fuel generally contains less nitrogen and has better
ignition qualities. Because of these benefits, we request comment on
fuel controls to reduce exhaust emissions from Category 3 marine
engines.
MARPOL Annex VI contains requirements for fuels used onboard marine
vessels. These requirements, which will be effective when the Annex
goes into force, consist of two parts. First, Annex VI specifies that
the sulfur content of fuel used onboard ships cannot exceed 45,000 ppm
(4.5 percent). Information gathered in an international monitoring
program indicates refiners are currently complying with this
requirement. Second, the Annex provides a mechanism to designate
SOX emission control areas, within which ships must either
use fuel with a sulfur content not to exceed 15,000 ppm or an exhaust
gas cleaning system to reduce SOX emissions. To date, two
SOX emission control areas have been designated: the North
Sea and English Channel, and the Baltic Sea. The Annex VI fuel
provisions do not go into effect, however, until the Annex enters into
force (see Section I.C. above).
Operators who choose not to use exhaust gas cleaning systems can
meet the Annex VI SOX requirement by using low-sulfur
residual fuel or by switching to distillate fuel while they operate in
SOX Emission Control Areas. Due to the nature of distillate
fuel, this would also reduce NOX emissions. In general,
engines that are designed to operate on residual fuel oil are capable
of operating on distillate fuel. For example, if the engine is to be
shut down for maintenance, distillate fuel is often used to flush out
the fuel system. However, there are several complications associated
with this option. Switching to distillate fuel requires 20 to 60
minutes, depending on how slowly the operator wants to cool the fuel
temperatures. According to engine manufacturers, switching from a
heated residual fuel to an unheated distillate fuel too quickly could
cause damage to fuel pumps. There could also be fuel pump durability
problems if the engine is operated on distillate fuel for more than a
few days. For continued operation on distillate fuel, ships would need
to have separate (or modified) pumps and lines. In addition,
modification to the fuel tanks may be necessary to ensure sufficient
capacity for low-sulfur fuel.
Alternatively, ships can use residual fuels produced to meet the
15,000 ppm (1.5 percent) sulfur requirement. Refiners can produce low-
sulfur residual fuel from a low-sulfur crude oil or they can put the
fuel through a de-sulfonation step in the refinery process. They can
also produce it by blending marine distillate fuel, which typically has
fuel sulfur levels between 2,000 and 3,000 ppm.
Given the PM, and SOX benefits of using low-sulfur
residual fuels and the added NOX benefit of using distillate
or distillate-blend fuels, we are requesting comment on whether we
should set standards for the fuel that ships use. We are also seeking
comment on what form such fuel standards should take. For example, we
could adopt the Annex VI special control area sulfur limits, either
through the Annex VI process or through regulation under the Act. This
would set a maximum sulfur limit of 15,000 ppm. However, lower sulfur
contents are feasible and would yield greater PM and SOX
benefits. As a comparison, the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel is
under 500 ppm today, with a 15-ppm cap applying starting in 2007. The
sulfur content of nonroad diesel is not regulated, but generally ranges
from 2,000 to 3,000 ppm. Reducing the sulfur content of the fuel would
reduce PM and SOX emissions by 10 and 44 percent,
respectively (see Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document).
An alternative approach would be to require that ships use distillate
fuels, which would achieve the same or greater reduction of PM and
SOX emissions, with an additional 10-percent reduction in
NOX emissions resulting from the decreased nitrogen content
of the fuel. Chapter 5 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document
presents costs estimates for these fuel-based regulatory options. We
request comment on these possible approaches to addressing in-use fuel
quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Sulphur Monitoring 2002. Report to Marine Environmental
Protection Committee, 47th Session. MEPC 47/INF.2, August 28, 2001.
A copy of this document can be found in Docket A-2000-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also seek information on the costs and expected benefits of
further reductions in allowable fuel-sulfur levels, for both ship
owners and fuel suppliers. Finally, we seek comment on how to apply the
standard. Historically, we have regulated in-use fuels by establishing
minimum specifications that apply to those who sell the fuel. This
approach may not be effective for this sector because ship owners could
choose to purchase their fuel outside the U.S. If we don't adopt any
requirements related to in-use fuels in this rulemaking, we could
revisit these questions in the context of a technology review, as
described above.
We are not proposing fuel-based regulations in this rule because
regulating fuel sold in the U.S. would not necessarily ensure that
distillate fuel
[[Page 37574]]
was used in U.S. waters. The Clean Air Act limits us to setting
requirements on fuel entered into commerce in the U.S. If we can
regulate only the fuel sold in the U.S., then a fuel sulfur standard
would be unlikely to have a significant impact on emissions because
ships may choose to bunker before entering or after leaving the U.S.
However, Regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI allows areas in need of
SOX emission reductions to petition to be designated as
SOX Emission Control Areas (SECA). Within such waters, the
maximum sulfur content of the fuel will be limited to 15,000 ppm.\53\
We intend to work through the MARPOL process to designate certain areas
in the U.S. as sulfur control areas which would require the use of
distillate fuel. We request comment on whether all waters under U.S.
jurisdiction or only specific areas should be designated as SECAs, and
whether such designation(s) could be expected to have an adverse impact
on port traffic within SECAs. EPA also invites comment on our authority
under the Clean Air Act to regulate this fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Unless SOX emission controlled by secondary
means which at present is not clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Demonstrating Compliance
A. Overview of Certification
1. How Would I Certify My Engines?
We are proposing to base certification data and administration
requirements for new Category 3 marine engines on the existing program
for Category 1 and Category 2 marine engines. These provisions are
contained in 40 CFR part 94, and were described in detail in the
preamble to the FRM that promulgated those regulations (64 FR 73300,
December 29, 1999). In general, these provisions require that a
manufacturer do the following things to certify engines:
[sbull] Divide engines into groups of engines with similar emission
characteristics. These groups are called ``engine families''.
[sbull] Test the highest emitting engine configuration within the
family.
[sbull] Determine deterioration rate for emissions and apply it to
the ``zero-hour'' emission rate. The deterioration rate is essentially
the difference between the emissions of the engine when produced and
the point at which it would need to be rebuilt.
[sbull] Determine the emission-related maintenance that will be
necessary to keep the engines in compliance with the standards.
[sbull] Submit the test data to EPA along with other information
describing the engines within the engine family. This submission is
called the ``application for certification''.
The certification provisions proposed for new Category 3 engines are
discussed more fully in later sections. You should also read the
proposed regulatory text, and the existing Category 2 regulations in 40
CFR part 94. These later section highlight the differences that we are
proposing to apply to Category 3.
2. How Is the Proposed Certification Method Different From That Used
Under Annex VI?
In general, the two methods are similar. Our certification process
is similar to the Annex VI pre-certification process, while our
production-line testing program (described later) is similar to the
Annex VI initial certification survey. However, the Clean Air Act
specifies certain requirements for our certification program that are
different from the Annex VI requirements. The most important
differences between the proposed approach and the method used under
Annex VI are related to witness testing (we allow, but do not require
witness testing), the durability requirements, and test procedures. Our
proposed durability requirements and testing requirements are discussed
in other sections. It is also worth noting that, as described in
Section III, we are proposing to apply the standards based on the date
of final assembly of the engine, while Annex VI generally applies the
standards based on the start-date of the manufacture of the vessel
(i.e., the date on which the keel is laid), which would generally occur
prior to the final assembly of the engine. Overall, we believe that our
proposed regulations are sufficiently consistent with Annex VI that
manufacturers would be able to use a single harmonized compliance
strategy to certify under both systems. The relationship between our
proposed program and the Annex VI requirements is described in more
detail in section V.D.
3. How Does a Certificate of Conformity Relate to a Statement of
Voluntary Compliance or an EIAPP?
The Clean Air Act requires that manufacturers obtain a certificate
of conformity before they introduce a new engine into commerce. Once it
goes into force, MARPOL ANNEX VI will require manufacturers to obtain
an ``Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate''
(EIAPP). We anticipate that engines that receive an EPA certificate of
conformity will also be eligible for an Engine International Air
Pollution Prevention Certificate, since the proposed Tier 1 emission
limits are the same as the Annex VI NOX limits and the Tier
2 limits under consideration are more stringent.
It should be noted that EIAPPs will not be issued until the Annex
goes into force and can be issued only by the flag state
Administration. Prior to entry into force of the Annex, and to
encourage vessel owners to purchase MARPOL Annex VI compliant engines,
we have developed a voluntary certification program. Under this
program, the engine manufacturer can apply for and obtain a Statement
of Voluntary Compliance to the MARPOL Annex VI NOX
limits.\54\ It is anticipated that ship owners will be able to exchange
this Statement of Voluntary Compliance for an EIAPP after the Annex
enters into force. If a shipowner does not have a valid Statement of
Voluntary Compliance for an engine, it may be necessary to recertify
the engine to obtain an EIAPP after the Annex enters into force.
Finally, it should be noted that to obtain an EIAPP in this way, the
Statement of Voluntary Compliance must be issued by EPA. A shipowner
with a Statement of Voluntary Compliance issued by another
Administration will have to apply for certification to obtain an EIAPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Information on how to obtain a Statement of Voluntary
Compliance can be found on our website, www.epa.gov/otaq/marine.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Could I Use a Continuous Emission Monitoring System to Demonstrate
Compliance for Certification?
You would generally not be able to use a continuous emission
monitoring system to generate emission data that would be sufficient
for our certification purposes. However, as we describe later, such a
system could probably be used for production line testing or for in-use
verification.
5. What Would the Roles of the Engine Manufacturer and Ship Owner Be
After the Engine Is Installed?
Unlike the provisions of MARPOL Annex VI, under our proposed
regulations, the engine manufacturer would have some responsibilities
for in-use compliance. The manufacturer would be required to
demonstrate that its engine would be capable of complying with the
standards through the ``useful life'' of the engine (as described
below, the useful life would generally be the first rebuild cycle). The
manufacturer would be responsible for remedying failures that occur
during that period. The ship owner would be
[[Page 37575]]
responsible for ensuring that all proper maintenance is performed
during the entire service life of the engine. After Annex VI goes into
force internationally, the ship owner would also be responsible for
compliance with the provisions contained in the NOX
Technical Code, including the recordkeeping requirements for the Record
Book of Engine Parameters and the various survey requirements. EPA and
Coast Guard will work together to develop procedures to verify onboard
performance of Annex VI requirements, as Coast Guard has the general
authority to carry out such procedures on vessels.
6. How Would Engines on Foreign-Flagged Vessels Be Certified?
We are asking for comment regarding whether EPA should regulate all
engines installed in foreign-flagged vessels that will call at a U.S.
port (Categories 1, 2, and 3). In general, we would apply the same
compliance provisions to foreign-flagged vessels as we would to U.S.-
flagged vessels. We do not believe that manufacturers or owners of
foreign-flag vessels would face unique constraints compared with
manufacturers and owners of U.S.-flag vessels. Thus, the compliance
discussions in the section V would apply without regard to whether the
standards ultimately apply only to U.S.-flag vessels or to all vessels
calling on U.S. ports.
It is worth discussing, however, how engines on foreign-flagged
vessels would be certified if we determined that it was appropriate to
regulate them in the rule. If we extended our regulations to these
engines, compliance could be demonstrated for certification in one of
two ways. Both would require that an application be submitted to EPA.
It would not be sufficient to have obtained a certificate from a
country other than the U.S. The simplest way to obtain an EPA
certificate would be for the ship manufacturer to install a certified
engine during the construction of the ship. In this case, we would
treat this engine in the same manner as engines installed on U.S.-
flagged vessels. Our proposed regulations would already allow this.
This approach would also work for replacement auxiliary engines. The
ship owner would only be required to purchase a certified marine
engine.
The second approach would be for the engine to be certified after
it has been installed in a vessel that will call at a U.S. port, but
before the vessel is within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. As with our
requirements for newly manufactured engines, we would require that
emission test data be submitted in an application for certification to
demonstrate that the engine complies with our requirements. This could
be done by either the engine manufacturer or the ship owner. We
recognize that we may need to allow different certification procedures
to be used in these special cases. In fact, our existing regulations
for smaller marine engines include an allowance for EPA to establish
special certification procedures for engines on imported vessels
([sect] 94.222). We could modify this provision to allow these special
certification procedures for foreign-flagged vessels subject to our
standards irrespective of whether such vessels are considered to be
imported.
It is also worth noting that any vessel subject to our standards
that has one or more uncertified engines installed could be denied the
right to enter a U.S. port, because the vessel would not be in
compliance with U.S. law. Similarly, a vessel with an engine that has
within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coastline operated outside the
range of operating parameters within which the engine is certified to
comply with the applicable emission standard could be denied the right
to enter a U.S. port. In addition, EPA could bring an enforcement
action against the vessel and its operator under the Clean Air Act for
injunctive relief and for penalties of up to $27,500 for each day that
a violation occurs. As is described in section III.C.3, if we were to
apply our proposed standards to foreign-flagged vessels, we would
consider exemption provisions to allow vessels with uncertified engines
to make occasional, but not frequent visits to U.S. ports.
B. Other Certification and Compliance Issues
1. How Are Engine Families Defined?
We are proposing that engine grouping for the purpose of
certification be accomplished through the application of an ``engine
family'' definition. Engines expected to have similar emission
characteristics throughout their useful life are proposed to be
classified in the same engine family. We are proposing to define engine
families consistent with MARPOL. To provide for administrative
flexibility in the proposal, we would have the authority to separate
engines normally grouped together or to combine engines normally
grouped separately based upon a manufacturer's request substantiated
with an evaluation of emission characteristics over the engine's useful
life. We are requesting comment on the proposed requirements for
selecting engine families. Do the proposed criteria provide sufficient
certainty that NOX emissions would be similar for all of the
engines within a particular family?
2. Which Engines Would Be Tested?
We are proposing that manufacturers select the highest emitting-
engine (i.e., ``worst-case'' engine) in a family for certification
testing. This is consistent with the Annex VI requirements. In making
that determination, the manufacturer shall use good engineering
judgement (considering, for example, all engine configurations and
power ratings within the engine family and the range of installation
options allowed). By requiring the worst-case engine to be tested, we
are assured that all engines within the engine family are complying
with emission standards for the smallest number of test engines. If
manufacturers believe that the engine family is grouped too broadly,
they may request separating engines with dissimilar calibrations (based
on an evaluation of emission characteristics over the engine's useful
life) into separate engine families.
For these large marine engines, conventional emission testing on a
dynamometer becomes more difficult. Often the engine mock-ups that are
used for the development of these engines use a single block for many
years, while the power assemblies are changed out. We propose that for
Category 3 engines, certification tests may be performed on these
engine mock-ups, provided that their configuration is the same as that
of the production engines. In addition, we are proposing to allow
single-cylinder tests, since a single-cylinder test should give the
same brake-specific emission results as a full engine test, as long as
each cylinder in an engine is equivalent in all material respects.
We are also proposing that manufacturers be required to allow EPA
to perform confirmatory testing using their certification engines. In
other rules, we have required manufacturers to provide us with actual
engines for our confirmatory testing program. However, this would not
be practical for Category 3 engines because of their size and cost.
3. How Does EPA Treat Adjustable Parameters?
Diesel engines are often designed with adjustable components. For
example, it is common to be able to adjust the fuel injection timing of
an engine. EPA has historically required that these important
adjustable parameters be physically limited to the range over which an
engine would comply with the standards. Thus, while an uncontrolled
diesel engine would typically have a broad (or even unlimited) range of
adjustability, EPA-certified engines have
[[Page 37576]]
a very narrow range of adjustability. Typically, this narrow range is
enforced through physical stops on the adjustable parts. In some cases,
manufacturers seal a component after final assembly to prevent any
adjustment in use. Disabling physical stops, breaking seals, or
otherwise adjusting an engine outside of the certified range is
considered tampering with the emission controls, and is a violation of
section 203(a) of the Clean Air Act.
For marine engines, broad adjustability allows engines to be
adjusted for maximum efficiency when used in a particular application.
This practice simplifies marine diesel engine production, since the
same basic engine can be used in many applications. While we recognize
the need for this practice, we are also concerned that the engine meet
the proposed emission limits throughout the range of adjustment.
Therefore, the Agency has established provisions for Category 2 engines
to allow manufacturers to specify in their applications for
certification the range of adjustment for these components across which
the engine is certified to comply with the applicable emission
standards, and demonstrate compliance only across that range. We are
proposing to also allow such adjustments for Category 3 engines.
Practically, this requirement means that a manufacturer would specify
different fuel injection timing calibrations for different conditions.
These different calibrations would be designed to account for
differences in fuel quality, which can be very significant for Category
three engines. Operators would then be prohibited by the anti-tampering
provisions from adjusting engines to a calibration different from the
calibration specified by the manufacturer. (See section V.B.10 for a
discussion of adjustments away from the U.S.) Annex VI also allows
engines to be adjusted in use, and requires the engine manufacturer to
include a description of the allowable adjustments in the Technical
File for the engine.
Given the broad range of ignition properties for in-use residual
fuels, we expect that this allowance for Category 3 engines would
result in a broader range of adjustment than is expected for Category 2
engines. Because of this broader allowance, we are also proposing that
operators be required to perform a simple field measurement test to
confirm emissions after a parameter adjustment or maintenance
operation. This would not be required for adjustments or maintenance
that would not affect emissions. In addition, given the degree to which
Category 3 engines regularly undergo major maintenance (e.g.,
replacement of an entire power assembly), we believe that all Category
3 engines as a class should be considered to be inherently adjustable.
We do not believe that a manufacturer could make an engine that would
be unadjustable in practice. Therefore, we are proposing that all new
Category 3 engines be equipped with emission measurement systems and
with electronic-logging equipment that automatically records all
adjustments to the engine and the results of the required verification
tests. EPA believes this is a nominal burden. We request comment on
this proposed requirement. It is important to emphasize that we believe
that it is essential that the logging equipment automatically record
all adjustments without requiring the operator to turn on the data
logger. (As is described in section V.B.10, this requirement would
apply to all adjustments without regard to whether they occur within
175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.) This would allow us to rely on
the data log to ensure that the vessel is consistently being adjusted
properly. We would also require that such adjustments be manually
recorded as well, consistent with Annex VI requirements.
We are proposing to use a simpler measurement system than the type
specified in Chapter 6 of NOX Technical Code. As is
described in the RSD, we believe that onboard emission equipment that
is relatively inexpensive and easy to use could be used to verify that
an engine is properly adjusted and is operating to the specifications
of the engine manufacturer. We do not believe that it would be
necessary to perform a complete certification-type emission test after
each adjustment. Under the proposed approach, operators should be able
to complete this testing during normal operation without stopping or
slowing the vessel. We also expect that this equipment will provide
useful information to the ship's crew, that will enable them to better
monitor the engine performance from a non-emission perspective. We
believe that the proposed requirement to include this equipment should
result in little or no net burden to ship operators. It is worth noting
the fact that Annex includes specifications that would allow operators
to choose to verify emissions through onboard testing suggests that
MARPOL also envisioned that onboard measurement systems could be of
value to operators.
We are requesting comment on the broader Annex VI approach to
address engine adjustments, which is to specify that ship operators
must keep the engine adjusted within the limits specified by the engine
manufacturer and to verify the compliance through periodic surveys.
Ship operators would have the choice between verifying the emissions
performance through parameter check or through onboard testing.
Commenters should address the reliability of this approach. We have
concerns that the Annex VI parameter check approach could be difficult
to enforce, since operators that adjusted their engines outside of a
manufacturers specifications would have no incentive to record such
violations. It is also not clear that a parameter check could be
reliable, given the infrequency with which these surveys will likely
occur. Commenters should address both the parameter check method and
the testing method. Are they equivalent? Is the reliability of the
testing method affected by whether the tests are scheduled in advance
or are performed as part of a surprise inspection? Are surprise test
inspections practical?
We also have concerns that, under the Annex VI approach,
manufacturers would not be able to identify the specific adjustments
that would be required for the full range of in-use conditions. While
it is known that changes in fuel properties can require changes in
engine calibrations, the properties themselves are poorly understood.
We do not believe that manufacturers could specify to the operator that
if fuel property A is equal to X, fuel property B is equal to Y, and
fuel property C is equal to Z, then the fuel injection timing should be
adjusted to a specific setting to make sure that the engine meets the
emission standards. Not every important fuel property is readily
quantifable, and different fuel properties can interact to affect
performance. How would an operator record that a parameter was properly
adjusted for a given in-use fuel if not all of the relevant fuel
properties are quantifiable?
We also request comments on other approaches to ensure that engines
with adjustable parameters meet the proposed emission requirements.
Should we require that engine manufacturers design their engines to be
automatically adjusted for changes in fuel quality of other conditions
and prohibit all other adjustments? Would such a prohibition be
practicable? We are also requesting comment on the need for and the
feasibility of indicators on the outside of the vessel (e.g. a light)
to indicate whether the pollution controls are working properly.
Obviously, such a feature would need to be hard-wired into the vessel
controls to be reliable.
[[Page 37577]]
4. How Would Engines Be Labeled?
We are proposing that each new engine have a permanent emission
label on the engine block, or on some other part of the engine that
would not be replaced in service. This label would have to include
specific emission-related information such as engine family name, model
year, and basic maintenance specifications. This inclusion of this
information on the label would be in addition to the recordkeeping
requirements specified in the NOX technical code.
5. How Does EPA Ensure Durable Emission Controls?
To achieve the full benefit of the emissions standards, we need to
ensure that manufacturers design and build their engines with durable
emission controls. It is also necessary to encourage the proper
maintenance and repair of engines throughout their lifetime. The goal
is for engines to maintain good emission performance throughout their
in-use operation. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to adopt
measures to address concerns about possible in-use emission performance
degradation. The proposed durability provisions, described in the
following sections, are intended to help ensure that engines are still
meeting applicable standards in use. Most of these provisions are
carried over from our program for smaller marine compression-ignition
engines. We request comment on all aspects of this durability program.
The most fundamental issue related to durability is the concept of
useful life. The Clean Air Act specifies that useful life is the period
during which an engine is required to meet the emission standards. For
Category 3 marine engines subject to our standards, we are proposing
that the useful life be the period during which an engine is expected
to be properly functioning with respect to reliability and fuel
consumption without being rebuilt. For engines that are rebuilt
completely at one time, the useful life would be the expected period
between original manufacture and the first engine rebuild. For engines
that are maintained by replacing individual power assemblies, the
useful life would be the expected period between original manufacture
and the point at which the last power assembly is replaced. We expect
that this period will vary to some degree among engine models.
Therefore, we are proposing that manufacturers specify the useful life
for their engines at the time of certification. Their specification
would be subject to EPA approval, and could not be less than a minimum
period of 3 years or 10,000 hours of operation (based on all engine
operation, not just operation in or near U.S. waters). This
specification would not limit in-use operation. Rather it would
determine how the manufacturer would address emission deterioration
(i.e., the manufacturer would be required to demonstrate to EPA that
the engine would meet the standards for the full useful life). We are
also proposing that the useful life period may not be less than any
mechanical warranty that the manufacturer offers for the engine.
These minimum useful life values are lower than the minimum values
for Category 2 engines due to the effect of using residual fuel, which
generally has much higher sulfur levels than distillate fuels. The high
sulfur levels create a more corrosive environment within the combustion
chamber, which decreases durability. The period of years (three years)
is also affected by the higher usage rate in terms of hours per year.
We request comment on this issue.
6. What Are the Manufacturer's Responsibilities for Warranty and Defect
Reporting?
Tied to the useful life is the minimum period for the warranty
required under section 207(a) of the Clean Air Act. We believe it is
important to ensure that the engine manufacturer has designed and built
the engine to ensure that it would comply with the emission standards
throughout its useful life, as long as it is properly maintained.
Therefore, we are proposing that the warranty period be equal to the
useful life period (e.g., 10,000 hours or 3 years). Under the
performance warranty, the engine manufacturer would be responsible to
repair any properly maintained and used engine that fails to meets the
standard in use during the warranty period. (Engine operators would be
responsible to repair any engines that failed to meet the standards
because of improper maintenance.) We request comment on this approach.
We are also proposing defect-reporting requirements. These
provisions require Category 3 engine manufacturers to report to EPA
whenever a manufacturer identifies a specific emission-related defect
in 2 or more engines (or 2 or more cylinders within the same engine).
In most cases, we would expect the defects to be identified as part of
a manufacturer's warranty process. However, the manufacturer would be
required to report all defects, without regard to how they were
identified. It is important to clarify that the defect reporting
requirements would not require the manufacturer to collect new
information. The manufacturer would be required to track and report to
EPA information that they obtain through normal business practice. We
request comment on this issue.
7. What Are Deterioration Factors?
To further ensure that the proposed emission limits are met in use,
we are proposing to require the application of a deterioration factor
(DF) to engines in evaluating emission control performance during the
certification and production-line testing process. The emissions from
new engines are adjusted using the DF to account for potential
deterioration in emissions over the life of the engine due to aging of
emission control technologies or devices. The resulting emission level
is intended to represent the expected emissions at the end of the
useful life period for a properly maintained engine. We believe that
the effectiveness of some emission control technologies, such as
aftertreatment, sophisticated fuel-delivery controls, and some cooling
systems, can decline as these systems age. The DF is applied to the
certification emission test data to represent emissions at the end of
the useful life of the engine. We are proposing that marine diesel
engine DFs be determined by engine manufacturers in accordance with
good engineering practices. The DFs, however, would be subject to EPA
approval, and must be consistent with in-use test data. For example, if
we had in-use test data from earlier model year engines from the same
basic engine family that showed that NOX emissions generally
deteriorate by 0.5 g/kW-hr over the useful life, then we would approve
a DF that assumed no deterioration in NOX emissions.
Additionally, the DF should be calculated for the worst-case engine
configuration offered within the engine family.
It is not our intent to require a great deal of data gathering on
engines that use established technology for which the manufacturers
have the experience to develop appropriate DFs. New DF testing may not
be needed where sufficient data already exists. However, we are
proposing to apply the DF requirement to all engines so that we can be
sure that reasonable methods are being used to ascertain the capability
of engines to meet standards throughout their useful lives. Consistent
with other programs, we propose to allow manufacturers the flexibility
of using durability emission data from a single engine that has been
certified to the same or more stringent standard for which all of the
data applicable for
[[Page 37578]]
certification has been submitted. In addition, we request comment on
whether this flexibility should be extended to allow deterioration data
from highway, nonroad, or stationary engines to be used for similar
marine diesel engines.
Finally, we are proposing that DFs be calculated as an additive
value (i.e., the arithmetic difference between the emission level at
full useful life and the emission level at the test point) for engines
without exhaust aftertreatment devices. In contrast, DFs should be
calculated as a multiplicative value (i.e., the ratio of the emission
level at full useful life to the emission level at the test point) for
engines using exhaust aftertreatment devices. This is consistent with
the DF requirements applicable to other diesel engines, based on
observed patterns of emission deterioration. Given the type of emission
controls projected to be used to meet the proposed standards
(calibration changes and combustion chamber redesign, but not
aftertreatment), it is possible that NOX emissions may
actually decrease with time as the piston rings and cylinder liners
wear (thereby reducing peak pressures). In such cases, we would require
that the manufacturer use an additive DF of zero.
It is important to note that one of the reasons we are proposing a
very flexible DF program for this rulemaking because we do not expect
deterioration to be a major problem for these engines. Our history with
in-cylinder NOX control suggests that engine-out
NOX emissions are relatively stable over time. If we were to
adopt an aftertreatment-forcing standard or a standard for PM, we would
likely consider more specific requirements for calculating DFs. For
example, it might be appropriate to apply to these engines the more
specific DF provisions that have been developed for on-highway heavy-
duty engines (40 CFR 86.004-26). Commenters that favor the adoption of
an aftertreatment-forcing standard or a standard for PM should address
whether they believe that the proposed DF program would be sufficient
to ensure that manufacturers design their aftertreatment devices to be
durable.
8. What Requirements Are Proposed for In-Use Maintenance?
In previous rules, we have required manufacturers to furnish the
ultimate purchaser of each new nonroad engine with written instructions
for the maintenance needed to ensure proper functioning of the emission
control system. (Generally, manufacturers require the owners to perform
this maintenance as a condition of their emission warranties.) If such
required maintenance is not performed by the engine operator, then in-
use emissions deterioration can result. We are proposing to require
that Category 3 engine operators be required to perform this
maintenance, or equivalent maintenance. This provision is comparable to
our requirement for railroads to perform emission-related maintenance
for locomotives (40 CFR 92.1004). In that approach, locomotive owners
who fail to properly maintain a locomotive are subject to civil
penalties for tampering. For marine engines, properly rebuilding
engines and power assemblies would be considered to be a part of
emission related maintenance. We believe that these requirements would
generally be consistent in practice with the provisions specified for
ship operators in Technical File required by the NOX
Technical Code.
An important part of this proposal is the allowance for operators
to perform the maintenance differently than specified by the
manufacturer, provided that maintenance is performed in such a way to
keep the engines performing properly with respect to emissions. With
the proposed emission verification requirements, it would be
straightforward for ship operators to determine if their maintenance
practices are sufficient. As long as their engines pass the
verification tests, EPA would consider the maintenance to be
equivalent. For ships that travel far from U.S. waters, this
requirement would mean that maintenance would need to be performed in
such a way that the engines would pass the verification tests before
they come within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coastline. (See section
V.B.10 for more information about special provisions that apply for
ships that travel more than 175 nautical miles from the U.S.)
Unlike our regulation for smaller marine engines, we are not
proposing minimum allowable maintenance intervals for Category 3 marine
diesel engines. This is also consistent with our approach for
locomotives. In both cases, we believe that maintenance would be
jointly agreed to by the engine manufacturer and the engine owner prior
to purchase.
We are requesting comment on whether we should allow a manufacturer
or owner to petition EPA to amend the emission-related maintenance
instructions after the engine is in use, either within or after the
useful life. This may be necessary because of the very long service
lives of these engines. It may not be reasonable for us to require an
owner of a 20-year old engine to be bound to maintenance practices that
were set 20 years earlier. We are requesting comment on how such
amendments would be made.
9. Do the Proposed Regulations Affect Engine Rebuilding?
We are proposing in-use maintenance provisions that would require
operators to perform emission related maintenance properly. We are
proposing that this would also apply whenever an engine or engine
subsystem is rebuilt. These provisions would require that all rebuilds
return the engine to its original certified condition. (Failure to
rebuild an engine to its original certified condition would be
considered tampering with the emission controls.) We believe that the
proposed provisions would address the vast majority of in-use
maintenance and rebuilding practices. However, we are concerned about
special circumstances in which an owner wants to upgrade the engine to
be comparable to a newer configuration rather than simply returning it
to its original configuration. Under Annex VI, such ``substantial
modifications'' are allowed, but the owner is required to recertify the
engine. Should we adopt a similar provision? We are also requesting
comment on a voluntary rebuild standard for older ships with engines
that are not subject to our standards or the Annex VI requirements. For
example, should we create a program for owners of ships built before
2004 to voluntarily certify that they comply with the EPA standards for
model year 2004 ships?
As described in the previous section, for ships that travel far
from the U.S., the proposed in-use maintenance provisions that would
require operators to perform emission related maintenance so that an
engine meets the manufacturer's maintenance requirements when it is
within 175 nautical miles of the United States. For rebuilds performed
away from the U.S., this would require that all rebuilds be performed
so that the engine could be returned to its original certified
condition before the ship returns to within 175 nautical miles of the
United States. (See section V.B.10 for more information about special
provisions that apply for ships that travel more than 175 nautical
miles from the U.S.)
10. Compliance With a Certificate of Conformity Beyond 175 Nautical
Miles of the U.S. Coast
As described in section V.B.3, we are proposing to allow engines to
be adjusted in use in accordance with the certificate of conformity,
and to limit
[[Page 37579]]
this adjustability under our Clean Air Act authority to prohibit
tampering. We are also proposing different compliance requirements than
those adopted in prior rulemakings for new nonroad vehicles and new
nonroad engines for Category 3 marine engines installed in vessels that
operate outside the U.S. Under this approach a vessel operator would be
conditionally allowed to adjust an engine's operating parameters
different from the manufacturer's specification. This would be allowed
when a vessel that is proceeding toward or out of a U.S. port is more
than 175 nautical miles about (200 statutory miles) from the U.S.
coastline. More precisely, we would allow this for vessels that are
more than 175 nautical miles from the baseline from which the
territorial sea is measured, including U.S. states or territories
outside of the U.S. mainland.
This flexibility is not included in the Annex VI provisions. While
we considered proposing our program without this flexibility, we
believe that it is an appropriate flexibility, as is described below.
Under the proposed approach, engine adjustments different from
engine manufacturer's specifications would be conditional on
readjusting the engine's parameters within its certified range and
confirming that emissions are within the range of emissions to which
the engine is certified to comply before a vessel seeking to enter a
U.S. port is 175 nautical miles from the U.S. coastline. Failure to
take these actions would constitute tampering with the engine in
violation of section 203(a)(3)(A) of the CAA and 40 CFR
94.1103(a)(3)(i). To confirm that emissions are within the range of
emissions at which the engine is certified to comply, operators would
have to perform a simple field measurement test after each parameter
adjustment or maintenance operation that could reasonably be expected
to affect emissions. (All adjustments and maintenance would be presumed
to affect emissions unless there was a reasonable technical basis for
believing that they did not affect emissions.) Furthermore, we would
require that all new Category 3 engines be equipped with electronic-
logging equipment that automatically records all adjustments to the
engine and the results of the required verification tests. The logging
equipment would be required automatically record all adjustments
without requiring the operator to turn on the data logger, without
regard to whether they occur within 175 nautical miles of the U.S.
coast. It would not be possible to rely on the data log to ensure that
the vessel is consistently being adjusted properly if the operator
could turn the logger on and off. Since the logging would occur
automatically, we do not believe there would be a significant burden to
the operator. Such adjustments would also have to be manually recorded
as well. Obviously, we would not allow adjustments that damaged the
engine or its emissions controls or otherwise prevented the engine from
being able to comply with our regulations after the readjustment.
Prior rulemakings that establish emission standards for new nonroad
engines and vehicles prohibit anyone from disabling or otherwise
tampering with an engine or vehicle that is covered by a certificate of
conformity. See for example 40 CFR 94.1103(a)(3)(i). Our normal
practice has been to require an engine to meet the emission standards
at all specifications within an adjustable range. In addition, we
normally require an engine manufacturer to make an engine's parameters
unadjustable outside the range at which an engine is certified. We have
adopted these practices to minimize the possibility that a certified
engine can be intentionally or unintentionally adjusted to exceed the
emission levels at which it is certified. If we take a different
approach and allow Category 3 marine engines to conditionally allow a
vessel operator to adjust an engine's operating parameters outside the
range of specifications within which the engine is certified to comply
with the applicable emission standards, we would be increasing the
possibility that a certified engine would exceed the emission levels at
which it is certified when it is in or near the United States. We are,
nonetheless, proposing such an approach because of the unique issues
associated with Category 3 marine engines that are installed in a
vessel. These engines spend much of their time in international waters
far away from U.S. coastal regions, where their emissions would have
little or no effect on U.S. air quality. Tailoring the scope of the
prohibition against tampering with a certified engine would allow
vessel operators to readjust their engines for different performance
characteristics in international waters when their emissions do not
affect the U.S.
Although section 203(a)(3)(A) of the CAA prohibits the disabling of
or tampering with emission control technology on a compliant motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine, there is no express statutory
prohibition on such conduct with respect to new nonroad engines or
vehicles. Although section 213(d) does provide that emission standards
for new nonroad engines and vehicles ``shall be enforced in the same
manner'' as standards prescribed for new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines, it is unclear whether this means ``exactly
equivalent'' enforcement requirements or ``analogous, comparable or
consistent'' enforcement requirements. The CAA, therefore, is ambiguous
as to how emission standards for new nonroad engines and vehicles
should be enforced.
We believe that it would be reasonable to interpret section 213(d)
to allow the Agency to fashion enforcement provisions for new nonroad
engines and vehicles that are consistent with, but not necessarily
equivalent to, those applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines. Such an interpretation is consistent with the rest of
section 213(d), which recognizes the need for different solutions to
implement emission standards for new nonroad engines and vehicles.
Specifically, section 213(d) provides that emission standards for
nonroad engines and vehicles like emissions standards for new motor
vehicles and new motor vehicle engines are subject to sections 206,
207, 208 and 209 ``with such modifications of the applicable
regulations implementing such sections as the Administrator deems
appropriate.''
In this case, the need for a different solution than the one that
we have traditionally adopted is warranted by the fact that the engines
we propose to regulate operate primarily outside of the United States.
As discussed above, marine Category 3 engines installed in vessels
spend much of their time in waters far away from U.S. coastal regions,
where their emissions would have little or no effect on U.S. air
quality. Enforcing emission standards for these kinds of engines,
therefore, is different than enforcing standards for motor vehicles and
motor vehicle engines that operate primarily, if not exclusively,
inside the United States. However, vessel operators that adjust an
engine's operating parameters outside the range within which the engine
is certified to comply with the applicable emission standards, would
have to readjust the engine's parameters to its certified calibration
and confirm that emissions are within the range of emissions to which
the engine is certified to comply before a vessel seeking to enter a
U.S. port is 175 nautical miles from the U.S. coastline.
As described in previous sections, we are proposing to apply this
same approach for engine maintenance and rebuilding. Within 175
nautical miles of the U.S., improper maintenance or
[[Page 37580]]
rebuilding of an engine would be considered to be tampering to the
extent that it compromised the emission performance of the engine. On
the other hand, engine maintenance and rebuilding that occurs more than
175 nautical miles away from the U.S. would be treated as any other
type of emission-related adjustment. Ship operators could maintain or
rebuild the engine however they would choose, provided that the engine
is returned to a certified configuration and passes the emission
verification test specified in [sect] 94.1003(b) of the proposed
regulations before it comes within 175 nautical miles of the U.S.
We are proposing this limit of 175 nautical miles to control
Category 3 emissions that affect U.S. air quality, especially emissions
from coastwise traffic. As described in the draft RSD, we believe that
the emissions that occur within 175 nautical miles (200 statutory
miles) of the U.S. coastline represent a significant fraction of the
total inventory and that these emissions can significantly affect U.S.
air quality. Assuming a 10 mile per hour wind blowing toward the coast,
these emissions would reach the coast in less than one day. Setting
this threshold at some shorter distance would not adequately account
for these emissions. We considered proposing a larger distance. The
Ozone Transport Assessment Group \55\ has estimated that within the
continental U.S., emissions can affect air quality as far away as 500
statutory miles from the emission source. Other analyses have suggested
that NOX and SOX emissions could be transported
even farther than that. However, there is uncertainty associated with
the transport of ship emissions. Most transport studies have focused on
transport that occurs over land, and emissions over the ocean do not
have the same effect as land-based emissions due to different
meteorological conditions. While we recognize that some emissions that
occur beyond 175 nautical miles could potentially affect U.S. air
quality, these effects are hard to quantify. At this time, we cannot
determine that emissions beyond 175 nautical miles would have a
significant effect in most cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Final Report of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group,
Chapter 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will continue to investigate this issue throughout this
rulemaking, and will incorporate any new information into the final
rule. For example, the Department of Defense (DoD) has recently
presented information to EPA supporting the significance of offshore
emissions, but suggesting that a different, shorter (offshore distance)
limit may be appropriate to address the emissions from marine vessels
that would affect on-shore air quality. DoD's extensive work on the
marine vessels issue in Southern California resulted in a conclusion
that emissions within 60 nautical miles of shore could make it back to
the coast due to eddies and the nature of the sea breeze effects. Their
analysis of satellite data, however, showed a distinct tendency for a
curved line of demarcation separating the offshore (unobstructed) or
parallel ocean wind flow from a region of more turbulent, recirculated
air which would impact on-shore areas. That curved line of demarcation
was close to San Nicolas Island which is about 60 nm offshore from the
California coast. DoD also indicated that studies and published
information on other coastal areas in California indicate that they
experience somewhat narrower (perhaps 30 nm ) region of ``coastal
influence''. We are investigating how this information would related to
other coastal regions such as the Gulf Coast and the East coast, which
would be expected to have their own unique meteorological conditions
that might call for different lines of demarcation between on-shore and
off-shore effects.
We believe that the proposed distance would protect U.S. air
quality without placing an undue burden on ship operators.
Nevertheless, we request comment on the proposed distance. We encourage
commenters to address both the long-distance effect of marine engine
emissions on U.S. air quality and the potential impact of this proposed
approach on ship operations. We are requesting comment regarding the
appropriateness of applying a single distance to all coastal regions,
without considering prevailing wind patterns. For example, would it be
more appropriate to set a larger distance for the Pacific coast and a
smaller distance for the Atlantic coast? Would such an approach be
practical? We are also requesting comment on whether we should treat
the waters around U.S. island territories such as Guam in the same way
that we treat the coastal waters around the continental U.S. Would
emissions around these islands affect their air quality to the same
extent as coastal emissions around the U.S. mainland? Alternatively, we
could exempt the island territories from these requirements, pursuant
to section 324(a) of the Act, if petitioned by the governors of the
territories.
Finally, it is worth noting that since we expect that manufacturers
would design their engines to have good performance when adjusted to
their compliant calibrations, it should not make a major difference to
operators exactly where they conduct the verification test. Therefore,
we would expect that operators that adjust their engines outside of the
manufacturer's recommended range would begin readjusting their engines
when they reach the 200-mile EEZ limit. This would allow them to adjust
their engines and complete the verification test before they reached
the proposed 175-mile limit. It would also provide time to readjust the
engine if it were to fail the initial emission verification test. If we
determine that some distance other than the proposed 175-mile limit
would better divide those emissions that affect U.S. air quality from
those emissions that do not, should we incorporate some additional
cushion to ensure that operators would have sufficient time to readjust
and retest an engine before its emissions could adversely affect U.S.
air quality?
11. Are There Proposed Post-Certification Testing Requirements?
To ensure compliance of production engines, we are proposing a
simple testing program that is modeled loosely on our production line
testing (PLT) requirements for other marine engines. The general object
of any PLT program is to enable manufacturers and EPA to determine,
with reasonable certainty, whether certification designs have been
translated into production engines that meet applicable standards. We
are not proposing a specific testing requirement, and would allow
manufacturers flexibility in determining how to test the engines.
However, we are proposing some minimum requirements. First, we would
require that each certified engine that a manufacturer produces be
tested. We would also require that either the test directly measure
brake-specific emissions, or measure other parameters that provide
equal assurance that each engine meets the standards. The testing would
need to occur after final installation, but before final delivery to
the ultimate purchaser. We would suspend the certificate of conformity
for any failing engine, or if the engine manufacturer's submittal
reveals that the tests were not performed in accordance with the
applicable testing procedure. The manufacturer must then bring the
engine into compliance before we could reinstate the certificate of
conformity subsequent to a suspension. We would also suspend the
certificate of conformity for an engine family whenever an engine
fails. The manufacturer would need to identify and remedy the cause of
the failure
[[Page 37581]]
before we could reinstate the certificate of conformity for future
production within that family. EPA will work with the U.S. Coast Guard
to develop procedures to verify onboard performance of these field
measurement provisions, as Coast Guard has the general authority to
carry out such procedures on vessels.
12. What Would the Prohibited Acts and Related Requirements Be?
We are proposing to regulate Category 3 engines under 40 CFR part
94. This means that we are proposing to extend the general compliance
provisions for smaller marine engines to Category 3 marine engines.
These include the general prohibition introducing an uncertified engine
into commerce, as well as the tampering and defeat-device prohibitions.
However, as described in Section V(B)(10), we are proposing to modify
the tampering provision for Category 3 engines to allow operation
outside of the otherwise allowable range of adjustment when the vessel
is far away from the U.S. All other aspects of the existing tampering
prohibition would apply. These prohibitions are listed in [sect]
94.1103. EPA seeks comment on extending these provisions to Category 3
engines, and on any additional modifications that should be made to
these provisions to accommodate special features of these engines.
13. Would There Be General Exemptions for Engines?
We are proposing to extend the exemptions provisions for smaller
marine engines to Category 3 marine engines. These include, for
example, exemptions for the purpose of national security and exemptions
for engines built in the U.S. for export to other countries. These
exemptions, which are described in Subpart J of 40 CFR Part 94, would
exempt the engines from the proposed requirements, but would require
that the manufacturer keep records or label the engines in some cases.
Both the exemption and the related requirements are allowed under our
general standard-setting authority.
14. What Regulations Would Apply for Imported Engines?
We are proposing to extend the current importation provisions found
in 40 CFR Part 94 for smaller marine engines to Category 3 marine
engines. This means that we are proposing that engines that are
imported would generally be subject to the proposed requirements based
on their date of original manufacture. The existing provisions for
smaller engines include permanent and temporary exemptions from this
requirement. The most significant of these import exemptions for ocean-
going vessels is the allowance to temporarily import an engine for
repair.
15. What Would Be a Manufacturer's Recall Responsibilities?
Section 207(c)(1) of the Act specifies that manufacturers must
recall and repair in-use engines if we determine that a substantial
number of them do not comply with the regulations in use. We are
proposing to apply the existing provisions for smaller marine engines
to Category 3 marine engines. These provisions are described in Subpart
H of 40 CFR Part 94.
C. Test Procedures for Category 3 Marine Engines
Engine manufacturers are currently testing according to the test
procedures outlined in The Technical Code on Control of Emission of
Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines in the ``Annex VI of MARPOL
73/78 Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships and
NOX Technical Code'' from the International Maritime
Organization. We are proposing to certify Category 3 marine engines
using these MARPOL test procedures for diesel marine engines with
modification. The modifications, which are described in the following
sections, are required to ensure that the test data used for
certification are consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act.
1. What Duty Cycle Would I Use to Test My Engines?
The duty cycle used to measure emissions is intended to simulate
operation in the field. Testing an engine for emissions consists of
exercising it over a prescribed duty cycle of speeds and loads,
typically using an engine dynamometer. The nature of the duty cycle
used for determining compliance with emission standards during the
certification process is critical in evaluating the likely emissions
performance of engines designed to those standards.
To address operational differences between engines, we are
proposing two different duty cycles for different types of C3 marine
engines. Engines that operate on a fixed-pitch propeller curve would be
certified using the International Standards Organization (ISO) E3 duty
cycle. This is a four-mode steady-state cycle developed to represent
in-use operation of marine diesel engines. The four modes lie on an
average propeller curve based on the vessels surveyed in the
development of this duty cycle. We are proposing ISO E2 for propulsion
engines that operate at a constant speed. These are the cycles used by
MARPOL.
2. What Kind of Fuel Would Be Required for Emission Testing?
To facilitate the testing process, we generally specify a test fuel
that is intended to be representative of in-use fuels. Engines would
have to meet the standard on any fuel that meets the proposed test fuel
specifications, with one modification as described later. This test
fuel is to be used for all testing associated with the regulations
proposed in this document, to include certification, production line
and in-use testing.
We are proposing that the official test fuel specification for C3
engines be a residual fuel. We are proposing to allow a range of fuels
based on the ASTM D 2069-91 specifications for residual fuel. We would
allow testing using any residual fuel meeting the specifications for
RMH-55 grade of fuel including fuels meeting the specifications for
RMA-10 grade of fuel. We request comment on this specification. An
alternative to this approach might be to narrowly define a worst-case
test fuel. Your comments should address whether the grade of the test
fuel would affect the feasibility or the stringency of the proposed
standard. We also are requesting comment on whether there needs to be a
specification for ignition properties of the test fuels, such as
cetane.
This ASTM specification does not include any specification for the
nitrogen content of the fuel. Organically-bound nitrogen is a normal
component of residual fuels that has a very significant effect on
NOX emissions. However, the effect on NOX can be
calculated from the nitrogen content of the fuel. Therefore, we are
proposing to include a broad specification for the nitrogen content of
the fuel (between zero and 0.6 weight percent), and to require
correction of the NOX emissions based on the nitrogen
content of the fuel.
We are also proposing to allow certification testing on marine
distillate fuel to be consistent with MARPOL testing (see section
IV.A.2). However, distillate fuels tend to have lower nitrogen content
than residual fuels. To account for this, we would correct the
NOX emissions, based on fuel nitrogen content, to be
equivalent to testing with residual fuels. We request comment on this
approach. Your comments should address whether we should account for
[[Page 37582]]
factors other than nitrogen content of the fuel in our correction.
Finally, based on our current understanding of the importance of
fuel nitrogen levels, we are proposing to also establish a nitrogen-
correction for testing Category 1 and Category 2 engines using residual
fuel. This correction would be consistent with the Category 3
correction. However, since the Category 1 and Category 2 standards are
based on zero-nitrogen fuel, the Category 1 and Category 2 correction
would correct to 0.0 percent nitrogen instead of 0.4 percent nitrogen
for Category 3. In the Category 1 and Category 2 FRM, we intended to
set the standards so that they could be achieved by Category 2 engines
that use residual fuel. After reconsidering the effect of fuel
nitrogen, we now believe that this correction is necessary to achieve
that goal.
3. How Would EPA Account for Variable Test Conditions?
We are not proposing to limit certification testing based on
barometric pressure or ambient humidity. We are proposing to limit the
allowable ambient air temperature to 13[deg]C to 30[deg]C and charge
air cooling water to 17[deg]C to 27[deg]C. However, since a
manufacturer would not always be able to stay within these ranges for
tests conducted after the engine is installed in the ship, we are
proposing to allow production testing and in-use testing under broader
conditions. Engine manufacturers would need to provide information
about how emissions are affected at other temperatures to allow
production testing and in-use testing conducted under the broader
conditions to be used to verify compliance with the emission standard.
We are proposing to use the MARPOL Annex VI correction factors for
temperature and humidity for certification testing. We would allow the
use of the corrections for a broader range of test conditions, provided
the manufacturer verifies the accuracy of the correction factors
outside of the range of test conditions for certification.
4. How Does Laboratory Testing Relate to Actual In-Use Operation?
If done properly, laboratory testing can provide emission
measurements that are the same as measurements taken from in-use
operation. However, improper measurements may be unrepresentative of
in-use operation. Therefore, we are proposing regulatory provisions to
ensure that laboratory measurements accurately reflect in-use
operation. In the proposed regulations, there is a general requirement
that manufacturers must use good engineering judgment in applying the
MARPOL Annex VI test procedures to ensure that the emission
measurements accurately represent emissions performance from in-use
engines. We are proposing specific requirements that the manufacturers
ensure that intake air and exhaust restrictions and coolant and oil
temperatures are consistent with in-use operation. Most importantly, we
are proposing that manufacturers' simulation of charge-air cooling
replicate the performance of in-use coolers within [plusmn]3[deg]C.
The definition of maximum test speed, (the maximum engine speed in
revolutions per minute, or rpm) is an important aspect of the test
cycles proposed in this document. Under Annex VI, engine manufacturers
are allowed to declare the rated speeds for their engines, and to use
those speeds as the maximum test speeds for emission testing. However,
we are concerned that a manufacturer could declare a rated speed that
is not representative of the in-use operating characteristics of its
engine in order to influence the parameters under which their engines
could be certified. Therefore, we are proposing to apply the current
definition of ``maximum test speed'' in [sect] 94.107 to Category 3
engines that are subject to our standards.
5. What is Required to Perform a Simplified Onboard Measurement?
We are proposing that simplified onboard measurements be used to
confirm proper adjustment of in-use engines as described in sections
V.B.3 and V.B.10. These systems must be capable of measuring
NOX concentration, exhaust temperature, engine speed, and
engine torque. Operators would compare the NOX concentration
and exhaust temperature to limits provided by the manufacturer. Tests
that showed emissions higher than allowed under the manufacturer's
specifications would mean that the engine was not properly adjusted. If
the engine was within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast, then this
would require that the engine be readjusted and retested. Such
exceedances 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast would not be
considered to be violations of the regulations, provided they were
corrected immediately.
D. Comparison to Annex VI Compliance Requirements
1. Why are EPA's proposed compliance requirements different from the
Annex VI requirements?
We have attempted to propose compliance requirements that are
sufficiently consistent with Annex VI that manufacturers would be able
to use a single harmonized compliance strategy to certify under both
systems. However, the Clean Air Act specifies certain requirements for
our compliance program that are different from the Annex VI
requirements. The most important differences between the proposed
approach and the method used under Annex VI are related to witness
testing, the durability requirements, and test procedures. It is the
durability requirements of the Clean Air Act that represent the most
fundamental differences between the Annex VI certification program and
the program required by the Clean Air Act. Section 213 of the Act
requires that the engine manufacturer be responsible for ensuring
compliance with the emission standards for the full useful life of the
engine. The Annex VI certification provisions do not include this kind
of requirement, and make the ship operators fully responsible for
ensuring in-use compliance through periodic survey requirements. Thus,
we cannot adopt the Annex VI certification and compliance requirements
to implement the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
We believe that adopting certification provisions similar to our
existing Category 1 and 2 requirements would best meet the requirements
of the Clean Air Act.
2. What Would Be the Most Significant Differences Between the Two
Programs?
There are a number of differences between the two programs. These
differences are summarized below. They were also discussed in more
detail in the earlier subsections of this section V.
[sbull] Liability for in-use compliance--We require that the engine
manufacturer be responsible for ensuring compliance with the emission
standards for the full useful life of the engine, while the Annex VI
program makes the ship operators fully responsible for ensuring in-use
compliance. Both our regulations and Annex VI provisions would require
ship operators to properly maintain their engines and to keep records
of the maintenance and engine adjustment. Under Annex VI, these records
are referred to as the Record Book of Engine Parameters.
[sbull] Durability demonstration--We require that the engine
manufacturer
[[Page 37583]]
demonstrate prior to production that they comply with the emission
standards for the full useful life of the engine (see section V.B.5).
The Annex VI program would only require that the manufacturer
demonstrate that the engine meets the standards when it is installed in
the vessel; there is no Annex VI durability demonstration.
[sbull] Witness testing--We allow, but do not require witness
testing for U.S. compliance. Some other countries require witness
testing for marine engines. Manufacturers would need to take this into
consideration if they plan to sell the same engines in the U.S. and
those other countries.
[sbull] Test procedures--We are proposing to certify Category 3
marine engines using the Annex VI test procedures for diesel marine
engines with modification. The modifications, which are described
section V.C, are required to ensure that the test data used for
certification are representative of in-use operation. We expect that
manufacturers would be able to use data from certification tests
conducted according to the modified EPA procedures for Annex VI
certification.
[sbull] Test fuel--As described in section V.C.2, we are proposing
that the official test fuel specification for C3 engines be a residual
fuel. Annex VI specifies using distillate test fuels and uses
distillate testing as the basis of its standards. We are proposing to
allow certification testing on marine distillate fuel to be consistent
with Annex VI. However, we would correct the NOX emissions,
based on fuel nitrogen content, before the test results are compared to
our residual fuel based standards.
[sbull] Compliance date for standards--As described in Section III,
we are proposing to apply the standards based on the date of final
assembly of the engine, while Annex VI generally applies the standards
based on the start-date of the manufacture of the vessel (i.e., the
date on which the keel is laid). Since the laying of the keel would
almost always occur prior to the final assembly of the engine, this
provides manufacturers with somewhat more lead time than is provided by
the Annex VI provision. Note that this difference would not matter for
Tier 1, since the effective date of the Annex VI limits has already
passed (January 1, 2000).
[sbull] Production testing--We are proposing a simple production
testing program ensure that certification designs would be translated
into production engines that meet applicable standards. We are not
proposing a specific testing requirement, and would allow manufacturers
flexibility in determining how to test the engines. Annex VI also
requires verification that engines are properly installed, but allow
this to be demonstrated by either a parameter check or by testing.
[sbull] Technical file--Annex VI requires that engine manufacturers
provide operators with a Technical File that contains maintenance
instructions, test data, and other compliance information. We are
proposing only to require the manufacturer to provide maintenance
instructions necessary to ensure that the engine would continue to meet
the emission standards in use.
[sbull] In-use compliance--To ensure that an engine in-use
continues to meet the standards, we are proposing that operators be
required to perform a simple field measurement test to confirm
emissions after a parameter adjustment or maintenance operation. The
Annex VI program would require only periodic surveys of the engine,
which can take the form of a simplified onboard test or, more
frequently, a parameter check. The parameter check can be as simple as
reviewing the record book of engine parameters to see if any
adjustments were made to the engine that were outside the range of
acceptable parameter adjustments specified by the engine manufacturer.
Both of these would be carried out by representatives of the flagging
state.
[sbull] Parameter adjustment--We are proposing to allow
manufacturers to specify in their applications for certification the
range of adjustment across which the engine is certified to comply with
the applicable emission standards. This would allow a manufacturer to
specify different fuel injection timing calibrations for different
conditions. These different calibrations would be designed to account
for differences in fuel quality. Operators would then be prohibited by
the anti-tampering provisions from adjusting engines to a calibration
different from the calibration specified by the manufacturer when they
are within 175 miles of the U.S. coast. We are also proposing to
require all new Category 3 engines be equipped with emission
measurement systems and with automatic electronic-logging equipment
that automatically records all adjustments to the engine and the
results of the required verification tests. (See sections V.B.3 and
V.B.10 for more details.) Annex VI would prohibit operators from
adjusting engines to a calibration different from the calibration
specified by the manufacturer under any circumstances.
[sbull] Onboard measurement--We are proposing that simplified
onboard measurements be used to confirm proper adjustment of in-use
engines as described in sections V.B.3 and V.B.10. Annex VI allows such
systems, but does not require them.
3. Could a Manufacturer Comply With Both the EPA Requirements and the
Annex VI requirements at the Same Time?
A manufacturer that complied with the proposed EPA requirements
would need to do very little additional work to meet the Annex VI
requirements. First, the engine manufacturer would need to provide the
operator with a Technical File that contains more information than
would be required by EPA. The manufacturer may also need to ensure that
the relevant emission testing is witnessed appropriately.
For manufacturers that have already complied with the Annex VI, the
amount of additional work that would required to comply with the
proposed EPA requirements, would be dependent on how the manufacturer
conducted its emission testing. Annex VI allows manufacturers more
discretion in testing engines than would be allowed under our proposed
regulations, and does not necessarily require that the engine be tested
fully consistent with in-use operation. Under the proposed regulations,
tests of engines that are not consistent with in-use operation would
not be allowed, unless the manufacturer could demonstrate that the test
results were equivalent to test results that would result form testing
conducted in accordance with the proposed regulations. In these cases,
manufacturers would need to repeat the tests according to the proposed
test procedures. On the other hand, manufacturers that used their good
engineering judgment to test their engines consistent with their in-use
operation would generally be allowed to use the same test data for EPA
certification. For future testing, manufacturers would be able to test
their engines in compliance with both the Annex VI procedures and the
proposed EPA procedures.
With respect to the other proposed compliance requirements not
related to certification testing, manufacturers would need to do the
following things in addition to the Annex VI requirements:
[sbull] Demonstrate prior to production that the engines would
comply with the emission standards for the useful life of the engine.
[sbull] Warrant to the purchasers that the engines would comply
with the EPA requirements for the useful life of the engine.
[sbull] Perform a simple production test after installation.
[[Page 37584]]
[sbull] Install an onboard measurement system.
[sbull] Specify how the operator should adjust the engine in use
and how proper adjustment should be verified through testing.
VI. Projected Impacts
A. What Are the Anticipated Economic Impacts of the Proposed Standards?
Our analysis of the projected impacts of the proposed standards
consists primarily of estimating the costs, emission benefits, and cost
per ton of pollutant reduced.
With regard to the proposed Tier 1 standards, we expect the costs
of the proposed Tier 1 standards to be negligible. We do not anticipate
that there will be any engineering or design costs associated with the
Tier 1 standards because manufacturers are already certifying engines
to the Annex VI standards through our voluntary certification program
(see Section E.2 of the preamble for this rule). While there will be
certification and compliance costs, these costs will be negligible on a
per-engine basis. The emission reductions from the proposed Tier 1
standards will reflect only reductions from engines that are currently
in noncompliance with the Annex VI NOX limits. For these
reasons, the projected impacts of this rule are expected to be
negligible.
Additionally, because the total annualized costs associated with
complying the proposed rule are a small percentage of total market
revenues, it is unlikely that market prices or production will change
as a result of the proposed rule. Furthermore, the total annualized
costs associated with applying the reductions to all vessels is
smaller; thus, we would still not anticipate appreciable changes in
market prices or quantities to be associated with the proposed rule.
The remainder of this section discusses the projected impacts of a
second tier of standards currently under consideration that would
reflect a 30 percent reduction from Tier 1.
B. What Are the Anticipated Economic Impacts of the Standards Under
Consideration?
As described below, aggregate annualized costs of adopting the Tier
2 standards discussed above are estimated to be about $1.6 million per
year. In assessing the economic impact of setting emission standards,
we have made a best estimate of the combination of technologies that an
engine manufacturer would most likely use to meet the new standards
discussed in this Notice. The analysis presents estimated cost
increases for new engines. These estimates include consideration of
variable costs (for hardware and assembly time), fixed costs (for
research and development, and retooling), and compliance costs (for
certification testing and onboard emission measurements). The analysis
also considers total operating costs, including maintenance and fuel
consumption. Cost estimates based on these projected technology
packages represent an expected change in the cost of engines as
manufacturers begin to comply with new emission standards. All costs
are presented in 2002 dollars. Full details of our cost analysis can be
found in Chapter 5 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document.
Table VI.B-1 summarizes the projected costs for meeting the Tier 2
emission limits under consideration. Anticipated incremental new engine
cost impacts of the Tier 2 emission limits discussed in this notice for
the first years of production range from $94,000 to $153,000 per engine
with an calculated composite cost of $115,000. Long-term impacts on
engine costs are expected to be lower, ranging from $25,000 to $63,000
per engine with a composite cost of $39,000. Most of this cost
reduction is accounted for by the fact that research, testing, and
other fixed costs dominate the cost analysis, but disappear after the
projected ten-year amortization period. Some additional cost reduction
is expected to result from learning in production. We believe that
manufacturers would be able to combine emission-control technologies to
meet the Tier 2 emission standards under consideration without
increasing fuel consumption or other operating costs. The cost
analysis, however, includes an estimated $5,000 of annual expenses to
maintain equipment for onboard emission measurement, which corresponds
with a net-present-value at the point of sale of $61,000. See Chapter 5
of the Draft Regulatory Support Document for a more detailed discussion
of the analysis to estimate the costs of emission-control technology
for meeting a second tier of emission standards.
Table VI.B-1.--Summary of Projected Costs to Meet Tier 2 Emission Standards--U.S.-Flag Only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium-speed engines Slow-speed engines
Time Frame -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 cyl. 9 cyl. 12 cyl. 4 cyl. 8 cyl. 12 cyl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost per engine (yr. 1)........................... $93,587 $98,977 $104,368 $106,414 $129,723 $153,031
Total cost per engine (yr. 6 and later)................. 25,452 28,902 32,352 33,661 48,579 63,496
Annual operating costs.................................. 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.B-2 shows the same cost estimates for the scenario of
requiring engines on foreign-flag vessels to meet emission standards.
Near-term costs are generally lower in this scenario because fixed
costs can be amortized over substantially larger numbers of engines.
The same manufacturers produce engine used in U.S. and foreign-flagged
vessels. In addition, the majority of the vessels visiting the U.S. are
foreign flagged. Therefore, we do not estimate separate costs for
applying the Tier 2 standards to foreign flagged vessels only.
Table VI.B-2.--Summary of Projected Costs to Meet Tier 2 Emission Standards--Including Foreign-Flag
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium-speed engines Slow-speed engines
Time frame -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 cyl. 12 cyl. 16 cyl. 4 cyl. 8 cyl. 12 cyl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost per engine (yr. 1............................ $35,970 $41,360 $46,751 $48,797 $72,106 $95,414
Total cost per engine (yr. 6 and later)................. 25,452 28,902 32,352 33,661 48,579 63,496
Annual operating costs.................................. 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37585]]
The above analysis presents unit cost estimates for each power
category. With current data for engine and vessel sales for each
category and projections for the future, these costs can be translated
into projected direct costs to the nation for the new emission
standards in any year. Aggregate annualized costs (based on a 20-year
stream) are estimated to be about $1.6 million per year. This is based
on the present value of an annuity discounted at 7 percent over a 20-
year stream of costs. Aggregate annualized costs not including the
NOX monitoring costs are estimated to be about $1 million.
Applying the Tier 2 emission standards described in this notice also to
engines on foreign-flag vessels would increase aggregate annualized
costs to about $54 million. In both cases, estimated aggregate costs
per year fall substantially after five years as manufacturers would no
longer need to recover their amortized costs.
The annualized aggregate cost (no operating costs) of $1 million
represents 0.17 percent of total annual shipbuilding industry revenues
based on the 1997 value of shipments. Because the total annualized
costs associated with complying the Tier 2 standards under
consideration are a small percentage of total market revenues, it is
unlikely that market prices or production will change as a result of
these proposed rules. Furthermore, the total annualized costs
associated with applying the reductions to all vessels is smaller;
thus, we would still not anticipate appreciable changes in market
prices or quantities to be associated with the standards under
consideration.
C. What Are The Anticipated Emission Reductions of the Standards Under
Consideration?
The following discussion gives a brief overview of the methodology
we used to determine the emissions reductions from Category 3 marine
diesel engines associated with this proposed rule and alternatives we
are considering. Chapter 6 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document
provides a detailed explanation of the methodology and results. Section
II of this preamble and Chapter 2 of the Draft Regulatory Support
Document contain information about the health and welfare concerns
associated with Category 3 marine diesel engine pollution.
To model the emission reductions of the standards discussed in this
Notice we applied an engine replacement schedule and the emissions
standards to the baseline inventory. We also accounted for the MARPOL
Annex VI NOX limits. Although these standards are not yet
effective, they are being largely complied with around the world, and
we expect this trend to continue. Thus, we are using the Annex VI
limits as the baseline for purposes of showing the expected emissions
reductions from the Tier 2 standards. Thus, we are assuming that all
U.S. and foreign flagged vessels built after 1999 will comply with the
Annex VI limits, and show the benefits of the Tier 2 standards relative
to this baseline. We are only considering that the Tier 2 standards
apply to U.S. flagged vessels. Thus, we only applied the expected
emissions reductions from the Tier 2 standards to the portion of the
national inventory attributable to U.S. flagged vessels. Also, because
the HC and CO standards are intended only to prevent future increases
in HC and CO emissions, and because we are not considering PM
standards, we are claiming no emissions reductions in HC, CO or PM.
Table VI.C-1 shows our estimates of Category 3 vessel NOX
emissions with and without the Tier 2 standards, as well as the impact
of the MARPOL Annex VI NOX limits.
It is important to note that we only modeled the emissions
reductions within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast. However,
reductions from the Annex VI standards and the Tier 2 standards would
also likely occur outside of 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast. To
the extent that vessels in compliance with these limits visit foreign
ports some emissions reductions would likely be seen in those areas as
well.
Table VI.C-1.--Category 3 Marine Vessel NOX National Emissions
Inventories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 2010 2020 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No control baseline (thousand short 190 303 439 659
tons)..............................
MARPOL Annex VI:
(thousand short tons)........... 190 274 367 531
Percent reduction (relative to ....... 9.6% 16.2% 19.5%
no control)....................
-------------------------------------
Tier 2:
Control (thousand short tons)... 190 269 343 475
Percent reduction (relative to ....... 2.0% 6.8% 10.5%
MARPOL Annex VI)...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section III, we are only proposing to apply the
emissions standards to U.S. flagged vessels. The effect of applying the
Tier 2 standards to both U.S. and foreign flagged vessels is shown in
Table VI.C-2. As can be seen from this table, the projected emissions
reductions from applying a second tier of standards would be
substantially greater in 2030 if foreign flagged vessels were also to
comply with such limits. EPA believes this information provides support
for pursuing an international agreement to limit emissions to such
levels in the context of additional reductions under MARPOL.
Table VI.C-2.--Effect of Application of Tier 2 Emissions Standards Based on Vessel Flag (U.S. Flagged Vessels
vs. All Vessels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 2030
Scenario -----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (1000 tons) % reduction NOX (1000 tons) % reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (Annex VI)..................... 367 .............. 531 ..............
U.S. Flagged Only....................... 343 6.8 475 10.5
All Vessels............................. 306 16.7 392 26.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37586]]
D. What is the Estimated Cost Per Ton of Pollutant Reduced for This
Proposal and Alternatives We are Considering?
We estimated the cost per ton of NOX reduction of the
NOX emission standards discussed in this Notice. Chapter 7
of the Draft Regulatory Support Document contains a more detailed
discussion of the cost per ton analysis. The calculated cost per ton of
the proposed emission standard presented here includes all of the
anticipated effects on costs and emission reductions.
1. Tier 1 Cost Per Ton
The proposed Tier 1 standards are equivalent to the MARPOL Annex VI
standards. Because engines already comply with the MARPOL Annex VI
standards, we not claiming any benefits or costs to meet the EPA
proposed Tier 1 standards.
2. Tier 2 Cost Per Ton
To determine the cost per ton of NOX reduction
associated with the Tier 2 emission standards discussed in section
IV.A.3, we only considered emissions reductions beyond those achieved
by the MARPOL Annex VI standards. Table VI.D-1 presents the cost per
ton of the Tier 2 standards discussed in this notice for U.S. flagged
Category 3 marine engines. By weighting the projected cost and emission
benefit numbers presented above by the populations, we also calculated
the aggregate cost per ton of NOX reduced for Category 3.
The net present value (NPV) of the costs and emissions reductions shown
here are discounted at a rate of 7 percent per year. For comparison,
estimates are also presented here for applying these standards to
foreign flagged vessels as well. These cost per ton estimates are
higher because only emission reductions within 175 nautical miles of
the U.S. coast are considered and foreign flagged vessels have less of
their operation near the U.S. than U.S. flagged vessels.
Table VI.D-1.--Cost Per Ton of the Marine Tier 2 Standards for NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPV benefits per NPV operating Engine & vessel Discounted cost
Model year grouping ship (short tons) costs per ship costs per ship per ton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Flagged Vessels Only (proposed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 5 1,149 $66,000 $115,000 $145
----------------------------------- --------------------
6+ ................... ................. 39,000 87
-----------------------------------
Foreign Flagged Vessels Only (for comparison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 5 45 $66,000 $57,000 $2,590
----------------------------------- =====================================
-----------------------------------
All Vessels (for comparison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 5 73 66,000 57,000 1,585
----------------------------------- =====================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs and reductions presented in the above table are based on
an 11,000 kW engine which, as discussed in Chapter 7 of the draft RSD,
we believe represents the average sized engine visiting U.S. ports. An
engine of this size would cost about $2.5 to 3.0 million. It would be
used in a vessel which would cost about $100 to $200 million to
construct. Therefore, the $180,000 cost estimate of engine improvements
represents about 0.1 percent of the total vessel cost. All costs are in
2002 dollars.
3. Comparison to Other Programs
In an effort to evaluate the cost per ton of the NOX
controls discussed above for Category 3 marine engines, we looked at
the cost per ton for other recent EPA mobile source rulemakings that
required reductions in NOX (or NMHC+NOX)
emissions. Our final standards for Category 1 and 2 marine engines
yielded a cost per ton of $24-$180 per ton of HC+NOX reduced
(in 1997 dollars). In contrast, the 2007 standards for highway heavy-
duty engines yielded a cost per ton of approximately $1600-$2100 per
ton of NMHC+NOX (in 1999 dollars). The rulemaking proposed
in this document has a low cost-per-ton value compared with other
mobile source programs. Chapter 7 presents additional cost-per-ton
estimates for comparison with the Draft Regulatory Support Document.
E. What Are the Estimated Health and Environmental Benefits for This
proposal?
In addition to the benefits of reducing ozone within and
transported into urban ozone nonattainment areas, the NOX
reductions from the new standards are expected to have beneficial
impacts with respect to crop damage from ozone reductions, secondary
particulate formation, acid deposition, eutrophication, visibility, and
the viability and diversity of species in forests. These effects are
described in more detail in Section II-B and in Chapter 2 of the Draft
Regulatory Support Document.
We are not able to quantify or monetize the benefits at this time
due to a lack of emissions inventories that would locate the emissions
in specific ports, lack of appropriate national air quality modeling
systems that can be used in marine settings, and lack of time to
develop such techniques. However, to the extent that U.S.-flag Category
3 marine vessels operate in a given port area, that area would benefit
from significantly reduced emissions.
F. What Would Be the Impacts of a Low Sulfur Fuel Requirement?
As discussed above in section IV, we are requesting comment on low
sulfur fuel requirements. This analysis looks at two approaches to
meeting a cap of 15,000 ppm S beginning in 2007. The first approach is
to use a low sulfur marine distillate oil which would likely be a blend
of residual fuel and distillate fuel. The second approach would be to
use number 2 diesel fuel (3000 ppm S) such as used in land-based
applications today. These two approaches provide a range of costs and
benefits that could be
[[Page 37587]]
achieved by requiring the use of low sulfur fuel. For the purpose of
this analysis, we only include the operation of ships within 175
nautical miles of the U.S. coast which is where we believe emissions
will have the most significant impact on U.S. air quality.
1. Cost and Economic Impacts
Many ships are already equipped to operate on either distillate or
residual fuel. Using any sort of distillate fuel for all operation near
the U.S. coast could result in additional hardware costs. These costs
would be for modifications to the fuel plumbing and storage associated
with longer periods of operation on distillate fuel. The cost of using
marine diesel oil would be about 60 percent higher than for the higher
sulfur residual fuel. The cost of the number 2 diesel would be about
twice the cost of operating on residual fuel. Table VI.F-1 presents the
discounted lifetime costs for either using 15,000 ppm S or 3,000 ppm S
fuel on all ships operating within 175 nautical miles of the U.S.
coast. Chapter 5 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document develops the
analysis of these cost estimates.
Table VI.F-1.--Estimated Average Per Engine Cost Increases for
Alternative Approaches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Increased
Fuel Used Hardware Costs Operating Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15,000 ppm S residual fuel......... $50,000 $139,000
3,000 ppm S distillate fuel........ 50,000 273,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Environmental impacts
For the 1.5 percent sulfur residual fuel scenario, our estimates of
SOX and PM reductions are based strictly on the reduction of
sulfur in the fuel from 27,000 to 15,000 ppm. In this case by itself,
no NOX reductions are anticipated. Table VI.F-2 presents the
emission reductions due to using this low sulfur fuel for all operation
of U.S. and foreign vessels within 175 nautical miles of the U.S.
coast. However, as discussed in section IV.D, there are some issues
regarding how we might enforce such a fuel requirement for all
operation within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.
Table VI.F-2.--Projected Category 3 Emissions Inventories for Switching
to 15,000 ppm S Fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 2010 2020 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM:
Baseline case (thousand short tons) 17.1 26.0 36.7 54.2
Control case (thousand short tons) 17.1 21.3 30.1 44.5
Reduction (thousand short tons) ...... 4.7 6.6 9.7
Percent reduction from baseline ...... 18 18 18
SOX:
Baseline case (thousand short tons) 156.2 192.8 271.2 399.7
Control case (thousand short tons) 156.2 108.0 151.9 223.9
Reduction (thousand short tons) ...... 84.8 119.3 175.8
Percent reduction from baseline ...... 44 44 44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 3,000 ppm fuel case, our estimates of SOX
reductions are based on a reduction of sulfur in the fuel from 2.7 to
0.3 percent. Our estimates of PM reductions are based on changes in
several fuel components. We estimate that PM from a marine engine
operating on residual fuel is made up of 45 percent sulfate, 25 percent
carbon soot, 20 percent ash, and 10 percent soluble organic
hydrocarbons. Reducing sulfur in the fuel would reduce direct sulfate
PM by about 90 percent. In addition, if distillate fuel is used, the
ash content and the density of the fuel would be reduced. This analysis
results in a total per vessel PM reduction of 63 percent. Using
residual fuel can lead to NOX increases due to nitrogen in
the fuel. For this analysis we use a per vessel NOX
reduction of ten percent based on a reduction of nitrogen in the fuel.
Table VI.F-3 presents the potential SOX, PM, and
NOX reductions from using distillate fuel for all Category 3
vessel operations.
[[Page 37588]]
Table VI.E-3.--Projected Category 3 Emissions Inventories for Switching
to 3,000 ppm S Fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 2010 2020 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX:
Baseline case (Annex VI--thousand short 190.0 274.1 367.5 530.8
tons)
Control case (thousand short tons) 190.0 246.7 330.7 477.7
Reduction (thousand short tons) ...... 27.4 36.8 51.3
Percent reduction from Annex VI baseline ...... 10 10 10
PM:
Baseline case (thousand short tons) 17.1 26.0 36.7 54.2
Control case (thousand short tons) 17.1 9.6 13.6 20.1
Reduction (thousand short tons) ...... 16.4 23.1 34.1
Percent reduction from baseline ...... 63 63 63
SOX:
Baseline case (thousand short tons) 156.2 192.8 271.2 399.7
Control case (thousand short tons) 156.2 21.2 29.8 44.0
Reduction (thousand short tons) ...... 171.6 241.4 355.7
Percent reduction from baseline ...... 89 89 89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reductions of SOX and fine PM emissions from this
alternative both within port and transported into urban areas are
expected to have beneficial impacts with respect to PM-related cancer
and non-cancer health effects, acid deposition, eutrophication,
visibility. These effects are described in more detail in Section IIB
and in Chapter 2 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document.
We are not able to quantify or monetize the benefits at this time
due to a lack of emissions inventories that would locate the emissions
in specific ports, lack of appropriate national air quality modeling
systems that can be used in marine settings, and lack of time to
develop such techniques. Nevertheless, certain ports with high traffic
in U.S. flagged Category 3 marine vessels could experience significant
benefits from SOX and PM reductions.
3. Cost per ton
We estimated the cost per ton of both 15,000 ppm sulfur residual
fuel and 3,000 ppm sulfur distillate fuel. For this analysis, we
consider operation of all ships within 175 nautical miles of the U.S.
coast. In determining the cost per ton, we apportion the costs between
reductions in PM and SOX emissions.
One approach would be to apply all of the costs to PM and consider
the SOX reductions to come at no additional cost; however,
we recognize that there is benefit to reducing both PM and
SOX. Therefore, we apply 10 percent of the cost to
SOX reductions. If all the costs were applied to PM, the
estimated $/ton for PM control would be about 10 percent higher than
shown below. No costs are applied to NOX control, so a cost
per ton value is not presented. We request comment on this partition of
costs.
Table VI.F-4.--Cost Per Ton of a Low Sulfur Fuel Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPV of total lifetime NPV of tons reduced Discounted
Pollutant costs per ship per ship cost per ton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15,000 ppm sulfur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM......................................... $170,000 4.3 $38,000
SOX........................................ 19,000 61 302
--------------------------------------------
3,000 ppm sulfur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM......................................... $291,000 8.7 $33,000
SOX........................................ $32,000 121 262
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Other Approaches We Considered
A. Standards Considered
Earlier in this preamble we discuss two tiers of standards for new
Category 3 marine engines. The first tier is equivalent to the MARPOL
Annex VI NOX limits to which manufacturers have recently
begun designing their engines. The second tier is 30 percent below this
Tier 1 limit; we anticipate that this standard can be met relatively
soon using in-cylinder controls. This section discusses two other
approaches we considered when developing this proposal and presents our
analysis of the feasibility and impacts of setting such standards. We
considered alternative NOX emission standards 50 and 80
percent below Annex VI levels. Under either of these scenarios,
additional lead time beyond 2007 may be necessary; however, in this
discussion, we consider a 2007 implementation date for our analysis of
the alternative approaches so that a direct comparison can be made to
the Tier 2 standard under consideration. Our analysis of alternative
approaches applies equally to U.S. and foreign vessels. Also, if we
were to adopt either of these alternative standards, all the provisions
for certifying engines described in Section V would apply. However, as
described below, we believe it is not appropriate to set standards for
Category 3 marine engines based on these approaches at this time, due
to remaining technological and operational issues. However, we may
consider these approaches as the basis of new standards in the future.
1. NOX Level 50 Percent Below Tier 1
One alternative that we are considering is an emission level one-
half of the MARPOL limits. We believe reductions on this order could be
achieved by introducing water into the combustion process. Water can be
used in the combustion process to lower
[[Page 37589]]
maximum combustion temperature, and therefore lower NOX
formation, with an insignificant increase in fuel consumption. Water
has a high heat capacity, which allows it to absorb enough of the
energy in the cylinder to reduce peak combustion temperatures. Data
presented below and in Chapter 8 of the Draft Regulatory Support
Document suggest that a 30 to 80 percent NOX reduction can
be achieved depending on ratio of water to fuel and on the method of
introducing water into the combustion chamber. This data is primarily
based on developmental engines; however, given enough lead time, we
believe that introducing water into the combustion process may become
an effective emission control strategy.
Water may be introduced into the combustion process through
emulsification with the fuel, direct injection into the combustion
chamber, or saturating the intake air. Water emulsification refers to
mixing the fuel and water prior to injection. This strategy is limited
due to instability of suspending water in fuel. To increase the
effective stability, a system can be used that emulsifies the water
into the fuel just before injection. Another option is to stratify the
fuel and water through a single injector. The Draft Regulatory Support
Document presents data on these approaches showing a 30-40 percent
reduction in NOX with water fuel ratios ranging from 0.3 to
0.4.
More effective control of the water injection process can be
achieved through the use of an independent nozzle for water. Using a
separate injector nozzle for the water allows larger amounts of water
to be added to the combustion process because the water is injected
simultaneously with the fuel, and larger injection pumps and nozzles
can be used for the water injection. In addition, the fuel injection
timing and the amount of water injected can be better optimized. Data
presented in the Draft Regulatory Support Document show NOX
reductions of 40 to 70 percent with water-to-fuel ratios ranging from
0.5 to 0.9 if a separate nozzle is used for injecting water.
Other strategies for introducing water into the combustion process
are being developed that will allow much higher water to fuel ratios.
These strategies include combustion air humidification and steam
injection. With combustion air humidification, a water nozzle is placed
in the engine intake and an air heater is used to offset condensation.
With steam injection, waste heat is used to vaporize water which is
then injected into the combustion chamber during the compression
stroke. Data on initial testing, presented in the Draft Regulatory
Support Document, show NOX reductions of more than 80
percent with water to fuel ratios as high as 3.5.
Fresh water is necessary for any of these water-based
NOX-reduction strategies. Introducing salt water into the
engine could result in serious deterioration due to corrosion and
fouling. For this reason, a ship using water strategies would need to
either produce fresh water through the use of a desalination or
distillation system or store fresh water on board. Cruise ships may
already have a source of fresh water that could be used to enable this
technology. This water source is the ``gray'' water, such as drainage
from showers, which could be filtered for use in the engine. However,
the use of gray water would have to be tested on these engines, and
systems would have to be devised to ensure proper filtering. For
example, it would be necessary to ensure that no toxic wastes are
introduced into the gray waste-water stream. One manufacturer stated
that today's ships operating with direct water injection carry the
amount needed to operate the system between ports (two to four days).
Also, when and where a ship operates can have an effect on the
available water. A ship operating in cold weather uses all of the
available steam heated by the exhaust just to heat the fuel. Also, a
ship operating in an area with low humidity would not be able to
condense water out of the air using the jacket water aftercooler.
Depending on the amount of water necessary, other vessels that use
Category 3 marine engines may not be able to generate sufficient
amounts of gray water for this technology. These ships would have to
carry the water or be outfitted with new or larger distillation
systems. Both of these options would displace cargo space. Finally, it
should be noted that vessels that are currently equipped with water-
based NOX reduction technologies are four-stroke engines and
include fast ferries, cruise ships and cargo ships. The specific
vessels travel relatively short distances between stops and need a much
smaller volume of fresh water for a trip than would be required for
crossing an ocean. More information is needed regarding operation on
ocean-going vessels before this technology could be used as the basis
for a NOX emission standard. If the ships were only to use
this technology traveling from 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast to
port, less water storage capacity would be needed than if the ship used
this NOX reduction strategy at all times. However, ships
operating primarily within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast would
need to be able to carry a volume of water of about one-half the volume
of fuel they carry if they wish to keep the same refueling schedule.
Ships making long runs, such as from California to Alaska, would have
to be able to store enough water for that trip even if they make it
infrequently. Lastly, if this technology were applied to two-stroke
engines there may be lubricity concerns with the cylinder liner. One
manufacturer is developing a strategy to use DWI with EGR to minimize
water requirements on such engines.
Durability issues may be a concern with water emulsification or
injection systems. For onboard water emulsifying units, cavitation is
used to atomize the water and mix it into the fuel. Although this works
well at emulsifying the fuel, the water can cause significant wear of
the injection pump. For water injection systems, high pressure water is
injected similar to in a fuel injector. However, water does not have
the inherent lubrication properties found in fuel. Therefore, more
research may be necessary on more durable materials.
Another concern with the use of water in the combustion process is
the effect on PM emissions. The water in the cylinder reduces
NOX, which is formed at high temperatures, by reducing the
temperature in the cylinder during combustion. However, PM oxidation is
most efficient at high temperatures. At this time, we do not have
sufficient information on the effect of water emulsification and
injection strategies on PM emissions to quantify this effect. We
request information on the effect of using water in the combustion
process on PM emissions.
For these reasons we believe it is premature to set a standard
based on water-based technologies at this time. We request comment on
this approach.
2. NOX Level 80 Percent Below Tier 1
The other alternative we are considering for the Tier 2 standard is
an emission level 80 percent below the MARPOL limits. We believe
reductions of this order could be achieved through the use of selective
catalytic reduction. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is one of the
most effective means of reducing NOX from large diesel
engines. In SCR systems, a reducing agent, such as ammonia, is injected
into the exhaust and both are channeled through a catalyst where
NOX emissions are reduced. As discussed in the draft RSD,
SCR can be used to reduce NOX emissions by more than 90
percent at exhaust temperatures above 300[deg]C. These systems are
being successfully used for stationary source applications, which
operate under constant, high load
[[Page 37590]]
conditions. These systems are also being used in Category 3 engines
used on ferries and cruise ships where they operate largely at high
loads and over short distances so exhaust temperature and urea storage
are not primary issues.
Several issues exist before application of this technology to all
Category 3 engines can be deemed feasible. Issues include temperature
at low load for SCR effectiveness, use of low sulfur fuel for system
durability, space required for the SCR unit and urea storage,
availability of regular down time for repair, availability of urea at
ports, and application to slow-speed engines.
SCR systems available today are effective only over a narrow range
of exhaust temperatures (above 300[deg]C). To date, these systems have
primarily been applied to four-stroke medium speed engines which have
exhaust temperatures above 300[deg]C at least at high load. Two-stroke
slow speed engines have lower exhaust temperatures and are discussed
later. The effectiveness of the SCR system is decreased at reduced
temperatures exhibited during engine operation at partial loads. Most
of the engine operation in and near commercial ports and waterways
close to shore is likely to be at these partial loads. In fact, reduced
speed zones can be as large as 100 miles for some ports. Because of the
cubic relationship between ship speed and engine power required,
engines may operate at less than 25 percent power in a reduced speed
zone. During this low load operation, no NOX reduction would
be expected, therefore SCR would be less effective than the proposed
Tier 2 standards during low load operation near ports. Some additional
heat to the SCR unit can be gained by placing the reactor upstream of
the turbocharger; however, this temperature increase would not be large
at low loads and the volume of the reactor would diminish turbocharger
response when the engine changes load. The engine could be calibrated
to have higher exhaust temperatures; however this could affect
durability (depending on the fuel used) if this calibration also
increased temperatures at high loads. For an engine operating on
residual fuel, vanadium in the fuel can react with the valves at higher
temperatures and damage the valves.
SCR systems traditionally have required a significant amount of
space on a vessel; in some cases the SCR was as large as the engine
itself. However, at least one manufacturer is developing a compact
system which uses an oxidation catalyst upstream of the reactor to
convert some NO to NO2 thus reducing the reactor size
necessary. The reactor size is reduced because the NO2 can
be reduced without slowing the reduction of NO. Therefore, the
catalytic reaction is faster because NOX is being reduced
through two mechanisms. This compact SCR unit is designed to fit into
the space already used by the silencer in the exhaust system. If
designed correctly, this could also be used to allow the SCR unit to
operate effectively at somewhat lower exhaust temperatures. The
oxidation catalyst and engine calibration would need to be optimized to
convert NO to NO2 without significant conversion of S to
direct sulfate PM. NOX reductions of 85 to 95 percent have
been demonstrated with an extraordinary sound attenuation of 25 to 35
dB(A).\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Paro, D., ``Effective, Evolving, and Envisaged Emission
Control Technologies for Marine Propulsion Engines,'' presentation
from Wartsila to EPA on September 6, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information from one manufacturer who has 40 installations of SCR
reveals that the engines using the technology are either using low
sulfur residual fuel (0.5%-1% S) or distillate fuel. Low sulfur
residual fuel is available in areas which provide incentives for using
such fuel, including the Baltic Sea, however such fuel is not yet
available at ports throughout the United States. However, distillate
fuel is available. Low sulfur fuel is necessary to assure the
durability of the SCR system because sulfur can become trapped in the
active catalyst sites and reduce the effectiveness of the catalyst.
This is known as sulfur poisoning which can require additional
maintenance of the system. The operation characteristics of ocean going
vessels may interfere with correct maintenance of the SCR system.
Ferries which have incorporated this technology to date do not run
continuously and therefore any maintenance necessary can be performed
during regular down times. The availability of time for repair can be
an issue for ocean going vessels for they do not have regular down
times.
Sulfur in fuel is also a concern with an oxidation catalyst
because, under the right conditions, sulfur can also be oxidized to
form direct sulfate PM. At higher temperatures, up to 20 percent of the
sulfur could be converted to direct sulfate PM in an oxidation catalyst
compared to about a 2 percent conversion rate for a typical diesel
engine without aftertreatment. Depending on the precious metals used in
the SCR unit, it could be possible to convert some sulfur to direct
sulfate PM in the reactor as well. Manufacturers would have to design
their exhaust system (and engine calibration) such that temperatures
would be high enough to have good conversion of NO, but low enough to
minimize conversion of S to direct sulfate PM. Direct sulfate PM
emissions could be reduced by using lower sulfur fuel such as
distillate.
A vessel using a SCR system would also require an additional tank
to store ammonia (or urea to form ammonia). This storage tank would be
sized based on the vessel use, but could be large for a vessel that
travels long distances in U.S. waters between refueling such as between
California and Alaska. The urea consumption results in increased
operating costs. Also, if lower sulfur diesel fuel were required to
ensure the durability of the SCR system or to minimize direct sulfate
PM emissions, this lower sulfur fuel would increase operating costs.
For SCR to be effective, an infrastructure would be necessary to ensure
that ships could refuel at ports they visit. We believe that it would
take some time to set up a system for getting fuel to ships that fill
up using barges, especially if the standard were only to apply to U.S.
flagged ships due to the low production volume. In addition, a ship
that operates outside the U.S. for several months (or years) would have
to ensure that it has urea available for any visits to U.S. ports.
Because SCR units are so easily adjustable, ship operators may
choose to turn off the SCR unit when not operating near the U.S. coast.
If they were to use this approach, they would need to construct a
bypass in the exhaust to prevent deterioration of the SCR unit when not
in use. To ensure that the SCR system is operating properly within 175
nautical miles of the U.S. coast, we would need to consider continuous
monitoring of NOX emissions for engines using SCR.
Discussions of equipment and procedures for continuous monitoring are
currently under discussion by IMO in the context of Annex VI.
If the combustion is not carefully controlled, some of the ammonia
can pass through the combustion process and be emitted as a pollutant.
This is less of an issue for Category 3 marine engines, which generally
operate under steady-state conditions, than for other mobile-source
applications. In addition, in ships where banks of engines are used to
drive power generators, such as cruise ships, the engines generally
operate under steady-state conditions near full load. If ammonia slip
still occurred, an oxidation could be used downstream of the reactor to
burn off the excess ammonia.
Slow-speed marine engines generally have even lower exhaust
temperatures than medium speed engines due to their
[[Page 37591]]
two-stroke design. However, we are aware of four slow-speed Category 3
marine engines that have been successfully equipped with SCR units.
Because of the low exhaust temperatures, the SCR unit is placed
upstream of the turbocharger to expose the catalyst to the maximum
exhaust heat. Also, the catalyst design required to operate at low
temperatures is very sensitive to sulfur. Especially at the lower
loads, the catalyst is easily poisoned by ammonium sulfate that forms
due to the sulfur in the fuel. To minimize this poisoning on these four
in-service engines, highway diesel fuel (0.05% S) is required. In
addition, these ships only operate with the exhaust routed through the
SCR unit when they enter port in the U.S. which is about 12 hours of
operation every 2 months. Therefore, the sulfur loading on the catalyst
is much lower than it would be for a vessel that continuously used the
SCR system. To prevent damage to the catalyst due to water
condensation, this system needs to be warmed up and cooled down
gradually using external heating. Another issue associated with the
larger slow-speed engines and lower exhaust temperatures is that a much
larger SCR system would be necessary than for a vessel using a smaller
medium-speed engine. Size is an issue because of the limited space on
most ships.
We believe that more time is necessary to resolve the issues
discussed above for the application of SCR to Category 3 marine
engines. Therefore, we are not proposing to set a standard at this time
that would require the use of a SCR system. However, given enough lead
time, we believe that manufacturers will be able to refine their
designs for efficiency, compactness, and cost. Therefore, we believe
that SCR may be available for widespread application with Category 3
marine engines in the future, and we intend to consider this technology
if or when we propose additional standards in the future. We are also
including this technology in our Blue Cruise program because of the
potential large NOX reductions and because this technology
may be an attractive NOX control strategy for cruise ship
which use banks of engines generally operating at high load. Because
cruise ships make frequent stops on regular routes, they should be able
to coordinate a workable urea supply strategy. We request comment on
using SCR technology on ocean-going vessels and on setting voluntary
standards based on SCR technology.
A second approach for meeting an 80 percent reduction in
NOX emissions would be to use fuel cells to power the vessel
in place of an internal combustion engine. A fuel cell is like a
battery except where batteries store electricity, a fuel cell generates
electricity. The electro-chemical reaction taking place between two
gases, hydrogen and oxygen generate the electricity from the fuel cell.
The key to the energy generated in a fuel cell is that the hydrogen-
oxygen reaction can be intercepted to capture small amounts of
electricity. The byproduct of this reaction is the formation of water.
Current challenges include the storage or formation of hydrogen for use
in the fuel cell and cost of the catalyst used within the fuel cell.
Over the past 5 years several efforts to apply fuel cells to marine
applications have been conducted. These include grants from the Office
of Naval Research and the U.S. Navy. The Office of Naval Research
initiated a three-phase advanced development program to evaluate fuel
cell technology for ship service power requirements for surface
combatants in 1997. In early 2000, the U.S. Navy sponsored an effort to
continue the development of the molten carbonate fuel cell for marine
use. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers released the
technical report ``An Evaluation of Fuel Cells for Commercial Ship
Applications.'' The report examines fuel cells for application in
commercial ships of all types for electricity generation for ship
services and for propulsion.
Fuel cell research is currently supported by several sources,
including the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the state of
California's Fuel Cell Partnership. MARAD's Division of Advanced
Technology has also included the topic of fuel cells as a low air
emission technology that should be demonstrated. California's Fuel Cell
Partnership seeks to achieve four main goals which include (1)
Demonstrate vehicle technology by operating and testing the vehicles
under real-world conditions in California; (2) Demonstrate the
viability of alternative fuel infrastructure technology, including
hydrogen and methanol stations; (3) Explore the path to
commercialization, from identifying potential problems to developing
solutions; and (4) Increase public awareness and enhance opinion about
fuel cell electric vehicles, preparing the market for
commercialization.
At this time, we consider fuel cell technology still be in the
early stages of development. We recognize that a mature fuel cell
system could have significant environmental benefits and we will
consider this technology in the future. We request comment on the
feasibility of using fuel cells for power on marine vessels.
B. Potential Impacts of the Regulatory Alternatives
1. Costs
The following analysis presents estimated cost increases for
Category 3 marine engines and vessels that would be associated with the
alternative standards (see Table VII.B-1). This cost analysis follows
the same methodology outlined above (VI.B) and described in more detail
in the Draft Regulatory Support Document. For the 50 percent below Tier
1 case, hardware costs include water injectors, plumbing, and water
storage. Operating costs include water and a small fuel oil consumption
penalty. For the 80 percent below Tier 1 case, hardware costs include
the cost of the SCR unit and operating costs include the cost of the
urea. In the analysis of these two scenarios, we only include the
operation of ships where we believe emissions will have the most
significant impact on U.S. air quality. The entire increased production
cost is therefore included, but the increased operating costs are only
considered for operation within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.
These costs are based on year 1 (no learning curve adjustment) and are
discounted at a rate of seven percent to present the net present value.
Table VII.B-1 presents our cost estimates for applying the
standards to U.S. flagged vessels only and for applying the standards
to all vessels operating within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.
When applying the costs to all vessels, the production costs decrease
because the development costs are spread among more engines; operating
costs decrease because the average vessel spends less time operating
near the U.S. coast than the average U.S. flagged vessel. For water
injection, the operating costs include the effective cost of the water.
For SCR, the operating costs include urea consumption as well as ship
operation on 0.05 percent sulfur fuel. These costs are for an average
sized Category 3 marine engine which would cost about 2.5 to 3.0
million dollars. For the 50 percent below Tier 1 case, the increased
production costs range from 3 to 6 percent of the cost of the engine.
For the 80 percent below Tier 1 case, the increased production costs
range from 20 to 25 percent of the cost of the engine.
[[Page 37592]]
Table VII.B-1.--Estimated Average Cost Increase Per Ship for Alternative NOX Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased production costs Increased operating costs
Alternative standard per ship (thousand $) per ship (thousand $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Flagged Vessels Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% below Tier 1................................... $207 $527
80% below Tier 1................................... 1,014 9,542
----------------------------------------------------
Foreign Flagged Vessels Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% below Tier 1................................... 137 84
80% below Tier 1................................... 972 410
----------------------------------------------------
All Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% below Tier 1................................... 137 95
80% below Tier 1................................... 972 629
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Reductions
We use the same methodology to model emissions inventories for the
alternative approaches as we used for the proposed Tier 2 standards.
This is outlined earlier in the preamble (VI.B) and described in more
detail in the Draft Regulatory Support Document. Table VII.B-2 presents
our estimates of Category 3 vessel emission reductions possible through
the alternative standards applied only to U.S. flagged vessels. Table
VII.B-3 presents our estimates of Category 3 vessel emission reductions
possible through the alternative standards applied to all Category 3
vessels. As for the cost analysis, we only include operation within 175
nautical miles of the U.S. coast, so only the emission reductions in
that area are presented below.
Table VII.B-2.--Projected Category 3 NOX Reductions for Alternative
Approaches Applied to U.S. Flagged Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 2010 2020 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1
Control case (thousand short tons).. 190.0 274.1 367.5 530.8
50% below Tier 1:
Control case (thousand short 190.0 265.6 326.8 439.1
tons)..........................
Percent reduction from Tier 1... ....... 3.1 11.1 17.3
80% below Tier 1:
Control case (thousand short 190.0 260.4 301.9 382.9
tons)..........................
Percent reduction from Tier 1... ....... 5.0 17.8 27.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VII.B-3.--Projected Category 3 NOX Reductions for Alternative
Approaches Applied to All Vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 2010 2020 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1
Control case (thousand short tons).. 190.0 274.1 367.5 530.8
50% below Tier 1:
Control case (thousand short 190.0 260.7 276.9 311.2
tons)..........................
Percent reduction from Tier 1... ....... 4.9 24.7 41.4
80% below Tier 1:
Control case (thousand short 190.0 252.5 221.4 176.7
tons)..........................
Percent reduction from Tier 1... ....... 7.9 39.8 66.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Cost per ton
To determine the cost per ton of NOX reduction of the
Tier 2 emission standards described in this notice, we considered only
benefits beyond those achieved by the Tier 1 standards (equivalent to
the Annex VI standards). Although the Annex VI standards are not yet
effective, manufacturers around the world are generally producing
compliant engines and we expect this to continue. Thus, we are using
the proposed Tier 1 standards as the baseline, and showing the benefits
of the Tier 2 standards under consideration relative to this baseline.
Table VII.B-4 presents the cost per ton of the alternative standards
using the same methodology discussed for the potential Tier 2 standards
above. For this analysis, we considered all costs incurred and emission
reductions achieved within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast. The
cost estimates presented here do not include future reductions in cost
due to the learning curve. Both costs and benefits are discounted at a
rate of seven percent.
In addition, this analysis presents estimates both for applying the
alternative standards just to U.S. flagged and for applying the
alternative NOX standards to all vessels operating in U.S.
waters. By including foreign flagged vessels under these alternative
approaches, the cost per engine decreases because the development costs
can be distributed across more engines. However, the cost per ton
actually increases because U.S. flagged
[[Page 37593]]
vessels spend about 16 times more of their operating time within 175
nautical miles of the U.S. coast than foreign flagged vessels.
Therefore, the tons of NOX reduced per year in U.S. waters
for an average foreign flagged vessel (which make up about 97 percent
of the vessels) are lower. Operating costs included in this analysis
would still be proportional to the amount of time the ship operates
within 175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.
Table VII.B-4.--Cost Per Ton of the Alternative NOX Control Approaches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPV of
total
lifetime NPV of Discounted
Approach costs NOX tons cost per
(thousand reduced ton
$) per per ship
ship
----------------------------------------------------------------
US Flagged Vessels Only
-----------------------------------------------------------------
50% below Tier 1............... $734 1,915 $370
80% below Tier 1............... 10,557 3,064 3,405
--------------------------------
Foreign Flagged Vessels Only
-----------------------------------------------------------------
50% below Tier 1............... 220 75 2,737
80% below Tier 1............... 1,381 119 10,607
--------------------------------
All Vessels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
50% below Tier 1............... 232 122 1,768
80% below Tier 1............... 1,601 195 7,618
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary
We considered two alternative approaches to a Tier 2 NOX
standard, namely a 50 or 80 percent reduction below Tier 1.
For a 50-percent reduction, we considered water injection with 0.5
water to fuel ratio. At the present time, the cost per ton for the
water injection system ranges from $370 to $1,768 depending on if it
applies to U.S. flagged vessels only or all vessels operating within
175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast. This analysis does not consider
the lost space on a vessel due to water storage, nor does it consider
the alternative of adding water distillation boilers which would add
cost to the vessel, require space, and require additional fuel
consumption. Water storage would either displace fuel storage and
reduce the range of the vessel or reduce cargo space which would affect
the money generated per cruise. In addition, more information is
necessary on the effects of this technology on PM emissions. Because
the water reduces the temperature in the combustion chamber, we are
concerned that this could result in an increase in PM. Although this
technology may be more attractive in the future, we are not focused on
considering standards at this level at this time due to the water
storage issues as well as the development time of advances in this
technology to address lubricity concerns in the cylinder liners of two-
stroke engines.
For the 80 percent NOX reduction case, we considered the
use of selective catalytic reduction with a urea consumption rate of
about 8 percent of the fuel consumption rate. Our estimated cost per
ton for this approach ranges from $3,405 to $7,618 depending on if it
applies to U.S. flagged vessels only or all vessels operating within
175 nautical miles of the U.S. coast. This is considerably higher than
the cost per ton figures for the recent mobile source programs
presented in Chapter 7 of the Draft RSD. The cost per ton estimate for
the use of SCR includes the cost of using lower sulfur fuel which we
believe would be necessary for the durability of the system and to
prevent increases in direct sulfate PM. In the future, however,
technological advances increase the effectiveness of these units at
lower temperatures and may reduce the cost of this system.
For SCR to be effective, an infrastructure would be necessary to
ensure that ships could refuel at ports they visit. We believe that it
would take some time to set up a system for getting fuel to ships that
fill up using barges, especially if the standard were only to apply to
U.S. flagged ships due to the low production volume. SCR would require
space for urea storage, but it would likely be much less than that for
water storage in the above approach because the volume of urea needed
is only 5-10 percent of the volume of water needed for the water
injection case considered above. In addition, at least one manufacturer
is developing a compact SCR unit that will minimize the space needed
for this system. We also believe that there are technical issues that
need to be resolved such as effectiveness at low loads and the effect
of the catalyst in the exhaust on direct sulfate PM emissions. As with
water injection, we believe SCR may be appropriate for certain
applications, but also believe that the remaining technology
development and system cost prevent us from expecting manufacturers to
apply SCR to all Category 3 marine engines at this time. We are
therefore proposing to designate 80-percent reductions as a target for
recognition as voluntary low-emission engines, rather than considering
mandatory standards based on this technology.
D. Speed-based vs. Displacement-based Emission Standards
Annex VI specifies the NOX emission standard as a
function of engine speed. The shape of this curve was established with
a mathematical relationship based on available emission data showing
uncontrolled NOX emission rates as a function of maximum
engine speed. The numerical level of the standard was set based on a
fixed percentage reduction relative to uncontrolled emission levels.
The shape of the curve generally allows for higher emissions from
larger engines, which tend to operate at slower speeds. On the other
hand, a given percentage reduction for all engine sizes yields greater
brake-specific emission reductions from larger engines, with greater
percentage reductions flattening the curve.
This speed-based approach to setting standards has several
advantages. It reflects the inherent tendency of larger (and slower-
speed) engines to have higher NOX-formation rates. It
correspondingly reflects the challenges facing the design engineer to
apply technology to reduce emissions. While maximum engine speeds can
vary somewhat for a given engine, this parameter provides an effective
correlation to an engine's emissions behavior. This is borne out by the
emission data showing the trend of emissions as a function of engine
speed on which the Annex VI NOX curve is based. Also,
defining the emission standard as a formula instead of setting
different standards for discrete ranges prevents any complications
related to step changes in the standard at any particular engine speed.
While we believe it is appropriate for the emission standards to be
consistent with the Annex VI formula, this approach raises two issues
that may become significant in the future. First, maximum engine speed
is a design variable that can be set by the manufacturer based on an
engine's particular application or a shipowner's preference. Under the
speed-based formula, a manufacturer selling two otherwise identical
engines may install them in different vessels that call for differing
engine-speed ratings, which would allow the manufacturer to produce the
engines to operate at different emission levels. For a given engine,
it's not clear that emission standards should allow a higher emission
level for engine installations
[[Page 37594]]
that call for a lower speed rating. Table VII.D-1 shows the effect of
speed rating on the applicable emission standard for selected engine
models that are currently available. For some engines, varying engine
speed causes a difference in the NOX standard of over 0.5 g/
kW-hr.
Table VII.D-1.--Effect of Engine Speed on Emission Standards for Selected Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed 1 Standard 1 Speed 2 Standard 2 Difference Percent
Engine (rpm) (g/kW-hr) (rpm) (g/kW-hr) (g/kW-hr) increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. 111 /1/ 17.0 148 16.6 0.4 2.6
2................................. 132 16.9 176 16.0 0.9 5.9
3................................. 212 15.4 250 14.9 0.5 3.4
4................................. 330 14.1 360 13.9 0.2 1.8
5................................. 720 12.1 1000 11.3 0.8 6.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NOX formula would allow for emissions up to 17.5 g/kW-hr for an engine speed of 111 rpm, but Annex VI
caps the NOX standard at 17 g/kW-hr for engines with rated speed below 130 rpm.
The second concern with a speed-based emission standard is that
future emission-control technologies may allow for more effective
control of NOX emissions at slow engine speeds. This would
allow for a ``flatter'' NOX curve, or even a single
NOX standard that would apply for all Category 3 engines,
regardless of speed rating. It would not be appropriate to allow for
higher emissions on low-speed engines if an emission-control technology
enables a flatter relationship between NOX emissions and
engine speed. This will become especially important if or when there is
a need to adopt PM emission standards, since PM emissions are unlikely
to follow the same relationship to engine speed as NOX
emissions.
The alternative approach to defining emission standards would be to
follow the approach in EPA's December 1999 rulemaking for Category 1
and Category 2 marine engines. Defining emission standards based on an
engine's specific displacement (in liters per cylinder) would provide a
clear and discrete emission standard for each engine. Table VII.D-2
shows a variety of typical engine sizes and engine-speed values
correlated with the Tier 2 NOX standards discussed in
section IV.A.3 that would apply to each engine. A straightforward
regression of specific displacement values and the Tier 2
NOX levels shows a good correlation using the following
simple formula:
NOX = 0.0047 x (L/cyl) + 9.9
The calculated value using this formula is within 0.1 g/kW-hr
across the range of engines shown in Table IV.D-2. Most two-stroke
engines operate at less than 130 rpm and are therefore subject to the
capped standard that doesn't vary with engine speed. The table
therefore includes no two-stroke engines. Many of these slow-speed
engines, however, have specific displacements between 100 and 300 L/
cyl. To implement a displacement-based standard that parallels the
Annex VI approach, we would need to apply a cap of 13.3 g/kW-hr on the
Tier 2 emission standards under consideration for two-stroke (or slow-
speed) engines over 700 L/cyl, while using the above equation to define
the emission standard for smaller engines. On the other hand, it may be
more appropriate to adopt standards reflecting the relative power
output of the slow-speed engines. Slow-speed engines generally produce
about half as much power as medium-speed engines for a given
displacement, so we could set comparable standards by using the
displacement-based formula above, but dividing the displacement term by
two for slow-speed engines. This would take into account the lower
specific power from slow-speed engines, resulting in comparable
standards for competing engines with similar total power output.
Table VII.D.-2 Values Related to Displacement-Based Standards \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2
Per-cylinder standard
Engine model Engine speed displacement Tier 2 using
(rpm) (L) standard displacement
formula
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Niigata 34HX.................................... 600 41 10.2 10.1
MAN B&W L48/60.................................. 514 109 10.4 10.4
MAN B&W PC4.2B.................................. 430 168 10.8 10.7
W[auml]rtsil[auml] 64........................... 400 225 10.9 11.0
W[auml]rtsil[auml] 64 (longer stroke)........... 330 290 11.3 11.3
130 \2\ 700 13.3 \2\ 13.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Diesel and Gas Turbine Worldwide Catalog, 2001.
\2\ Extrapolation.
The near-term adoption of emission standards equivalent to the
Annex VI standards would not allow for restructuring emission standards
based on displacement. It is also not clear that the advantages of
displacement-based standards would warrant departing from the approach
established internationally in the near term. We request comment on the
appropriateness of adopting a displacement-based NOX
standard. We also request comment regarding the above formula and table
of values and their use in establishing Tier 2 NOX
standards. We specifically request comment on whether the projected
Tier 2 emission-control technologies would be expected to follow the
trends implicit in the Annex VI formula. Finally, we request comment on
the appropriateness of basing emission standards for two-stroke engines
on engine speed (with standards set at the maximum value) or whether
they should be expected to achieve the same degree of emission control
as counterpart four-stroke engines with comparable power ratings.
[[Page 37595]]
VIII. The Blue Cruise Program
A. What Is the Blue Cruise Program?
As noted in previous sections, fleet turnover for marine vessels
that use Category 3 marine diesel engines is very slow. The average
life of these vessels is as high as 29 years, and many are scrapped
only when their hulls can no longer be repaired. One consequence of the
long lives of these vessels is that the full impact of an engine
emission control program may not occur until well into the future.
To address this issue, and to create a mechanism to encourage
purchasers of new ships to use advanced technology emission controls,
we are proposing to develop a Blue Cruise program. This would be a
voluntary program to encourage ship owners and operators to reduce
their air and waste emissions and in so doing reduce the adverse
impacts of their vessels on the environment. Basically, participant
ship owners would be awarded a number of stars based on the types of
air and waste emission control programs they adopt. These technologies
and/or systems would be different depending on whether it is a new or
existing vessel. The stars can be used by the participants on
advertising materials, and even on the ship itself, to educate
consumers and encourage them to choose their vessel for their
transportation needs. Although the program is perhaps best suited to
cruise ships, parts of the program could be extended to other types of
ships as well. These stars would be issued to an individual ship, not
an entire fleet.
The Blue Cruise program would be a cross-media program. This means
that it would include the air and waste emissions of a vessel,
including both solid and liquid waste. By choosing one option from each
of the three categories, air, liquid waste, and solid waste,
participants would reduce their overall impact on the marine
environment.
The program described below is focused on cruise ships. This is
because their emissions on a per vessel basis can be very high, both in
terms of engines used to generate power for passenger comfort and
entertainment and in terms of waste streams, including gray and black
water and solid waste. According to Bluewater Network, a typical cruise
ships generates as much as 210,000 gallons of sewage and 1,000,000
gallons of graywater, 130 gallons of hazardous wastes, and 8 tons of
garbage during a one-week voyage.\57\ Disposal of these wastes is
controversial, and a report issued by the General Accounting Office in
2000 indicates that in the six-year period between 1993 and 1998,
``cruise ships were responsible for 87 confirmed illegal discharge
cases in U.S. waters.'' \58\ In August 2000, the Bluewater Network sent
an addendum to that petition, requesting EPA to also examine air
pollution from cruise ships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See Bluewater Network's Petition to EPA to Address Cruise
Ship Pollution, March 17, 2000. A copy of this document can be found
in Docket A-20011-11, Document No. II-B-02. The August 2, 2000
Addendum to this Petition, regarding air emissions from cruise
ships, can be found at A-20011-11, Document No. II-B-03.
\58\ Marine Pollution: Progress Made to Reduce Marine Pollution
by Cruise Ships, but Important Issues Remain. February 2000, GAO/
RCED-00-48. A copy of this report can be found in Docket A-2001-11,
Document No. II-A-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, cruise ship owners have taken steps to manage
their waste streams more carefully. In June, 2001, the members of the
International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL), whose members include the
major cruise lines that visit U.S. ports, adopted mandatory
environmental standards that are to be integrated into each members's
internationally mandated Safety Management Systems.\59\ These standards
address the waste streams noted in the Bluewater Network petition. In
addition, ICCL has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with
State of Florida regarding waste management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ ICCL Industry Standard E-01-01 (Revision 1), Cruise
Industry Waste Management Practices and Procedures (see http://www.iccl.org/policies/environmentalstandards.pdf). A copy of this
document can be found in Docket A-2001-11, Document No. II-A-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Blue Cruise Program would expand on these recent pollution
reduction activities by encouraging and rewarding cruise ship owners
who take addition steps to reduce emissions and/or ensure that
pollution reduction practices and measures are adhered to. While the
focus in this discussion is on cruise ships, we request comment on
whether this program should also apply to cargo and other commercial
vessels and, if so, if the point system should be different for those
vessels.
B. How Would the Program Work?
The Blue Cruise Program would have two components. The first
component consists of making a commitment to reduce emissions through
the application of technologies and/or systems that would reduce air
pollution, water discharges, and waste streams. The second step
involves ensuring that the equipment and/or systems that a ship owner
agreed to apply are operating and being maintained correctly.
It should be noted that, due to the complexity of the program
associated with its cross-media nature, the discussion of the Blue
Cruise program in this section is not meant to be a comprehensive.
Instead, it is a brief description of the overall concept that is meant
to stimulate discussion of the value of such a program and the
provisions it should include. We will continue to develop this program,
soliciting comments from interested parties, as we prepare our final
rule.
1. A Commitment To Reduce Emissions
To participate in the Blue Cruise program, a ship owner would need
to take steps to reduce air emissions, water discharges, and waste
streams from the vessel. For air pollution, this could involve
installing new emission control devices on the ship's engine. For
liquid waste pollution, this could involve applying new water treatment
technology. For solid waste, this could involve developing systems to
reduce, reuse, and recycle solid waste, as evidenced by joining EPA's
WasteWise Program.\60\ The exact choice of technologies and systems, of
course, would depend on the technologies that are already in use on the
vessel and the level of investment the ship owner desires to make. They
key requirement is that the ship owner take steps to reduce three kinds
of emissions: air, water, and solid waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ WasteWise is a free, voluntary partnership program that
helps organizations reduce their solid waste streams. The program
provides technical assistance, networking, and recognition for
successful waste reduction. Members are required to assess their
waste streams, identify and submit waste reduction goals, and
measure and report progress annually. More information about the
WasteWise program can be found at the Office of Solid Waste website
www.epa.gov/wastewise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first step toward obtaining Blue Cruise status would be to sign
up to the program. Similarly to the WasteWise program, a participant
would assess the ship's air and waste streams and current state of
pollution reduction technology; identify and submit goals, including
obtaining and using new technologies and/or procedures; and measure and
report progress. Successful participants would be awarded a number of
stars, with five stars being the maximum number of stars awarded, which
could be used to inform consumers and the world at large that they are
taking steps to reduce emission beyond what is legally required. Once a
participant signs up for the program, the actions agreed to become
mandatory. In other words, while opting into the program is voluntary,
compliance with the provisions once they are opted into is not.
We are proposing to develop a matrix of options that can be used by
ship
[[Page 37596]]
owners to make their emission control decisions. An example of a matrix
is shown in Table VIII.B-1. In general, each option would be assigned a
number of points, and stars would be given out depending on the number
of points across all categories. A ship owner will be required to take
action in each category, however.
Table VIII.B-1.--Draft Blue Cruise Program Options Matrix
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Action Pts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air.................................... Use low sulfur fuel while
within 200 miles of U.S.
coast (out 320 nautical
miles).
Use shore-side power for
hotelling.
Retrofit emission control
devices when existing
ships go in for
refurbishing--Tier 1
technologies.
Retrofit emission control
devices when existing
ships go in for
refurbishing--additional
engine-based controls.
Retrofit emission control
devices when existing
ships go in for
refurbishing--Tier 1 and
2 technologies.
Use engines that meet
Voluntary Low Emission
Standards for new builds.
Other.....................
Water.................................. Implement education
programs for passengers
on waste minimization.
Use biodegradable and bio-
enzymatic cleaning
supplies, non-phosphate
soaps, and materials
(e.g., toiletries
supplied to passengers,
salon chemicals, photo
processing chemicals,
etc.).
Ensure that all sinks,
showers, toilets, hoses,
etc. are low flow.
Ensure that only shower,
galley, and stateroom
sink wastes enter the
gray water system.
Install gray water
treatment systems that
allow gray water to be
used aboard the vessel
for nonhuman consumption
purposes.
At a minimum meet the
Alaska Standards for Gray
and Black Water
Discharges and
incorporate this program
into the ship
Environmental Management
System plan.
Other.....................
Solid.................................. Recycle materials shore
Waste.................................. side (possibly set up a
closed loop, where vessel
waste is recycled and
sold to the vessel as new
products).
Sign on to MOU with the
States new approach to
tracking RCRA waste and
implement.
Participate in WasteWise..
Other.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on all aspects of this program, and especially
on this approach to awarding stars under the program and the contents
of the options table and point system. We also request comment on
whether points should be weighted and, if so, how. For example, more
weight could be assigned to air emissions for cruise ships since they
are currently taking steps to reduce their waste emissions pursuant to
the Cruise Industry Waste Management Practices and Procedures. Finally,
we request comment on whether EPA should manage this program or whether
it can be run by an independent organization.
2. Verification
For the Blue Cruise program to be meaningful, it will be necessary
to ensure that not only ship owners install emission control
technologies and equipment, but also that they are operated and
maintained correctly. There are at least two ways to do this: self
certification and third party verification.
With a self-certification system, a ship owner would certify to EPA
annually that the emission control technologies and systems described
in the application are functional and are being operated and maintained
correctly. If a ship owner is unable to make this certification, then
that ship's stars would be taken away and the ship would be
disqualified from the program until ship can be brought back into
compliance.
With a third party verification program, an outside entity would
ensure that the emission control technologies and systems are
functional and are being operated and maintained correctly. This
approach may be necessary, at least at the beginning of the program,
until the industry gains experience with the program. A model for third
party verification could be the Coast Guard procedures put in place to
conduct waste management inspections on board cruise vessels.
We request comment on these verification approaches, particularly
on how a third party verification program can work.
IX. Public Participation
We request comment on all aspects of this proposal. This section
describes how you can participate in this process.
A. How Do I Submit Comments?
We are opening a formal comment period by publishing this document.
We will accept comments during the period indicated under DATES above.
If you have an interest in the proposed emission control program
described in this document, we encourage you to comment on any aspect
of this rulemaking. We also request comment on specific topics
identified throughout this proposal.
Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and
detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. If you disagree with
parts of the proposed program, we encourage you to suggest and analyze
alternate approaches that meet the air quality goals described in this
proposal. You should send all comments, except those containing
proprietary information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES) before the
end of the comment period.
If you submit proprietary information for our consideration, you
should clearly separate it from other comments by labeling it
``Confidential Business Information.'' You should also send it directly
to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
instead of to the public docket. This will help ensure that no one
inadvertently places proprietary information in the docket. If you want
us to use your confidential information as part of the basis for the
final rule, you should send a nonconfidential version of the document
summarizing the key data or information. We will disclose information
covered by a claim of confidentiality only through the application of
procedures described in 40 CFR part 2. If you don't identify
information as confidential when we receive it, we may make it
available to the public without notifying you.
B. Will There Be a Public Hearing?
We will hold a public hearing on June 13, 2002 at the Hyatt Regency
Long Beach, 200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach, California, phone (562)
491-1234. The hearing will start at 9:30 am and continue until everyone
has had a chance to speak.
[[Page 37597]]
If you would like to present testimony at the public hearing, we
ask that you notify the contact person listed above at least ten days
before the hearing. You should estimate the time you will need for your
presentation and identify any needed audio/visual equipment. We suggest
that you bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA
panel and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy
of your statement or other materials before the hearing.
We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based
on the notifications we receive. This schedule will be available on the
morning of the hearing. In addition, we will reserve a block of time
for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony.
We will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of
evidence won't apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the
hearing and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 days to
allow you to submit supplementary information. You may make
arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court
reporter.
X. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis (Executive Order
12866)
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
[sbull] 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;
[sbull] Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
[sbull] Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
[sbull] Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
EPA has determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 because it raises
novel legal or policy issues due to the international nature of the use
of Category 3 marine diesel engines and is therefore subject to OMB
review. The Agency believes that this proposed regulation would result
in none of the economic effects set forth in Section 1 of the Order. A
Draft Regulatory Support Document has been prepared and is available in
the docket for this rulemaking and at the internet address listed under
ADDRESSES above. Written comments from OMB and responses from EPA to
OMB are in the public docket for this rulemaking.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meet
the definition for business based on SBA size standards; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. The following table X.B-1 provides an overview
of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected by
this regulation.
Table X.B-1.--Primary SBA Small Business Categories Potentially Affected
by This Proposed Regulation Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS\a\ Defined by SBA as a
Industry codes small business if: \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal combustion engines..... 333618 <1000 employees
Ship building................... 336611 <1000 employees
Water transportation, freight 483 <500 employees
and passenger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
\a\ North American Industry Classification System
\b\ According to SBA's regulations (13 CFR 121), businesses with no more
than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are
considered ``small entities'' for purposes of a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Our review
of the list of manufacturers of Category 3 marine diesel engines
(marine diesel engines at or above 30 l/cyl) indicates that there are
no U.S. manufacturers of these engines that qualify as small
businesses. We are unaware of any foreign manufacturers of such engines
with a U.S.-based facility that would qualify as a small business. In
addition, the proposed rule will not impose significant economic
impacts on engine manufacturers. Engine manufacturers are already
achieving the proposed Tier 1 limits, and our program will impose only
negligible compliance costs. With regard to potential Tier 2 standards,
we estimate that engine-based requirements may increase the price of an
engine by about 9 percent and increase the price of a vessel by about
0.1 percent. Our review of the U.S. shipyards that build, or have
built, ships that use Category 3 marine diesel engines indicates that
there are no U.S. manufacturers of these ships that qualify as small
businesses. Ship operators would have to perform field testing to
periodically demonstrate the engine is performing within certified
parameters. The testing devices that would be needed to perform field
testing are expected to be incorporated in the engine system as
delivered by the manufacturer. Operation of these systems is not
expected to require significant crew resources since it can be done by
crew currently responsible
[[Page 37598]]
for testing other engine parameters as normally required onboard a
vessel to ensure efficient operation of the vessel. Ship operators
would also be required to maintain the engine as specified by the
engine manufacturer during the useful life of the engine. These costs
are not expected to be greater than the costs of maintaining
unregulated engines except to the extent that ship operators do not
currently maintain engines as specified by the engine manufacturer.
Maintenance costs are expected to be minimal given the overall costs of
maintaining all of the vessel's systems and structures.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR No. 1897.03) has been prepared by
EPA, and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW; Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may
also be downloaded from the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information being collected is to be used by EPA to ensure that
new marine vessels and fuel systems comply with applicable emissions
standards through certification requirements and various subsequent
compliance provisions.
The estimated annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is 281 hours per response, with
collection required annually. The estimated number of respondents is 6.
The total annual cost for the first 3 years of the program is estimated
to be $138,595 per year and includes no annualized capital costs,
$67,000 in operating and maintenance costs, at a total of 1,685 hours
per year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjusting the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are displayed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW; Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after May 29, 2002, a comment to OMB is best ensured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 28, 2002. The final
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
D. Intergovernmental Relations
1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. According to the cost estimates prepared for
this proposal, we estimate the aggregate costs (annualized over 20
years) of the proposed rule to engine manufacturers to be negligible.
Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
2. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. This rule will be implemented at the Federal
level and impose compliance costs only on engine manufacturers and ship
builders. Tribal governments will be affected only to the extent they
purchase and use vessels having regulated engines. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272
[[Page 37599]]
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards for testing
emissions from marine diesel engines. EPA proposes to use test
procedures contained in the MARPOL NOX Technical Code, with
the proposed modifications contained in this rulemaking. The MARPOL
NOX Technical Code includes the International Standards
Organization (ISO) duty cycle for marine diesel engines (E2, E3, D2,
C1) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) fuel
standards.\61\ These procedures are currently used by virtually all
Category 3 engine manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the
Annex VI NOX limits and to obtain Statements of Voluntary
Compliance to those standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The Technical Code on Control of Emission of Nitrogen
Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines in the Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78
Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships and
NOX Technical Code, International Maritime Organization.
See footnote 1 regarding how to obtain copies of these documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the proposed requirements for field NOX
testing and post-installation testing, the Agency conducted a search to
identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. However,
we identified no such standards. Therefore, EPA proposes to use the
procedures contained in the draft regulations for this rulemaking (40
CFR 94.110, 94.1103).
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
F. Protection of Children (Executive Order 13045)
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, Section 5-501 of the Order directs the Agency to
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This proposal is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant under the terms of Executive Order 12866.
G. Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule creates no
mandates on State, local or tribal governments. The rule imposes no
enforceable duties on these entities, because they do not manufacture
any engines that are subject to this rule. This rule will be
implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance obligations only
on private industry. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
H. Energy Effects (Executive Order 13211)
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The proposed
standards have for their aim the reduction of emission from certain
marine diesel engines, and have no effect on fuel formulation,
distribution, or use. Although the proposal solicits comment on
regulating the sulfur content of marine distillate and residual fuel,
EPA is not proposing to regulate such fuel at this time.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 94
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels,
Warranties.
Dated: April 30, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 94--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MARINE COMPRESSION-IGNITION
ENGINES
1. The authority for part 94 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543,
7545, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a).
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Section 94.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph (c) of this section,
the requirements and prohibitions of this part do not apply with
respect to the engines identified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section where such engines are:
(1) Marine engines with rated power below 37 kW; or
(2) Marine engines on foreign vessels.
* * * * *
3. Section 94.2 is amended in paragraph (b) by adding, in
alphabetical order, definitions to paragraph (b) for ``Brake-specific
fuel consumption'', ``Hydrocarbon standard'', ``MARPOL Technical
Code'', ``Maximum test speed'', ``Residual fuel'', ``Tier 1'', ``Vessel
operator'', and ``Vessel owner'', and revising the definitions for
``Diesel fuel'' and ``New vessel'' to read as follows:
[[Page 37600]]
[sect] 94.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Brake-specific fuel consumption means the mass of fuel consumed by
an engine during a test segment divided by the brake-power output of
the engine during that same test segment.
* * * * *
Diesel fuel means any fuel suitable for use in diesel engines which
is commonly or commercially known or sold as diesel fuel or marine
distillate fuel.
* * * * *
Hydrocarbon standard means an emission standard for total
hydrocarbons, nonmethane hydrocarbons, or total hydrocarbon equivalent;
or a combined emission standard for NOX and total
hydrocarbons, nonmethane hydrocarbons, or total hydrocarbon equivalent.
* * * * *
MARPOL Technical Code means the ``Technical Code on Control of
Emission of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines'' in the ``Annex
VI of MARPOL 73/78 Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from
Ships and NOX Technical Code'' from the International
Maritime Organization (which is incorporated by reference at [sect]
94.5).
* * * * *
Maximum test speed means the engine speed defined by [sect] 94.107
to be the maximum engine speed to use during testing.
* * * * *
New vessel means:
(1) (i) A vessel, the equitable or legal title to which has never
been transferred to an ultimate purchaser; or
(ii) A vessel that has been modified such that the value of the
modifications exceeds 50 percent of the value of the modified vessel.
The value of the modification is the difference in the assessed value
of the vessel before the modification and the assessed value of the
vessel after the modification. Use the following equation to determine
if the fractional value of the modification exceeds 50 percent:
Percent of value = [(Value after modification)--(Value before
modification)] x 100%
(Value after modification)
(2) Where the equitable or legal title to a vessel is not
transferred to an ultimate purchaser prior to its being placed into
service, the vessel ceases to be new when it is placed into service.
* * * * *
Residual fuel means a petroleum product containing the heavier
compounds that remain after the distillate fuel oils (e.g., diesel fuel
and marine distillate fuel) and lighter hydrocarbons are distilled away
in refinery operations.
* * * * *
Tier 1 means relating to an engine subject to the Tier 1 emission
standards listed in [sect] 94.8.
* * * * *
Vessel operator means any individual that physically operates or
maintains a vessel, or exercises managerial control over the operation
of the vessel.
Vessel owner means the individual or company that holds legal title
to a vessel.
* * * * *
4. Section 94.5 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.5 Reference materials.
* * * * *
(b) The following paragraphs and tables set forth the material that
has been incorporated by reference in this part:
(1) ASTM material. The following table sets forth material from the
American Society for Testing and Materials that has been incorporated
by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the
material. The second column lists the section(s) of the part, other
than this section, in which the matter is referenced. The second column
is presented for information only and may not be all-inclusive. More
recent versions of these standards may be used with advance approval of
the Administrator. Copies of these materials may be obtained from
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West
Conshohocken, PA 19428. The table follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document number and name 40 CFR part 94 reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM D 86-97: ``Standard Test Method for Distillation [sect] 94.108
of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure''.
ASTM D 93-97: ``Standard Test Methods for Flash-Point [sect] 94.108
by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester''.
ASTM D 129-95: ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in [sect] 94.108
Petroleum Products (General Bomb Method)''.
ASTM D 287-92: ``Standard Test Method for API Gravity [sect] 94.108
of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products''
(Hydrometer Method).
ASTM D 445-97: ``Standard Test Method for Kinematic [sect] 94.108
Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the
Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity)''.
ASTM D 613-95: ``Standard Test Method for Cetane [sect] 94.108
Number of Diesel Fuel Oil''.
ASTM D 1319-98: ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon [sect] 94.108
Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent
Indicator Adsorption''.
ASTM D 2069-91: ``Standard Specification for Marine [sect][sect] 94.108, 94.109
Fuels''.
ASTM D 2622-98: ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in [sect] 94.108
Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-ray
Fluorescence Spectrometry''.
ASTM D 3228-92: ``Standard Test Method for Total [sect][sect] 94.108, 94.109
Nitrogen In Lubricating Oils and Fuel Oils By
Modified Kjeldahl Method''.
ASTM D 5186-96: ``Standard Test Method for [sect] 94.108
``Determination of the Aromatic Content and
Polynuclear Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuels and
Aviation Turbine Fuels By Supercritical Fluid
Chromatography''.
ASTM E 29-93a: ``Standard Practice for Using [sect][sect] 94.9, 94.218, 94.305, 94.508
Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine
Conformance with Specifications''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) ISO material. The following table sets forth material from the
International Organization for Standardization that we have
incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name
of the material. The second column lists the section(s) of the part,
other than this section, in which the matter is referenced. The second
column is presented for information only and may not be all-inclusive.
More recent versions of these standards may be used with advance
approval of the Administrator.
Copies of these materials may be obtained from International
Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland. The table follows:
[[Page 37601]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document number and name 40 CFR part 94 reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO 8178-1: ``Reciprocating internal combustion engines-- [sect] 94.109
Exhaust emission measurement--Part 1: Test-bed measurement
of gaseous and particulate emissions''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) MARPOL material. The ``Technical Code on Control of Emission of
Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines'' in the ``Annex VI of
MARPOL 73/78 Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships
and NOX Technical Code'' from the International Maritime
Organization has been incorporated by reference. Copies of this
material may be obtained from International Maritime Organization, 4
Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom.
5. Section 94.8 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d),
(e), (f), and (g) to read as follows:
[sect] 94.8 Exhaust emission standards.
(a) This paragaph (a) contains multiple tiers of emission
standards. The Tier 1 standards of paragraph (a)(1) of this section are
the earliest tier and apply as specified until the model year that the
Tier 2 standards of paragraph (a)(2) of this section (or later
standards) become applicable for a given category (or sub-category) of
engines.
(1) Tier 1 standards for engines with displacement of 2.5 or more
liters per cylinder. (i) NOX emissions from model year 2004
and later engines with a maximum test speed of 2000 rpm or less may not
exceed 18.4 g/kW or the following engine speed-dependent value: 45.0
xN-0.20 +1.4 where N = the maximum test speed of the engine
in revolutions per minute. (Note: Speed-dependent standards are rounded
to the nearest 0.1 g/kW-hr.)
(ii) NOX emissions from model year 2004 and later
engines with a maximum test speed greater than 2000 rpm may not exceed
11.2 g/kW-hr.
(2) Tier 2 standards. Exhaust emissions from marine compression-
ignition engines shall not exceed the applicable exhaust emission
standards contained in Table A-1 as follows:
Table A-1.--Primary Tier 2 Exhaust Emission Standards (g/kW-hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model THC+NOX g/ CO g/kW- PM g/kW-
Engine size liters/cylinder, rated power Category year\1\ kW-hr hr hr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
disp. < 0.9 and power [ge] 37 kW........ Category 1.................. 2005 7.5 5.0 0.40
0.9 [le] disp. < 1.2 all power levels... Category 1.................. 2004 7.2 5.0 0.30
1.2 [le] disp. < 2.5 all power levels... Category 1.................. 2004 7.2 5.0 0.20
2.5 [le] disp. < 5.0 all power levels... Category 1.................. 2007 7.2 5.0 0.20
5.0 [le] disp. < 15.0 all power levels.. Category 2.................. 2007 7.8 5.0 0.27
15.0 [le] disp. < 20.0 power < 3300 kW.. Category 2.................. 2007 8.7 5.0 0.50
15.0 [le] disp. < 20.0 power [ge] 3300 Category 2.................. 2007 9.8 5.0 0.50
kW.
20.0 [le] disp. < 25.0 all power levels. Category 2.................. 2007 9.8 5.0 0.50
25.0 [le] disp. < 30.0 all power levels. Category 2.................. 2007 11.0 5.0 0.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The model years listed indicate the model years for which the specified standards start.
* * * * *
(c) In lieu of the THC+NOX standards, and PM standards
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, manufacturers may elect to
include engine families in the averaging, banking, and trading program,
the provisions of which are specified in subpart D of this part. The
manufacturer shall then set a family emission limit (FEL) which will
serve as the standard for that engine family. The ABT provisions of
Subpart D of this part do not apply for Category 3 engines.
(d)(1) Naturally aspirated engines subject to the standards of this
section shall not discharge crankcase emissions into the ambient
atmosphere.
(2) For engines using turbochargers, pumps, blowers, or
superchargers for air induction, if the engine discharges crankcase
emissions into the ambient atmosphere in use, these crankcase emissions
shall be included in all exhaust emission measurements. This
requirement applies only for engines subject to hydrocarbon standards
(e.g., THC standards, NMHC standards, or THC+ NOX
standards).
(e)(1) For Category 1 and Category 2 engines, exhaust emissions
from propulsion engines subject to the standards (or FELs) in paragraph
(a), (c), or (f) of this section shall not exceed:
(i) 1.20 times the applicable standards (or FELs) when tested in
accordance with the supplemental test procedures specified in [sect]
94.106 at loads greater than or equal to 45 percent of the maximum
power at rated speed or 1.50 times the applicable standards (or FELs)
at loads less than 45 percent of the maximum power at rated speed; or
(ii) 1.25 times the applicable standards (or FELs) when tested over
the whole power range in accordance with the supplemental test
procedures specified in [sect] 94.106.
(2) For Category 3 engines, engines must be designed to provide
equivalent emission performance over all operating conditions, as
specified in [sect] 94.205(f).
(f) The following define the requirements for low-emitting Blue Sky
Series engines:
(1) Voluntary standards. (i) Category 1 and Category 2 engines may
be designated ``Blue Sky Series'' engines by meeting the voluntary
standards listed in Table A-2, which apply to all certification and in-
use testing:
Table A-2.--Voluntary Emission Standards (g/kW-hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated brake power (kW) THC+NOX PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
power [ge] 37 kW, and displ.<0.9.................... 4.0 0.24
0.9[le]displ.<1.2................................... 4.0 0.18
1.2[le]displ.<2.5................................... 4.0 0.12
2.5[le]displ.<5..................................... 5.0 0.12
[[Page 37602]]
5[le]displ.<15...................................... 5.0 0.16
15 [le] disp. < 20, and power < 3300kW.............. 5.2 0.30
15 [le] disp. < 20, and power [ge] 3300kW........... 5.9 0.30
20 [le] disp; <25................................... 5.9 0.30
25[le] disp. <30.................................... 6.6 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Category 3 engines may be designated ``Blue Sky Series''
engines by meeting a voluntary NOX standard of 9.0
xN-0.20 +1.4 where N = the maximum test speed of the engine
in revolutions per minute (or 4.8 g/kW for engines with maximum test
speeds less than 130 rpm). (Note: Speed-dependent standards are rounded
to the nearest 0.1 g/kW-hr.) This standard would apply to all
certification and in-use testing.
(2) Additional standards. Blue Sky Series engines are subject to
all provisions that would otherwise apply under this part.
(3) Test procedures. Manufacturers may use an alternate procedure
to demonstrate the desired level of emission control if approved in
advance by the Administrator.
(g) Standards for alternative fuels. The standards described in
this section apply to compression-ignition engines, irrespective of
fuel, with the following two exceptions for Category 1 and Category 2
engines:
(1) Engines fueled with natural gas shall comply with
NMHC+NOX standards that are numerically equivalent to the
THC+NOX described in paragraph (a) of this section; and
(2) Engines fueled with alcohol fuel shall comply with
THCE+NOX standards that are numerically equivalent to the
THC+NOX described in paragraph (a) of this section.
6. Section 94.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1)
to read as follows:
[sect] 94.9 Compliance with emission standards.
(a) * * *
(1) The minimum useful life is 10 years or 10,000 hours of
operation for Category 1, 10 years or 20,000 hours of operation for
Category 2, and 3 years or 10,000 hours of operation for Category 3.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Compliance with the applicable emission standards by an engine
family shall be demonstrated by the certifying manufacturer before a
certificate of conformity may be issued under [sect] 94.208.
Manufacturers shall demonstrate compliance using emission data,
measured using the procedures specified in Subpart B of this part, from
a low hour engine. A development engine that is equivalent in design to
the marine engines being certified may be used for Category 2 or
Category 3 certification.
* * * * *
7. Section 94.10 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.10 Warranty period.
(a) (1) Warranties imposed by [sect] 94.1107 for Category 1 or
Category 2 engines shall apply for a period of operating hours equal to
at least 50 percent of the useful life in operating hours or a period
of years equal to at least 50 percent of the useful life in years,
whichever comes first.
(2) Warranties imposed by [sect] 94.1107 for Category 3 engines
shall apply for a period of operating hours equal to at least the full
useful life in operating hours or a period of years equal to at least
the full useful life in years, whichever comes first.
* * * * *
8. Section 94.11 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.11 Requirements for rebuilding certified engines.
* * * * *
(g) For Tier 1 engines, and all Category 3 engines, the rebuilder
and operator shall also comply with the recordkeeping requirements of
MARPOL Technical Code (incorporated by reference at [sect] 94.5).
9. Section 94.12 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
[sect] 94.12 Interim provisions.
This section contains provisions that apply for a limited number of
calendar years or model years. These provisions apply instead of other
provisions of this part. The provisions of this section do not apply
for Category 3 engines.
* * * * *
Subpart B--[Amended]
10. Section 94.106 is amended by revising the section heading and
introductory text to read as follows:
[sect] 94.106 Supplemental test procedures for Category 1 and Category
2 marine engines.
This section describes the test procedures for supplemental testing
conducted to determine compliance with the exhaust emission
requirements of [sect] 94.8(e)(1). In general, the supplemental test
procedures are the same as those otherwise specified by this subpart,
except that they cover any speeds, loads, ambient conditions, and
operating parameters that may be experienced in use. The test
procedures specified by other sections in this subpart also apply to
these tests, except as specified in this section.
* * * * *
11. Section 94.107 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.107 Determination of maximum test speed.
(a) Overview. This section specifies how to determine maximum test
speed from a lug curve. This maximum test speed is used in [sect][sect]
94.105, 94.106, and 94.109 (including the tolerances for engine speed
specified in [sect] 94.105).
* * * * *
12. Section 94.108 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b),
and (d)(1), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
[sect] 94.108 Test fuels.
(a) Distillate diesel test fuel. (1) The diesel fuels for testing
Category 1 and Category 2 marine engines designed to operate on
distillate diesel fuel shall be clean and bright, with pour and cloud
points adequate for operability. The diesel fuel may contain
nonmetallic additives as follows: cetane improver, metal deactivator,
antioxidant, dehazer, antirust, pour depressant, dye, dispersant, and
biocide. The diesel fuel shall also meet the specifications (as
determined using methods incorporated by reference at [sect] 94.5) in
Table B-5 of this section, or substantially equivalent specifications
approved by the Administrator, as follows:
[[Page 37603]]
Table B-5.--Federal Test Fuel Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure Value (Type 2-
Item (ASTM)\1\ D)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetane............................. D 613-95........... 40-48
Distillation Range:
IBP, [deg]C.................... D 86-97............ 171-204
10% point, [deg]C.............. D 86-97............ 204-238
50% point, [deg]C.............. D 86-97............ 243-282
90% point, [deg]C.............. D 86-97............ 293-332
EP, [deg]C..................... D 86-97............ 321-366
Gravity, API................... D 287-92........... 32-37
Total Sulfur, weight%.......... D 129-95 or........ 0.03--0.80
D 2622-98..........
Hydrocarbon composition:
Aromatics, %vol................ D 1319-98 or D 5186- \2\ 10
96.
Paraffins, Naphthalenes, D 1319-98.......... \3\
Olefins.
Flashpoint, [deg]C (minimum)... D 93-97............ 54
Viscosity @ 38 [deg]C, D 445-97........... 2.0-3.2
Centistokes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All ASTM procedures in this table have been incorporated by
reference. See [sect] 94.6.
\2\ Minimum.
\3\ Remainder.
* * * * *
(b) Other fuel types. For Category 1 and Category 2 engines that
are designed to be capable of using a type of fuel (or mixed fuel)
instead of or in addition to distillate diesel fuel (e.g., natural gas,
methanol, or nondistillate diesel), and that are expected to use that
type of fuel (or mixed fuel) in service:
(1) A commercially available fuel of that type shall be used for
exhaust emission testing. The manufacturer shall propose for the
Administrator's approval a set of test fuel specifications that take
into account the engine design and the properties of commercially
available fuels. The Administrator may require testing on each fuel if
it is designed to operate on more than one fuel. These test fuel
specifications shall be reported in the application for certification.
(2) NOX emissions may be adjusted to account for the
nitrogen concentration of the fuel (as measured by ASTM D 3228-92). The
adjusted NOX emissions shall be calculated using the
following equation:
Adjusted NOX emissions [g/kW-hr] = NOX-[BSFC
*3.25 *(FNF)]
Where:
NOX = measured weighted NOX level [g/KW-hr].
BSFC = measured brake specific fuel consumption [g/KW-hr].
FNF = fuel nitrogen weight fraction.
* * * * *
(d) Correction for sulfur. (1) Particulate emission measurements
from Category 1 or Category 2 engines without exhaust aftertreatment
obtained using a diesel fuel containing more than 0.40 weight percent
sulfur may be adjusted to a sulfur content of 0.40 weight percent.
* * * * *
(e) Test Fuel for Category 3. (1) Except as specified in paragraph
(e)(4) of this section, or allowed by paragraph (e)(2) of this section,
the test fuel for Category 3 marine engines shall:
(i) Be a residual fuel meeting the ASTM D 2069-91 specification for
RMH-55 grade of fuel but not for RMC-10 grade of fuel.
(ii) Have a nitrogen content of 0.6 percent by weight or less.
(2) Marine distillate fuel may be used for certification testing.
(3) NOX emissions shall be adjusted to account for the
nitrogen concentration of the fuel (as measured by ASTM D 3228-92). The
adjusted NOX emissions shall be calculated using the
following equation:
Adjusted NOX emissions [g/kW-hr] = NOX-[BSFC
*3.25 *(FNF-0.0040)]
Where:
NOX=measured weighted NOX level [g/KW-hr].
BSFC=measured brake specific fuel consumption [g/KW-hr].
FNF=fuel nitrogen weight fraction.
(4) For engines that are designed to be capable of using a type of
fuel (or mixed fuel) instead of or in addition to residual fuel (e.g.,
natural gas), and that are expected to use that type of fuel (or mixed
fuel) in service, a commercially available fuel of that type shall be
used for exhaust emission testing. The manufacturer shall propose for
the Administrator's approval a set of test fuel specifications that
take into account the engine design and the properties of commercially
available fuels. The Administrator may require testing on each fuel if
it is designed to operate on more than one fuel. These test fuel
specifications shall be reported in the application for certification.
13. A new [sect] 94.109 is added to subpart B to read as follows:
[sect] 94.109 Test procedures for Category 3 marine engines.
(a) Gaseous emissions shall be measured using the test procedures
specified by Section 5 of the MARPOL Technical Code (incorporated by
reference at [sect] 94.5), except as otherwise specified in this
paragraph (a).
(1) The inlet air and exhaust restrictions shall be set at the
average in-use levels.
(2) Measurements are valid only for sampling periods in which the
temperature of the charge air entering the engine is within 3[deg]C of
the temperature that would occur in-use under ambient conditions
(temperature, pressure, and humidity) identical to the test conditions.
You may measure emissions within larger discrepancies, but you may not
use those measurements to demonstrate compliance.
(3) Engine coolant and engine oil temperatures shall be equivalent
to the temperatures that would occur in-use under ambient conditions
identical to the test conditions.
(4) Exhaust flow rates shall be calculated using measured fuel flow
rates.
(5) Standards used for calibration shall be traceable to NIST
standards. (Other national standards may be used if they have been
shown to be equivalent to NIST standards.)
(6) Tests may be performed at any representative pressure and
humidity levels. Tests may be performed at any
[[Page 37604]]
ambient air temperature from 13[deg]C to 30[deg]C and any charge air
cooling water temperature from 17[deg]C to 27[deg]C.
(7) The test fuel shall be a residual fuel meeting the
specifications of [sect] 94.108. Distillate fuel may be used for
certification testing. Emissions shall be corrected for the nitrogen
content of the fuel, according to [sect] 94.108(e)(3).
(8) Test cycles shall be denormalized based on the maximum test
speed described in [sect] 94.107.
(b) Analyzers meeting the specifications of either 40 CFR part 86,
subpart N, or ISO 8178-1 (incorporated by reference at [sect] 94.5)
shall be used to measure THC and CO.
(c) The Administrator may specify changes to the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section that are necessary to comply with the
general provisions of [sect] 94.102.
14. A new [sect] 94.110 is added to subpart B to read as follows:
[sect] 94.110 Test procedures for verifying emission performance of
Category 3 marine engines installed in a vessel.
The test procedures of this section are designed to verify
emissions performance of engines that have been installed in a vessel
(and thus cannot be tested using an engine dynamometer) These
procedures shall be used by vessel operators to verify compliance with
the requirements of [sect][sect] 94.1003 and 94.1004. EPA may allow the
use of these test procedures for other compliance demonstrations. For
example, we will allow a manufacturer to use these test procedures to
meet the production testing requirements of subpart F of this part, as
long as they have been demonstrated to provide an equivalent
demonstration of compliance to testing conducted in accordance with the
test procedures of [sect] 94.109.
(a) General requirement. All test systems shall be designed
according to good engineering judgment to ensure accurate verification
that the engine is complying with the requirements of this part.
(b) Equipment. The measurement system shall be permanently
installed in the vessel, and shall include the following:
(1) A NOX analyzer with an accuracy of [plusmn]2 percent
of point or better, and a precision of [plusmn]5 percent of point or
better, under steady-state laboratory conditions. The analyzer must
reach at least 90 percent of its final response within 5.0 seconds
after any step change to the input concentration greater than or equal
80 percent of full scale.
(2) An engine speed gauge with an accuracy and precision of
[plusmn] 0.1 rpm or better under steady-state laboratory conditions.
(3) An engine output shaft torque gauge with an accuracy and
precision of [plusmn]2 percent of point or better under steady-state
laboratory conditions.
(4) Other sensors as necessary to determine the operational
conditions of the engine, such as a thermocouple in the exhaust stream.
(c) Data logging. The measurement system shall automatically log
all test results and other test parameters. The data logger must also
automatically log all adjustments to the engine that could affect
emissions. The position of the vessel (e.g., longitude and latitude)
must be recorded with all logs of test results and adjustments.
(d) Calibration. The measurement system shall include ports for
zero and span gases. The analyzers shall be zeroed and spanned prior to
each test. Full calibration of the system must be conducted as needed,
according to good engineering judgment.
(e) Test run. The NOX concentration in the exhaust shall
be measured under normal operating conditions. Engine speed, engine
torque, and other test parameters shall be measured simultaneously.
(f) Compliance. The measured NOX concentration shall be
compared to a table or algorithm supplied by the engine manufacturer.
If the NOX concentration is at or below the level specified
by the engine manufacturer for the test conditions (e.g., engine speed,
engine torque, seawater temperature, nitrogen content of the fuel,
etc.), then the engine is in compliance with the manufacturer
specifications. If the NOX concentration is above the level
specified by the engine manufacturer for the test conditions, then the
engine is not in compliance, and must be readjusted and retested.
Subpart C--[Amended]
15. Section 94.203 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(14) to read
as follows:
[sect] 94.203 Application for certification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(14) (i) For Category 1 and Category 2 engines, a statement that
the all the engines included in the engine family comply with the Not
To Exceed standards specified in [sect] 94.8(e) when operated under all
conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal
operation and use; the manufacturer also must provide a detailed
description of all testing, engineering analyses, and other information
which provides the basis for this statement.
(ii) For Category 3 engines, a statement that the all the engines
included in the engine family comply with the requirements of [sect]
94.8(e) when operated under all conditions which may reasonably be
expected to be encountered in normal operation and use; the
manufacturer must also provide a detailed description of all testing,
engineering analyses, and other information which provides the basis
for this statement.
* * * * *
16. Section 94.204 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.204 Designation of engine families.
* * * * *
(f) Category 3 engines shall be grouped into engine families as
specified in Section 4.3 of the MARPOL Technical Code (incorporated by
reference at [sect] 94.5), except as allowed in paragraphs (d) and (e)
of this section.
17. Section 94.205 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
[sect] 94.205 Prohibited controls, adjustable parameters.
* * * * *
(b)(1) Category 1 and Category 2 marine engines equipped with
adjustable parameters must comply with all requirements of this subpart
for any adjustment in the physically adjustable range.
(2) Category 3 marine engines equipped with adjustable parameters
must comply with all requirements of this subpart for any adjustment
specified in paragraph (e) of this section
* * * * *
(e) The following provisions apply for Category 3 marine engines:
(1) For certification testing, engines shall be adjusted according
to the manufacturer's specifications.
(2) Manufacturers shall determine NOX concentration
targets for in-use testing, consistent with the provisions of paragraph
(f) of this section, that enable the operator to ensure that the engine
is properly adjusted in use.
(3) For production line testing and in-use testing, the engine
shall be adjusted so that measured NOX concentration in the
exhaust is no higher than engine manufacturer's target described in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(f) For Category 3 marine engines, manufacturers must specify in
the maintenance instructions how to adjust the engines to achieve
emission performance equivalent to the performance demonstrated under
the certification test conditions. This must
[[Page 37605]]
address all necessary adjustments, including those required to address
differences in fuel quality or ambient temperatures. (Note: The engine
must comply with the applicable emission standards of [sect] 94.8 for
all conditions allowed by the test procedures described in [sect]
94.109.)
(1) Equivalent emissions performance is measured relative to
optimal engine performance that could be achieved in the absence of
emission standards (i.e., the calibration that result in the lowest
fuel consumption and/or maximum firing pressure). Except as allowed by
paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this section, equivalent performance
requires the same percent reduction in NOX emissions from
the optimal calibration as is achieved under the test conditions.
(2) The adjustments may achieve a smaller reduction in
NOX emissions under some conditions if the engine is
calibrated the same at the different conditions. For example, if the
engine uses injection timing retard and EGR to reduce emissions, then
the manufacturer would need to retard timing the same number of degrees
and use the same rate of EGR at the different conditions in order to
qualify for the allowance in this paragraph (f)(2).
(3) Under extraordinary circumstances, the manufacturer may
petition EPA during certification to allow calibrations not meeting
requirements of paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section if the
manufacturer demonstrates that compliance with those requirements is
not feasible. If the manufacturer can comply with those requirements by
derating the engine, then compliance is considered to be feasible.
(4) Adjustments must achieve equivalent performance for all engine
speeds other than the speeds associated with the certification test
points. For engine speeds between test point speeds, this means that
NOX emissions should generally follow a linear interpolation
between test points.
(5) Example: If, for the test calibration, you retard the start of
injection timing by 2.0 degrees for the maximum test speed to reduce
NOX emissions by 18 percent, and you retard the start of
injection timing by 3.0 degrees for all other speeds to reduce
NOX emissions by 25 percent, then for all other operational
conditions:
(i) For maximum engine speed, you must either retard timing by 2.0
degrees or reduce NOX emissions by 18 percent or more
relative to the calibration that would be used in the absence of
emissions standards; and
(ii) For other speeds, you must either retard timing by 3.0 degrees
or reduce NOX emissions by 25 percent or more relative to
the calibration that would be used in the absence of emissions
standards.
18. Section 94.209 is amended by adding introductory text to the
section to read as follows:
[sect] 94.209 Special provisions for post-manufacture marinizers.
The provisions of this section apply for Category 1 and Category 2
engines, but not for Category 3 engines.
* * * * *
19. Section 94.211 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and
(e)(2)(iii), and revising paragraphs (h) introductory text and (j)(2)
introductory text to read as follows:
[sect] 94.211 Emission-related maintenance instructions for
purchasers.
(a) * * *
(3) For Category 3 engines, the manufacturer must provide in
boldface type on the first page of the written maintenance instructions
notice that [sect] 94.1004 requires that the emissions-related
maintenance be performed as specified in the instructions (or
equivalent).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The maintenance intervals listed in paragraphs (e)(3) and
(e)(4) of this section do not apply for Category 3.
* * * * *
(h) For Category 1 and Category 2 engines, equipment, instruments,
or tools may not be used to identify malfunctioning, maladjusted, or
defective engine components unless the same or equivalent equipment,
instruments, or tools will be available to dealerships and other
service outlets and are:
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) All critical emission-related scheduled maintenance must have a
reasonable likelihood of being performed in use. For Category 1 and
Category 2 engines, the manufacturer must show the reasonable
likelihood of such maintenance being performed in-use. Critical
emission-related scheduled maintenance items which satisfy one of the
conditions defined in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(vi) of this
section will be accepted as having a reasonable likelihood of being
performed in use.
* * * * *
20. Section 94.214 is revised to read as follows:
[sect] 94.214 Production engines.
Any manufacturer obtaining certification under this part shall
supply to the Administrator, upon his/her request, a reasonable number
of production engines, as specified by the Administrator. The engines
shall be representative of the engines, emission control systems, and
fuel systems offered and typical of production engines available for
sale or use under the certificate. These engines shall be supplied for
testing at such time and place and for such reasonable periods as the
Administrator may require. This requirement does not apply for Category
3 engines. Manufacturers of Category 3 engines, however, must allow EPA
access to test engines and development engines to the extent necessary
to determine that the engine family is in full compliance with the
applicable requirements of this part.
21. Section 94.217 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.217 Emission data engine selection.
* * * * *
(f) A single cylinder test engine may be used for certification of
Category 3 engine families.
22. Section 94.218 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read
as follows:
[sect] 94.218 Deterioration factor determination.
* * * * *
(d)(1) Except as allowed by paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the
manufacturer shall determine the deterioration factors for Category 1
and Category 2 engines based on service accumulation and related
testing, according to the manufacturer's procedures, and the provisions
of [sect][sect] 94.219 and 94.220. The manufacturer shall determine the
form and extent of this service accumulation, consistent with good
engineering practice, and shall describe this process in the
application for certification.
* * * * *
23. Section 94.219 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.219 Durability data engine selection.
(a) For Category 1 and Category 2 engines, the manufacturer shall
select for durability testing, from each engine family, the engine
configuration which is expected to generate the highest level of
exhaust emission deterioration on engines in use, considering all
exhaust emission constituents and the range of installation options
available to vessel builders. The manufacturer shall use good
engineering judgment in making this selection.
* * * * *
[[Page 37606]]
Subpart E--[Amended]
24. Section 94.403 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.403 Emission defect information report.
(a) A manufacturer must file a defect information report whenever
it determines, in accordance with procedures it established to identify
either safety-related or performance defects (or based on other
information), that a specific emission-related defect exists in 25 or
more Category 1 marine engines, or 10 or more Category 2 marine
engines, or 2 or more Category 3 engines or cylinders. No report must
be filed under this paragraph for any emission-related defect corrected
prior to the sale of the affected engines to an ultimate purchaser.
(Note: These limits apply to the occurrence of the same defect, and are
not constrained by engine family or model year.)
* * * * *
Subpart F--[Amended]
25. Section 94.503 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b),
and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
[sect] 94.503 General requirements.
(a) For Category 1 and Category 2 engines, manufacturers shall test
production line engines in accordance with sampling procedures
specified in [sect] 94.505 and the test procedures specified in [sect]
94.506.
(b) Upon request, the Administrator may also allow manufacturers to
conduct alternate production line testing programs for Category 1 and
Category 2 engines, provided the Administrator determines that the
alternate production line testing program provides equivalent assurance
that the engines that are being produced conform to the provisions of
this part. As part of this allowance or for other reasons, the
Administrator may waive some or all of the requirements of this
subpart.
* * * * *
(d) For Category 3 engines, the manufacturer shall test each
production engine after it is installed in the vessel. The manufacturer
may used the test procedures specified in [sect] 94.109, or alternate
test procedures that provide an equivalent demonstration of production
quality. For example, a manufacturer may use the short test procedures
of [sect] 94.110, as long as the procedures can be demonstrated to
provide an equivalent demonstration of compliance to testing conducted
in accordance with the test procedures of [sect] 94.109.
26. Section 94.505 is amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:
[sect] 94.505 Sample selection for testing.
(a) At the start of each model year, the manufacturer will begin to
select engines from each Category 1 and Category 2 engine family for
production line testing. Each engine will be selected from the end of
the production line. Testing shall be performed throughout the entire
model year to the extent possible. Engines selected shall cover the
broadest range of production possible. Note: Each Category 3 production
engine must be tested.
* * * * *
27. Section 94.507 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.507 Sequence of testing.
(a) If one or more Category 1 or Category 2 engines fail a
production line test, then the manufacturer must test two additional
engines for each engine that fails.
* * * * *
28. Section 94.508 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e)
introductory text to read as follows:
[sect] 94.508 Calculation and reporting of test results.
* * * * *
(d)(1) If, subsequent to an initial failure of a Category 1 or
Category 2 production line test, the average of the test results for
the failed engine and the two additional engines tested, is greater
than any applicable emission standard or FEL, the engine family is
deemed to be in non-compliance with applicable emission standards, and
the manufacturer must notify the Administrator within 2 working days of
such noncompliance.
(2) If a Category 3 engine fails a production line test, the engine
family is deemed to be in non-compliance with applicable emission
standards, and the manufacturer must notify the Administrator within 2
working days of such noncompliance.
(e) Within 30 calendar days of the end of each quarter in which
production line testing occurs, each manufacturer must submit to the
Administrator a report which includes the following information:
* * * * *
29. Section 94.510 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
[sect] 94.510 Compliance with criteria for production line testing.
* * * * *
(b) A Category 1 or Category 2 engine family is deemed to be in
noncompliance, for purposes of this subpart, if at any time throughout
the model year, the average of an initial failed engine and the two
additional engines tested, is greater than any applicable emission
standard or FEL.
(c) For Category 3 engines, the engine family is deemed to be in
noncompliance, for purposes of this subpart, whenever the average
emission rate of any regulated pollutant is greater than the applicable
emission standard for any test engine.
Subpart I--[Amended]
30. Section 94.801 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.801 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Regulations prescribing further procedures for the importation
of engines into the Customs territory of the United States are set
forth in U.S. Customs Service regulations (19 CFR Chapter I).
Subpart J--[Amended]
[sect] 94.904 [Amended]
31. Section 94.904 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(7).
32. Section 94.906 is amended by revising the section heading and
removing paragraph (d) to read as follows:
[sect] 94.906 Manufacturer-owned exemption, display exemption, and
competition exemption.
* * * * *
33. Section 94.907 is amended by revising paragraph (d)
introductory text to read as follows:
[sect] 94.907 Engine dressing exemption.
* * * * *
(d) New Category 1 and Category 2 marine engines that meet all the
following criteria are exempt under this section:
* * * * *
34. Subpart K, consisting of [sect][sect] 94.1001, 94.1002,
94.1003, and 94.1004, is added to read as follows:
Subpart K--Requirements Applicable to Vessel Manufacturers, Owners, and
Operators
Sec.
94.1001 Applicability.
94.1002 Definitions.
94.1003 Production and in-use testing.
94.1004 Maintenance, repair, and adjustment.
[[Page 37607]]
Subpart K--Requirements Applicable to Vessel Manufacturers, Owners,
and Operators.
[sect] 94.1001 Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart are applicable to manufacturers,
owners, and operators of marine vessels that contain Category 3 engines
subject to the provisions of subpart A of this part, except as
otherwise specified.
[sect] 94.1002 Definitions.
The definitions of subpart A of this part apply to this subpart.
[sect] 94.1003 Production and in-use testing.
(a) Production testing. Vessel manufacturers must allow engine
manufacturers to conduct the production line testing required by
subpart F of this part.
(b) In-use adjustments. Operators of in-use engines may adjust
certified engines as specified by the engine manufacturer, provided
that after the adjustment the engine's exhaust emissions are measured
to verify that the engine is operating within the specifications
certified by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this section,
maintenance is considered to be a form of adjustment.
(1) Emissions shall be measured using the short-test procedures
specified in [sect] 94.110, or other test procedures that provide an
equivalent demonstration of compliance.
(2)(i) This paragraph (b)(2)(i) applies for vessels adjusted within
175 nautical miles of the United States coastline entering or leaving a
port of the United States.
Operators of vessels whose next port of call is a port of the
United States, and operators of vessels that are leaving a port of the
United States, must ensure that the engine is operating according to
the certifying manufacturer's specification after any adjustments are
made to its engine within 175 nautical miles of the coastline of the
United States. Operators shall verify that the engine is operating
within the specifications certified by the manufacturer by measuring
the engine's exhaust emissions in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(ii) This paragraph (b)(2)(ii) applies for vessels adjusted beyond
175 nautical miles of the United States coastline that will enter a
port of the United States. Operators of vessels whose next port of call
is a port of the United States must ensure that the engine is operating
according to the certifying manufacturer's specification before coming
within 175 nautical miles of the coastline of the United States.
Operators shall verify that the engine is operating within the
specifications certified by the manufacturer by measuring the engine's
exhaust emissions in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) All adjustments and verification testing must be recorded.
These records must be made available to EPA upon request.
(4) The requirements of this paragraph (b) do not apply for
adjustments that could not affect emissions.
(5) For the purposes of this section the ``coastline of the United
States'' is the baseline from which the territorial sea of the United
States is measured.
(c) Manufacturers, owners and operators must allow emission tests
to be conducted by the U.S. government, and must provide reasonable
assistance to perform such tests.
[sect] 94.1004 Maintenance, repair, and adjustment.
(a) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, all owners and
operators of Category 3 engines subject to the provisions of this part
shall ensure that all emission-related maintenance is performed, as
specified in the maintenance instructions provided by the certifying
manufacturer in compliance with [sect] 94.211 (or maintenance that is
equivalent to the maintenance specified by the certifying manufacturer
in terms of maintaining emissions performance). Owners or operators
performing equivalent maintenance must have a reasonable technical
basis for believing that the maintenance is equivalent to that
described in the application for certification.
(b) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, all maintenance
and repair of Category 3 engines subject to the provisions of this part
performed by any owner, operator or other maintenance provider,
including maintenance that is not covered by paragraph (a) of this
section, shall be performed, using good engineering judgement, in such
a manner that the engine continues (after the maintenance or repair) to
meet the emission standards it was certified as meeting prior to the
need for maintenance or repair.
(c) All adjustments of certified engines shall be performed as
specified by the engine manufacturer, unless the vessel is operating
beyond 175 nautical miles of the United States coastline. As is
described in [sect] 94.1003 (b), engines on vessels operating beyond
175 nautical miles of the United States coastline that are adjusted
outside of the manufacturer's specifications, and that will enter a
port of the United States, must be adjusted according to the engine
manufacturer's specification before coming within 175 nautical miles of
the United States coastline. For the purposes of this paragraph, the
``coastline of the United States'' is the baseline from which the
territorial sea of the United States is measured.
(d) The owner of the engine shall maintain records of all
maintenance and repair that could reasonably affect the emission
performance of any Category 3 engine subject to the provision of this
part.
Subpart L--[Amended]
35. Section 94.1103 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3)(i), and
adding paragraphs (a)(2)(v) and (a)(7) to read as follows:
[sect] 94.1103 Prohibited acts.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) For an owner or operator of a vessel using a Category 3 to
refuse to allow the in-use testing described in [sect] 94.1003 to be
performed.
(3)(i) For a person to remove or render inoperative a device or
element of design installed on or in a engine in compliance with
regulations under this part, or to set any adjustable parameter to a
setting outside of the range specified by the manufacturer, as approved
in the application for certification by the Administrator (except as
allowed by [sect][sect] 94.1003 and 94.1004).
* * * * *
(7)(i) For an owner or operator of a vessel using a Category 3
engine to fail or refuse to ensure that an engine is in compliance and
is properly adjusted as set forth in [sect][sect] 94.1003 and 94.1004,
(including a failure or refusal to conduct the required verification
testing or keep the required records).
(ii) For an owner or operator of a vessel using a Category 3 to
fail to maintain or repair an engine as set forth in [sect] 94.1004.
* * * * *
36. Section 94.1106 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1),
(a)(4), and (a)(5) to read as follows:
[sect] 94.1106 Penalties.
(a) * * *
(1) A person who violates [sect] 94.1103(a)(1), (a)(4), (a)(5),
(a)(6), or (a)(7) or a manufacturer or dealer who violates [sect]
94.1103(a)(3)(i) or (iii) is subject to a civil penalty of not more
than $25,000 for each violation unless modified by the Debt Collection
Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. chapter 37) and/or regulations issued there
under.
* * * * *
[[Page 37608]]
(4) A violation with respect to [sect] 94.1103(a)(3)(ii)
constitutes a separate offense with respect to each part or component.
Each day of a violation with respect to [sect] 94.1103(a)(5) or (a)(7)
constitutes a separate offense.
(5) A person who violates [sect] 94.1103(a)(2), (a)(5) or (a)(7) is
subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per day of
violation unless modified by the Debt Collection Improvement Act and/or
regulations issued there under.
* * * * *
37. Section 94.1108 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
[sect] 94.1108 In-use compliance provisions.
* * * * *
(d) The U.S. Customs Service or the U.S. Coast Guard may require
the operator of any vessel that is subject to the provisions of this
part to certify in writing that all of the vessel's engines conform to
the applicable provisions of this part.
[FR Doc. 02-11736 Filed 5-28-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P